The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-01-25CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENTt The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 1994, REGULAR MEETING. PG. 198 - 213 CONTINUF~D PUBLIC HEARING CASE//93-058: TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2563 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE ADDITION, PID//24-117-24 22 0032. (Please note that this was to come back after Planning Commission reviewed. In- formation has not been supplied to Planning Commission in order for them to review. Therefore, staff will request this matter to be tabled again). CASE//94-01: LYN HEXUM, 1543 BLUEBIRD LANE, PART OF LOTS 1, 2, & 32, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, PID #12- 117-24-43 0037. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ENTRY ROOF. PG. 214 - 223 ~: GARY & JILL FEDO, 1901 SHOREWOOD LANE, PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18- 117-23 23 0060. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR PORCH AND DECK. PG. 224 - 238 CASE g94-0~5: LAWRENCE COPPIN, 2300 CHATEAU LANE, LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 1, JOHN S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 43 0146. REQUEST: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. PG. 239 - 255 194 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: VACANCY. PG. 256 - 260 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS: CHUCK CHAMPINE, 1550 CANARY LANE, WAURIKA COMMONS o DOCK SITE g31900. PG. 261 - 282 MARVYL O. MCLEOD, 1558 DOVE LANE, WAURIKA COMMONS - DOCK SITE//01980. PG. 283 - 292 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: LOCATING BLUEBIRD HOUSES IN CITY PARK AREAS. PG. 293 PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 17-23, 1994, AS VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND. PG. 294 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (LMCD): OPPOSING THE DISSOLUTION THEREOF. PG. 295 - 296 SET BOARD OF REVIEW HEARING. (SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 10, 1994, 7:00 P.M.) SET BID OPENING FOR WATER METER READING EQUIPMENT. (SUGGESTED DATE: MARCH 1, 1994, 11:00 A.M.) APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR. PG. 297 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 298 - 309 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ho Financial Report for December 1993 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Please note that this report is ~. The 1993 year is not completely closed out and final adjustments will have to be made prior to the financial audit. PG. 310 - 311 LMCD Mailings. Please note the Agenda for 1/28/94 Mayor's Meeting and RSVP to LMCD by 1/26/94. Also, note the letter received from the City of Orono. PG. 312 - 317 195 41 11 Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 1994. PG. 318- 327 Copy of letter sent to the Planning Commission from Councilmember Liz Jensen RE: Questions by a Planning Commissioner on Flack vs. City of Mound issue. PG. 328 Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of January 13, 1994. PG. 329 - 338 Invitation from LMCD to attend "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet scheduled for February 17, 1994, at Lord Fletcher's. Please let Fran know by February 14, if you wish to attend. PG. 339 - 340 I recently spoke with Nancy Nordstrom, Dutch Lake area RE: Milfoil in Dutch Lake. She had asked for $500 from the City of Mound to assist in milfoil treatment. Funds were also coming from DNR and residents. DNR was able to cover all costs for 1993 with no funds needed from citizens or cities (Mound & Minnetrista). Good News! She wasn't certain about treatment during 1994. Letter from Governor Arne Carlson RE: anti-crime initiatives. PG. 341 - 346 Proposed amendments to Hennepin County Ordinance//13, Source Separation & Recycling. PG. 347 - 351 Letter from Toastmasters International RE: notification that City Manager has successfully completed the first section (Competent Toastmaster - CTM) of the T.I. Communication and Leadership Program. PG. 352 REMINDER: Information from NLC RE: NLC Congressional/ City Conference to be held in Washington, D.C. March 12-15, 1994. If interested in attending, please let Fran know ASAP. We have worked out an arrangement with "Sentencing to Service", a program operated by the Minnesota Department of Corrections which offers a sentencing alternative to the courts in dealing with low risk, non-dangerous offenders. Attached is some information on the program. Presently, crews are working in the Public Works Building painting the interior. Based upon the quality of work, 196 crews may be asked to come back and do other work, i.e. park projects, weed removal, etc. Crews are well supervised by a trained crew leader. We will see how this works out. PG. 353 197 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 11, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Ken Smith was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Suthefland, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Utility Superintendent Greg Skinner and the following interested citizens: John Selvog, Jeff Nehring, Peter Meyer, Mike Pomeroy, Alison Ostman, Ricky Turz, Aaron Ostman, William Hennemuth, Peter Jacobson, James & Catherine Veit, Everett Tunge, John Blumentrit, Bob Morgan, John Kuhlman, John Miller, Tim Loun, Joey Loun, David Bensman, Eugene Partyka, Edward Wiegert, Todd Bredesen, Jim Grillo, Don & Terry Bonnicksen, The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES Councilmember Jessen stated that she had one correction to the December 9, 1993, Minutes, and that was that she was not in attendance. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the December 9, 1993, Budget Hearing, as corrected; the December 14, 1993, Regular Meeting, and the December 22, 1993, Special Emergency Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 RECYCLOTTO WINNER The Mayor presented $150 Westonka Dollars to Jerry Garvais, 4691 Paisley Road for recycling the week of January 4, 1994. 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2563 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 18~ BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE ADDITION The Building Official explained that the Planning Commission has seen this item twice and at the meeting last night new information was presented that needs to be reviewed by Staff. Therefore, the Planning Commission tabled any action. Mound City Council The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. January 11, 1994 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to continue this public hearing to the January 25, 1994, Council Meeting, allowing the Staff and Planning Conunission to review new information. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS Sensen moved and Ahrens seconde~ the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-1 RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: MARK HANUS AND BILL VOSS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND MARK BREWER AND JERRY LONGPRE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 3 YEAR TERMS - EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 1996 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 199a Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LIZ JENSEN ACTING MAYOR FOR 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER Ahrens moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-3 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY CLERK FRAN CLARK ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1994 Motion carded. 1.6 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 2 Mound City Council RESOLUTION ~)4-4 January 11, 1994 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL BONDS Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: 1.7 RF~OLUTION//94-5 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 1.8 RESOLUTION g94-6 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.9 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-7 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR 1994 THE OFFICIAL The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.10 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES COMMISSIONS TO VARIOUS Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ANDREA AHRENS TO THE PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION; LIZ JENSEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND KEN SMITH TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1994 3 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRE.qENT There were none. 1.11 CASE/f93-059: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, 2385 COMMERCE BLVD,, LOTS 6, 7, 8 7 9, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #167, LOTS 1, 2 & 3, GUILFORD'S REARR. OF MOUND BAY PARK, PID #14-117-24 44 0005, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR ADDITION The Planner explained that Our Lady of the Lake Church is proposing to construct an Activity Center addition to the existing structure. Because of the church's proximity to Lake Langdon, it is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance which states that "impervious coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. ~ If business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an approved stormwater management plan, impervious cover shall not exceed 75 percent of the total lot area. At this time, Mound does not have a stormwater management plan in place. Presently, impervious portions of the church site total 54.3%. With the addition the hard cover will rise to 57.4%. The total amount of new hardcover is offset by removal of an existing building and removal of an existing access drive and parking between the existing church and school. He reported that positive features of the plan include replacement of driveway and parking lot drainage with rooftop drainage. The Planner reported that the Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request which results in a 3.1% increase in the total amount of impervious surface, subject to the church obtaining required approvals and permits from Hennepin County. He stated that the proposed church expansion represents a reasonable use of the property and given the tight site conditions, reasonable efforts have been made to accommodate additional storm water. When the City eventually adopts a stormwater management plan, the church, even with the new expansion, will be well under the maximum threshold of 75 % impervious cover. Councilmember Jensen stated that Planning Commissioner Johnson did not vote to approve this item because Mound does not have a Stormwater Management Plan and therefore, the 75 % rule would not be applicable in this situation. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 4 20/ Mound City Council RESOLUTION//94-9 January 11, 1994 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2385 COMMERCE BLVD. (OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH), LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10, AUDITOR'S SUBD.//167, AND LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, GUILFORD'S REARRANGEMENT OF MOUND BAY PARK, PID //14-117-24 44 0005, P & Z CASE//93-059 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 CASE//93-061: BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, 2820 TUXEDO BLVD, (PELICAN POINT), PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID//19-117-23 31 0003, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW The Planner explained the that the Boyer Building Corporation would like to present a sketch plan of a development for Pelican Point. Mr. John Blumentrit, Boyer Construction, explained that the sketch plan includes 40 residential units, or 20 twin homes, with driveway access off a 20 foot wide private road. They would gear this development toward the over-fifty age group (empty nesters). The development would be maintained by an association. This would be an upper bracket development. This development would be similar to the one off of County Road 19 and Timber Lane in Shorewood. The Council expressed concerns about sewer and water and fire equipment access on the private roads. The Council liked the idea that the island was left as it is. The Council agreed in concept with the sketch plan because it has lower density and saves more trees and the environment. The Planner stated that it is up to the Developer now as to if they wish to proceed further. If they do, applications will need to be tendered and then they will be back before the Planning Commission and the Council. Mr. Blumentrit stated that as they negotiate the final purchase, and before coming back before the Commissions or Council, they would like to hold some sort of informal meeting with the neighbors so they are aware of their intent for the property. The Planner stated that the developer has a fair amount of work to do from this point until they are ready to submit a preliminary application under the Planned Development Area (PDA). The Planner estimated that with all the hearing requirements and other agency requirements, a time frame of 4-6 months is a realistic timetable. The Council thanked the developer. 5 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 1.13 CASE//94-002: DON & TERRY BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS $ & 31. BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK. PID #19117-24 431 0052, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Sensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-10 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 9 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0052, P & Z CASE//94-02 Councilmember Jensen asked the an Item//7 be added to the proposed resolution: Applicant sketch plans are attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. The City Attorney stated he feels there should be an Item//8 added also referring to the shed that is to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant asked that he not be required to remove the shed until after the garage is in place. He stated he has money tied up in this building and would like to sell it after he has his garage built so that the storage can be moved then. The Council agreed upon the following wording for Item//8: Se The shed shown on the survey will be removed by the applicant after completion of the garage or by May 1, 1994. The applicant agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 DISCUSSION; SECTION 350:760, SUBD, 4 - TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The City Planner reported that this is a discussion item requested by the Council and no action can be taken this evening. The Council asked Staff to look at Section 350:760, SUBD. 4 of the 6 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 City Code and compare Mound's standard to those commonly used in other communities. The Planner explained that Zoning Ordinances are an attempt to segregate residential, commercial and industrial uses. Parking in most residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup trucks and recreational vehicles. Most types of trucks which are commonly associated with commercial and industrial uses are excluded from residential areas. Section 350:760, Subd. 4, reads as follows: ~No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. ' The Planner speculated that this was put in the code because of Mound's smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many areas). Allowing commercial vehicles could, in some instances, cause a safety problem; an appearance issue; and could have a value impact on properties. He gave a random sampling of restrictions used in the following communities: Prior Lake, Falcon Heights, Shakopee, Hopkins, Wayzata, and Maple Grove. He stated that some of the restrictions vary, but virtually all of them prohibit commercially licensed vehicles in residential areas. He stated that the weight of those vehicles and some of the terms that they use in describing the load of the vehicles does vary. He stated that weight and loads need to be looked at closely so that you are comparing apples to apples. The Council discussed the fact that Mound's weight restriction limitation (1 ton) is on the low end of the communities sampled. They discussed disruption of residential areas with certain commercial vehicles; cottage industries; parking commercial vehicles in garages; the number of warning tickets issued for this violation, etc. The Council asked that this (Section 350:760, Subd. 4) be referred to the Planning Commission for them to look at it as it is and asking for their input on ways to allow certain people who use such vehicles to park or store them, with clarification on those terms, in residential areas. Also the Council would like to have input from neighbors who would be affected by the change in the ordinance. The Mayor commented that one sentence in the report states, "The weight of allowed vehicles varies from one ton to 12,000 pounds." He stated that really isn't true, because the weight of a one ton pickup truck certainly exceeds 2,000 pounds, but it has to do with load capacity. All the sample ordinances use different terminologies ie. rated capacity, gross vehicle weight, etc. This needs to be clarified and understood. All the comparisons with other city's ordinances need to be apples to apples. The Council also suggested that the Planning Commission keep in mind how large motor homes have gotten. The Mayor pointed out that some of the commercial vehicles look better than some motor homes that are parked next to homes. 7 Mound City Council January I 1, 1994 The Council is looking for a way to allow some commercially licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas, which is currently prohibited by our ordinance. Is there a way to do this without having a negative impact on safety, value and appearances within residential areas? The City Manager stated that apparently the people who did get warnings have moved their vehicles elsewhere. The Planner stated this item could be on a Planning Commission Agenda within the next 30 days. The Council asked that this item be back to the Council by the second meeting in April. Tim Miller, 3149 Inverness Road stated he would be willing to contact some other owners of commercial vehicles and give input to the Planning Commission. The Council thought this was a good idea. 1.15 DISCUSSION: TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETIONS The Planner stated this item also can be discussed and should be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review. He explained that there are a variety of ways to approach this: Ordinance provisions enacted controlling the time allowed for completion of the exterior of a building; Ordinance provisions requiring total building completion within specified time limits; and UBC provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided that the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days. He stated that presently Mound uses the UBC provisions. He suggested that the following be considered by the Planning Commission: Should such an ordinance apply only to the exterior finish of a building or should it regulate total completion? Should such provisions apply to all types of structures including residential, commercial and industrial buildings as well as accessory structures? How much time should be allows for building completion? The Building Official stated that his experience with problems in other communities has been with residential only, and he feels that 1 year is enough time to get an exterior completed. He stated that Oakdale has a provision allowing the person to appeal to the City Council if they disagree with the Building Official. 8 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 The Building Official explained that presently using the UBC provisions of 180 days, it is very difficult to enforce because the exterior of the building 'would have to be in very bad shape and then the hazardous building ordinance would come into play. He stated that the exterior is the thing he is most concerned about because it affects the neighbors. The Council agreed that the exterior of residential is the most important. This item was referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations. 1.16 BID AWARD: WATER METER READING EQUIPMENT The Mayor stated that due to the fact that the two respondents to the bid are companies that he does business with, he removed himself from the Council and the Council Chambers for this item. Acting Mayor Liz Jensen took over. The City Manager stated that this bid was for a new water meter reading system that would electronically receive and input data utilizing the City of Mound's utility billing system. It was specified in the bids that the system must be capable of being upgraded to a radio read and/or phone read system. The system was to be a turn-key operation consisting of: meters, remotes, data collection devices and software and installation services. The following two bids were received: 1. Northern Water Works Meters Data Collection Installation/ Devices & Software Training Grand Total $209,440 $10,750 $118,240/ $ 338,430 included 2. Water Pro Meters Data Collection Devices & Software $214,400 $13,200 Installation/ Grand Total Training $112,000/ $ 339,600 included 9 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 There was a $1,170 difference between the bids with Northern Water Works being the low bidder. The Staff has been analyzing each of the bids to make sure that they met specifications. Because the bids were so close, Staff wanted to make sure that both bidders bid the same type of equipment, so that the comparison was accurate. Since the bid opening, both companies have supplied additional information and clarification as to what exactly they bid on this system. The City Manager stated that even though both companies can supply equipment that meet the overall specification for the project, in examining the bids, Staff has determined the following: Northern Water Works bid a hand-held device that was not the latest technological device available from Schlumberger. The cost of the latest hand- held device would be $1,000 and since we required two the total cost would be $2,000 more than the bid price. Since the bid Northern has stated they would furnish the latest hand-held devices at no extra cost. Allowing a bidder to come in after the bid opening and offer an alternative device would be inappropriate. The specification did not specifically say "latest technological device", but each firm was aware that Mound was looking for the most advanced unit available. The experience level of Northern Water Works is somewhat questionable as it relates to equipment installation and computer software. After contacting several of the communities Northern listed, it was found that several had purchased Schlumberger equipment through Northern but did not actually have them installed by Northern or their subcontractor, Water Services. Some of the communities advised that they had Water Services do installations for them but the ones contacted stated they were not Schlumberger equipment that was installed. There is also the question of proper interfacing with the City's utility billing system and Northern's water meter reading equipment. Based on the above, the Staff recommendation is to award the bid to Water Pro based upon the analysis of the two systems. The Manager stated there are two options to consider at this point: Award the bid; or Reject all bids and re-advertise. The City Attorney pointed out that the City cannot abide by post bid opening modification offered by Northern. That, along with computer interface would be a basis for awarding the bid the higher bidder. 10 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 Bob Morgan, Northern Water Works, addressed the bid process. He stated that the bid specifications were written very well and that their bid met the specifications as written. He explained that they can interface with the City's computer system. He stated by awarding the bid to Water Pro, it would be defeating the purpose of the bid process which is to get the lowest bid possible. He further stated that the bid specifications did not specify "latest t~hnological device~, and that is why the other device was bid. John Selvog, Northern Water Works, addressed the Council. He elaborated on Mr. Morgan's comments. The City Attorney asked if the City made it clear to both companies that they were looking for the most advanced unit available? Mr. Selvog, Northern Water Works, stated that they met the bid specifications. There was discussion on the installation process. Todd Bredeson, Water Pro, addressed the Council and stated that they were aware that the City wanted the "latest technological device". He gave examples of other installations that have been done. He further stated they have done 4 installations in the last year and one half and the competition has done none. The City Attorney suggested that the Staff confer on this matter. There was a break in the meeting. The City Manager reported that the Staff has met and has determined that because of the conflicting position with the specification as it relates to the hand-held unit and also to the uncertainty of the interface with the City's computer system, that the recommendation is to reject all bids and readvertise. A revised specification will be done. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to reject all bids and readvertise for the water meter reading equipment. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Mayor returned and again presided over the meeting. 1.17 SET PUBLIC HEARING MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to set February 8, 1994, for a public hearing to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial parking lot in the B-1 Central Business District at 5533 Shoreline Drive. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 11 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 1.18 RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION The City Manager explained that this is to assure that we will continue with our program with Hennepin County, the Budget of $1.75 per household, and list out the costs that are affected by the Recycling Program. This will enable us to get reimbursement from the County. The Council briefly discussed the City Wide recycling program that is held in the Spring & Fall. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION tt94-11 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE 1994 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council stated they are glad to see that the City may be adding fluorescent tubes to the recycling program. 1.19 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-llst in the amount of $201,975.87, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-0N$ 1.20 CHANGE IN CORPORATE FORM - HEADLINERS BAR & GRILl. The City Clerk reported that a letter has been received from Headliners Bar & Grill, stating and requesting the following: Mark Saliterman has acquired all remaining stock in Headliners; Bill Feehan's position has been eliminated, as Bill is pursuing other career interests; All licenses related to Headliners, including the liquor license, have only Mark Saliterman's name on them. The City Clerk further explained that this notification is in accordance with the City's liquor ordinance. Mr. Saliterman is in the process of hiring a new Manager and that Manager will be submitting the Personal Information required by Section 800:10, Subd. 2, b. of the City Code for review and approval by the City. 12 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 MO. TION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to accept the change in corporate ...... form' for Headliners Bar & Grill :in accordance with Section 800:35, Subd. 2 & 3 of the City Code, and removing Mr. Bill Feehan's name from all licenses that have been issued by the City of Mound. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.21 LICENSES & PERMITS MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to authorize the issuance of a Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Permit to Our Lady of the Lake Church for Las Vegas Night to be held February 5, 1994. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.22 lessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-12 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - 2-5-94 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Mayor asked that the City Attorney look at Section 800:30, Subd. 1, (a), which refers to a municipal on-sale liquor dispensary. Since the City does not have one it probably should be amended deleting this part. The Staff will handle and bring it back to the Council for approval. 1.23 UNION CONTRACT - PUBLIC WORKS The City Manager explained that the City has been negotiating with the Teamsters Local 320 Public Works Unit, Local 320 Police/Patrol Unit and the LELS Unit since this past Fall. He further explained that we have reached a tentative agreement with the Public Works Unit. He submitted a memorandum outlining the recommended changes in the Union Contract which consist of the following: ARTICLE VI. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 6.4 STEP 3. (Last Sentence) Substitute "Bureau of Mediation Services" for "Public Employment Relations Board." If the PERB begins operating in the future, the reference will revert back to the "Public Employment Relations Board". 13 Mound City Council January 11, 1994 ARTICLE XX. INSURANCE 20.1 Replace current language with the following: The Employer agrees to pay the full premium for the employee only hospitalization/major medical insurance for each full-time employee after thirty (30) days of continuous employment. The Employer agrees to contribute up to $365.00 per month in 1994 and up to $375.00 per month in 1995 toward the cost of family coverage after thirty (30) days of continuous employment for each full- time employee who elects family coverage under this agreement. Any additional costs for such family coverage shall be paid by the employee through payroll deduction. In no event shall the Employer's contribution exceed the actual cost of the coverage selected by the employee. ARTICLE XXIV. SEVERANCE PAY 24.3 (New) An employee who is discharged from employment for just cause shall not be entitled to severance pay under this Article. ARTICLE XXX. WAGES Maintenance Pcr~0n 01/01/94 01/01/95 2.0% increase 2.0% increase Unit Supervisors Water, Sewer & Streets Parks 12/31/93 01/01/94 01/01/95 $20.68 2.0% increase 2.0% increase $19.52 2.0% increase 2.0% increase ARTICLE XXXH. NON-DISCRIMINATION 32.1 Neither the Employer nor the Union shall discriminate against any employee because of Union membership or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age. 14 Mound City Council 32.2 January 11, 1994 The EmPlOYer will take such actions as are necessary to comply with the Americans With Disabilitieg" Act in-'~°rder to reasonably accommodate an employee. When a reasonable accommodation is required or requested, the Employer will meet and discuss reasonable accommodation options with the employee and the Union before the Employer takes action. ARTICLE XXXIll. DURATION (Renumbered) This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 1994 and shall continue in full force and effect until December 31, 1995. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-13 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL //320, MAINTENANCE PERSONS AND UNIT SUPERVISORS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1994 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.24 DAKOTA RAIL UPDATE The City Manager reported that Judge Brown/Rosenbaum has denied our request to stay the Condemnation Trial until after the Court of Appeals hears the appeal on our Summary Judgement Motion. Thus, the trial on the condemnation is to start January 24, 1994. Our Attorney has also sent a request to the Appeals Court to stay the Condemnation Trial and that has not been acted upon by them. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Repons for December 1993. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for December 1993. There was no report because Mr. Reese stated there were no meetings in December. C. LMCD Mailings. D. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1993. E. Resolution approved by the City of Spring Park RE: Dissolution of the LMCD. 15 Mound F. City Council January 11, 1994 Information from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and Government Training Service (GTS) RE: Conference for Newly Elected Officials and three pre-conference seminars offered by GTS and Women in City Government entitled, "Resolving Conflicts: Options for Material Gain', Enhancing your City's Response to Citizens', and "Stress Reduction Through Time Management'. The pre-conference seminars would benefit incumbents as well as newly elected officials. If you are interested in these seminars, please contact Fran ASAP to register. Information RE: Applications for 1994 National League of Cities (NLC) Steering Committee Appointments. If interested, let Fran know ASAP. REMINDER: Information from NLC RE: NLC Congressional/City Conference to be held in Washington, D.C. March 12-15, 1994. If interested in attending, please let Fran know ASAP. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting (COW), Tuesday, January 18, 1994, 7:30 P.M. Information RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). REMINDER: Interviews for a vacancy on Park & Open Space Commission will be held on Thursday, January 13, 1994, 7:00 P.M., Mound City Hall. Resumes/letters of interest are enclosed. Please make every effort to attend. REMINDER: Interviews for a vacancy on the Economic Development Commission (EDC) will be held at 7:00 A.M., Thursday, January 20, 1994. Applications are enclosed. Please make every effort to attend. Letter from Rep. Steve Smith RE: Public hearing Safe Schools Task Force to be held Wednesday, January 12, 1994, 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. in the Board Room, Westonka Community Center, 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Mound. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager 16 PROPOBED RESOLUTION $94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING HARDCOVER ~ REAR YARD SETBACK AT 1543 BLUEBIRD LANE, PART OF LOTS 1, Z, & 3Zv BLOCK 6v WOODLAND POINTv PID $12-117-24 43 003? P&~ CASE $94-01 WHEREAS, the owner, Mr. Lyn Hexum, has applied for a variance of 4 feet to the required 20 foot front yard setback for a entry roof overhang. Also requested was recognition of the existing nonconforming hardcover of approximately 943 square feet, and recognition of a nonconforming rear yard setback of 8 feet, and; WHEREAS, roof eaves may extend out 2 feet into the front yard setback, however, this overhang is supported by posts and footings so the setback is measured to the structure, and; WHEREAS, the proposed roof overhang will extend out 4 feet from the house and is 8 feet long, is minimally sized and provides protection from the elements. It is installed over an existing front landing/deck and also has a minimal impact on the current hardcover. The overhang is also a useful reasonable appendage to the building, it follows the existing deck and entry landing line, and there is no further encroachment into the front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a front yard setback variance of 4 feet to allow construction of a 4' x 8' front entry roof overhang, and does hereby recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 8 feet to the required 15 foot setback, and nonconforming hardcover, as follows (approximately): allowed 1,833 sq ft 30% existing 2,776 sq ft 45% over 943 sq ft 15% Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #94-01 ® The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 4' x 8' front entry roof overhang. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lots 1, 2, and 32, Block 6, Woodland Point, lying Easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 32 distant 24 feet Northeasterly from the most Southerly corner of said Lot 32; thence Northwesterly parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 32 a distance of 57 feet; thence deflecting right 80 degrees to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2, and there ending. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1994 ~ASE ~94-0~[ LYN HEgU~, ~$43 BLUEBIRD L]~NE, P~kRT OF LOT8 l~ 2, & ~Z, BLOCK St WOODId~D POII~Tt PID ~12-117-24 43 0037. VARI~CE FO~ ~NTRY ROOF,,, Building official, Son Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance of 4 feet to the required 20 foot setback for a front entry roof overhang that was constructed without a permit. Roof eaves may extend out 2 feet into the front yard setback, however, this overhang is supported by posts and footings so the ~etback is measured to the structure. Also involved with this case is recognition of the existing nonconforming hardcover of 8pproximately 943 square feet. The roof overhang that extends out 4 feet from the house and is 8 feet long is minimally sized and provides protection from the elements. It is installed over an existing front landing/deck and also has a minimal impact on the current hardcover. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is minimal with only a 4 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot setback. The overhang is also a useful reasonable appendage to the building and follows the existing deck and entry landing line. HOT/ON made by Johnson, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. ~otion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on ~anuary 25, 1994. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of January 10, 1994 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJEL~: Variance Request APPLICANT: Mr. Lyn Hexum CASE NO. 94-01 LOCATION: 1543 Bluebird Lane, Part of Lots 1, 2, and 32, Block 6, Woodland Point, PID #12-117-24 43 0037 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance of 4 feet to the required 20 foot setback for a front entry roof overhang that was constructed without a permit. Roof eaves may extend out 2 feet into the front yard setback, however, this overhang is supported by posts and footings so the setback is measured to the structure. Also involved with this case is recognition of the existing nonconforming hardcover of approximately 943 square feet. The roof overhang that extends out 4 feet from the house and is 8 feet long is minimally sized and provides protection from the elements. It is installed over an existing front landing/deck and also has a minimal impact on the current hardcover. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is minimal with only a 4 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot setback. The overhang is also a useful reasonable appendage to the building and follows the existing deck and entry landing line. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. & Jl Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner ._~ Public Works City Engineer _~ DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Addition (~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ad 0 District Owner's Name [ ~d/~ Owner's Address L~,JC Block ~v,~Jr PID No. IL- \19- ~H ~, Use of Property: f~ > ~ p .c-~,r, ~ c Day Phone q 3 "'l - 0"'1 c, o Applicant's Name Of other than owne0 Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. LI Detailed de,{,cfipton of proposed , (4' x e'? ouCR-P~6 6 OO -ce- construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): zig CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30% = SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: LENGTH WIDTH X TOTAL HOUSE * TOTAL GARAGE * TOTAL DRIVEWAY lC? x TOTAL DECK * * * TOTAL DECK @ 50% X TOTAL OTHER * * TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES_~NO BY: DATE: Variance Application (11/93) Pase 2 I Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (lq SE~V ) ~.--~.' i~( ft. ~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. RearYard: (NSEW) - 15 / ft. ~' ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq fl Hardcover: I _~:~'% sq ft ~G'4J-.sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sqft scl ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (z-) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: fi q' 00Lo-~at4t, 0xt;_~-q'14c Cedar Ooog- ~g f~C.0,~v_o,.s) To ._ Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? (~, t~o t~ x-~-a.~ ~ r t ~-~_ 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Plat o~* toT. London C,c~pany Block ~ ~ood:l.~d l~oln~, ~rmeptn Ouunty, ~linn~sota, I hereby certify · that this is a true and correct r.epr~nentation of a surge:, o~' the boundarlas' of that part '~' of Lots 1, 2, and 32, Block 6, Woodland Point, lyin,f EaSt-Fly or the follovinF.-d~scrib~d line; Eo.F, inntnF, at a point on the ~outhenst.rly lin~ of sa-id Lot. 32 distant 2/. rest North~aot-rly f~m th~ ~oot So'2th~rlv corner or said Lo.t 32; thenc- Northv-starly pcrull.~l'vith e '[. -~ _ .. ~ ~ ~o ~n. ~or~n-an~er~y lin- ~ "',id ~' C ,,,,.' ~na~n~. It does not ~ur~. +-~ ~,. ~ ....... -..-. .- , .... ~,.-,- Seal Date o 1" = 40' Zron mark~r Gordon a. Cof'~O6~- Land Surge.rot and ~lanner Lon~ Lak~s )tinn,sota {frontage on an improved public D.pth + ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT: N FRONT: SIDE: N SIDEs g S E W 4' or 6' REAJ~: N LAI(ESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W,! Survey on file? yesX no.,. RequiFed Lot Width: ~i) Existin9 Lot Width 8E?BACgS REQUIRV. D; ~: 15' F~T: N S ~ W SIDE: ~S ~ W ' ~q / SID,, N~5 W ~ / FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDEs N S E W NO Zi N S E W LA~J~SHOI~: NO. · WILL THE PROPOSED I~PROVEMENTS CONFORM? YES PROPOSED RESOLUTION $94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AND RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ~LLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ~T 1901 SHOREWOOD LANE PART OF LOT 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, BLOCK 12, PID $18-117-23 23 0060, P&Z C~SE $94-03 WHEREAS, the owners, Gary and Jill Fedo, have applied for a setback variance of 28.4 feet to the Ordinary High Water (OHW), and recognition of an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 23.83 to the required 30 foot setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the OHW, and; WHEREAS, the OHWtakes an abrupt turn into the adjoining city property that is a drainage area which is iow, partially wooded, and occupies some flood plain WHEREAS, the existing dwelling was constructed in 1977 and there is no record of a variance to it's nonconforming setbacks. WHEREAS, the addition is located 4.5 feet closer to the Oh-W, and due to the configuration of the shoreline and the vacant City property to the north, the expansion has a minimal impact on the already nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with the following findings of hardship: There is a practical difficulty in locating the addition on the east side of the lot given the current structural layout of the house. The shape of the shoreline on the adjacent lot is odd-shaped and takes an~abrupt curve. The house is already too close to the OHW, and the addition will minimally increase the already nonconforming setback. A variance would be required regardless of which side of the house the addition is constructed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #94-03 The City does hereby grant approval of the requested variances of 6.17 feet to the front (street) property line, and 28.4 feet to the OHW. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 16' x 17'6" three season porch and a 14'6" x 16' deck at the lakeside of the dwelling, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lot 1, Block 12, Shadywood Point, lying Easterly of the Westerly 60 feet thereof, and that part of Poplar Landing, now vacated, lying Northwesterly of the Northwesterly line of Lot 14, Block 11, Shadywood Point, extended Northeasterly, and lying Westerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 14 distant 40 feet Northerly from the most Easterly corner thereof; thence Northerly on a straight line to its point of tangency with the Easterly line of said Lot 1, and there ending. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. .L i~J~IBIT A P.~SOL~r ION ~9/~- ~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1994 SAsE #94-03~ GAR~ & J~L~ rEDes 1901 SHOREWOOD LANE° PART Or LOT l, 8HADYWOOD ~OINTo BLOCK 12o PID #~8-~7-23 23 0060, VAR~ANCB rOm PORCH AND. DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance of 28.4 feet to the required 50 foot setback to the OrdinaL~High Water (O!~) elevation. The OHWtakes an abcupt turn into the adjoining City property that is a drainage area which is low, partially wooded, and occupies some floodplain. An existing nonconforming front yard setback of 23.83 feet also needs to be recognized. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1977 and there is no record of a variance to it's nonconforming setbacks. As for the proposed addition, there is not a great deal more of encroachment than the existing dwelling, however, it is difficult to define any hardship in this case. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the abruptness in the shoreline contour or an alternate flip-flopped plan. Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the abrupt shoreline contour or an alternate plan that may provide for the needs of the applicant with a minimum impact to the required 50 foot setback. Hanus questioned the applicant if this was the only viable option for the location of the addition. The applicant stated that due to the having the addition in this location is more suitable to the existing floor plan and will allow more light into the house. It will be located further from the neighbors house and closer to the adjacent City property which is vacant and therefore will be less obtrusive and it will look better from the lake as it will blend into the trees. The applicant feels this is the only viable option for the addition. He explained that the addition is only 4.5 feet :loser to the OHW. The Commission noted that the expansion has a ~inimal impact on the already nonconforming setback. It was noted that the shape of the shoreline could also be taken into consideration. Hardships were discussed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the requested variances of 6.~7 feet to tho front (street) property line, and 28.4 feet to the OHW, as recommended by staff, upon the following findings of facts: - There is a practical difficulty in locating the addition on the.east side of the lot given the currant structural layout of the house. - The shape of the shoreline on tho adjacent lot is odd-shaped and takes and abrupt curve, - Tho house is already too sloss to the OHW, and tho addition viii minimally increase tho already nonconforuing setback. - a varianca vould bo required regardless of vhich side of the house the addition is constructed, Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of January 10, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official _~ t7 Variance Request Gary and Jill Fedo 94-03 1901 Shorewood Lane, Part of Lot 1, Shadywood Point, Block 12, PID//18-117- 23 23 0060 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance of 28.4 feet to the required 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation. The OHW takes an abrupt turn into the adjoining City property that is a drainage area which is low, partially wooded, and occupies some flood plain. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1977 and there is no record of a variance to it's nonconforming setback to the OHW. There is not a great deal more of encroachment than the existing dwelling, however, it is difficult to define any hardship in this case. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the abruptness in the shoreline contour or an alternate flip-flopped plan. prtnled on recycled p~per z Staff Report 1901 Shorewood Lane January 10, 1994 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the abrupt shoreline contour or an alternate plan that my provide for the needs of the applicant with a minimum impact to the required 50 foot setback. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This request will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. JS:pj yARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50,00 .. ~ City Planner _ ~ Public Works · City Engineer -x/ DNR Other Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Addition District Owner's Name Owner's Address Use of Property: ii ~cadt9 Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) 1~¥_~ /3F ~:>~ t/k:' Address Day Phone 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): I Variance Application (11/93) P~ge 2 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), Nok~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, 1.e.' setback, lot area, Xetc.)'. ', ' .... u U S-~BACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ,) Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( lq ) Side Yard: (lq S~ ) Rear Yard: ( N(~)E W ) Lakeside: ( N~)E W ) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: qo 0 ft.3.g,g3 ft. 6, I ~/ ft. IO ft. l0 ft. O ft. ~o ft. &~ ft. 0 ft. ~5 ft. ~7 ft. 0 ft. Go ft.~,1,6/-&'6) ft. a. lg, ~ft. ft. ft. ft. (,cc) ft. ~/,/7 ft. ~ ft. i o.ooOsq ft /q?%ss, ea-ft ~) '~ rt Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 60, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: I Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape .1' j soil existing situation other: specify ~ L,vZ--. Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyon.e having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No .~'~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No~ If yes, explain: Yes (), 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~ If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 0 I ~ ~at ~ of ~e above statements ~d ~e statements con~n~ in ~y r~uir~ pa~rs or plus to ~ submi~ herewi~ ~e ~e ~d a~umte. I ~nmnt to ~e en~ in or u~n ~e premises descfib~ in ~s ~pli~fion by ~y au~ofi~ officifl of ~e Ci~ of Mound for ~e pu~ of ~s~fing, or of ~sfing, m~n~g ~d removing such nofi~s ~ may ~ r~uir~ by law. Signature Applicant's Signature CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30% SQ FT X 15% HOUSE: GARAGE: LENGTH WIDTH -i'~, 5" x i ~ = , ~o TOTAL HOUSE X = DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE ****************** 5'0,6' x 30 = i 5"t 5 X TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DEOK: /O', 5' x 1 6, = ~ 5 ~ (if impervious X = surface under deck = 100~[) TOTALDECK ************* :~-~ Lo .~,rv,~v~T'- TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** OTHER: 00 X 3 = I ~'~ x = TOTAL OTHER ******************* IgO TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES___NO I 11 Esloblished in 1962 DEM)S£Y-GRAY CONTRACTING LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. [,AND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER L&WS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 · 73rd Avenue North M~)-309~ INVOICE NO. 36131 F. 8. NO.~ SCALE 0 P~olll ko~ Mo~umoflt O Oenofos 'Wood Hub Set Fro* Esc~oti~ ~y ~000.0 ~fes Exlst~ EIo~ O hill PropoNd E~val~ / / Shad~ Point, ly1~ Easterly of ~e Nesterly ~ feet thereof, and ~at part of Poplar La.trig, n~ vacate, lytng North~s~rly of ~e Nort~sterly 11ne .of Lot 14, Bl~k 11, Shad~ Point. exte~ Nor~easterly, and lytng ~esterly of a Hne descr~ as fo11~s: Beginning at a point on ~e Not.easterly 1t~ of sald Lot 34 dJs~nt 40 f~t Nor~erly fr~ ~ mst Easterly corner ~er~f; thence Northly on a s~aight 11ne to 1ts point of ~ngency ~ ~e Easterly Hne of satd Lot 1, and ~ere end~ng. For pur~ses of ~ts survey, satd last-above-descrlb~ 1~ has been ass~d ~ be ~e Easterly te~inus of Poplar Landing, n~ vacated. Ior~bym~ 16th ~Wel,.D~.ce~ber ~9 93 R~ymond A Prasch Mm Reg No 6743 '7 FRONT * !~ 8 ~ REAR: N S E W EXZSTZNG ~/OR PROPOSED PRINCIPAL BUILDING V~ONT ~ N ~ E SIDE, M S B W i~/ ~S HO~ t GENERAL ZONING LNFOICMATION SIIEET ADDRESS~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ZO~ . ~ux~o ~ EXZSTX~G ~ Required ~t Width: (frontage on an ~proved pubX~c mt=met) ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT: N S E W FRONT, N S SIDE: N S SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E w 4' L,AJ~SHORE FRONT: FRONT: SIDE: SIDE, REAR: LAKESHORE $0' Imeaaured from O.H.W~) ACCESSORY BUILDING IS CONFORNING? YES. NO__ BY, WILL THE PROPOSED X~OVF.~NTS CONFORM? YES NO. O0 17 / PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS FOR 2300 CHATEAU LANE, LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCK 1, JOHN S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 43 0146, P&Z CASE #94-05 WHEREAS, the owner, Lawrence Coppin, has applied for a minor subdivision to allow the separation of Lots 10 and 11, in the manner required by City Code Section 330 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, a waiver for subdivision is required due to the nonconforming status of the proposed parcel 2 consisting of a request for variances of 10.8 feet to the required 15 foot rear yard and 1.3 feet to the side yard setback for the existing house WHEREAS, an application for a variance has also been submitted requesting recognition of an existing nonconforming front yard setback for the existing house on the proposed Parcel A resulting in a 8.5' variance, and; WHEREAS, and; at one time these two lots were separate parcels, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires, for single family dwellings and a non-lot of record, a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the house on Parcel 2 has an attached garage, and; WHEREAS, both proposed lots will exceed the minimum 6,000 square foot lot area with Parcel i at 8,153 square feet, and Parcel 2 at 7,586 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed house on Parcel 1 is conforming to setbacks and all other respects of the zoning ordinance, and; WHEREAS, sewer and water service has been stubbed to Parcel 1, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, .by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #94-05 Grant approval of the requested variances for Parcel 2 (Lot 11), consisting of a 1.3 foot side yard setback variance and a 10.8 foot rear yard setback variance. It has been found that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land; that these special circumstances were not created by the applicant; and the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which said property is situated and will not have an adverse effect upon traffic or traffic safety. Grant Approval of the minor subdivision for the following described property: Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, John S. Carlson Addition. To be subdivided according to the following descriptions and according to the attached Exhibit A: Parcel 1: Ail of Lot 10, Block 1, John S. Carlson Addition lying North of a line drawn from a point in the Westerly line of Lot 11, Block 1, said Addition distant 33 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof to a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 10 distant 33 feet North from the Southeast corner thereof. Parcel 2: Ail of Lot 11, Block 1, John S. Carlson Addition lying North of a line drawn from a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 11, Block 1, said Addition distant 33 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof to a point in the Easterly line of Lot 10 distant 33 feet North from the Southeast corner thereof, according to the plat thereof on file or record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County except that part which lies Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 11 distant 23 feet South from the Northwest corner of said Lot 11 to a point on the North line of said Lot 11 distant 15 feet East from said Northwest corner. Approval of this minor subdivision is subject to the following conditions: Final grading plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer at the time of Building Permit application. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #94-05 B. Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and as shown on Exhibit A. De Park dedication fee of $1,000 be paid ($500 per lot) as required by City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3. Hard surface driveway be installed prior to occupancy of the new dwelling (according to City Code Section 330:130, Subd. 13). Impervious surface coverage be brought into conformance with the code, as shown on the proposed survey, prior to occupancy of the new dwelling. ..... Luilllnj .... 4+ 4~.~.~- ~ ~. ..... (removal of the hardcover and accessory s~ructures, loca~ted It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties· Se The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of pay all costs for such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. I ;J ~I~IHIT A P. ESOLU~ION ~9~- CERTIFICATE OF ~,;URCE~ FOR LAWRENCE C. COPPIN IN LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCK 1, JOHN S. CARLSON ADD. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA · ,,,.-.-' ~,,,, ,'u"- - - - , . ..... ./I I !.,.~ ... : . . // -- . 0: dentl~ I~oa n~rlt~r~set All ta,~llll I.'l Solid ,pon an hllUlld ~litnl. LIIAL IfSCIIfTlOX Of flt.*irsft tl or i lint drawn tfol , ~elnt In tho WlStlrlp lime If t.t 1l. iloct t. Slid Mdl~lon distant 33 kill,lit {orllt tltrlof tO I ~rtl .f . limo drl~ from I ~lst Il tho ~lltlrl~'llne or lild Lot except ~.t pitt which lies NOrthv~sterl~ of ,~[d ~t ~1 ~l'l.~llt OI tM krtl Ilo. of Illd to~ II 'ill~ll~ ~1 fltt [iii MINUTF3 OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1994 :~ Z,AWRgNC~ COPPIN, 2300 CHA?~AU LXI4B, LOT8 l0 & ZZ. ~X ~ GO~ B. C~LBON, PZD ~3-~Z7-24 43 0~4S, ~D~VXBXON ~ ~X~CB. Building Official, ~on Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's re.est for a m~nor su~ivXsion to create another buildable site for X~ediate const~ctXon of a ney single family d~elling. This property is l~ated in the R-2 zone and ~th lots exceed the minim~ 6,000 s~are foot lot area as Parcel 1 vXll have 8,153 s~are feet, and Parcel 2 ~ll have 7,586 s~are feet. This re.est results Xn variances of 10.8 feet to the re~Xred 15 foot rear yard and 1.3 feet to the side yard setback for the ex[sting house on Parcel 2. The house on Parcel 2 has an attached garage. Parcel 1 has a nu~er of issues to resolve before it confo~ng to hardcover a~ the existing accessory structures need to ~ removed. The proposed house on Parcel 1 is confo~inq setbacks and other respects of ~e c~e. Se~er and ~ater se~Xce has been stubbed to the new parcel ~ing created. Staff reco~ended the Planning Co~ission reco~end approval of the re,est for a minor su~ivision with the following conditions: 1. Items listed in City ~gineer's report, as follows: a. Final grading plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer at the time of Building Pe~it application. b. Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as re~ired by the City Engineer and as shown on E~ibit A. c. Verification that a water service to Parcel i was installed and paid for. 2. Park dedication fee of $1,000 ~ paid ($500 per lot) as re~ired by City C~e Section 330:120, Su~. 3. 3. Hard surface driveway ~ installed prior to occupancy of the new dwelling (according to City C~e Section 330:130, Su~. ~3). 4. Im~rvious surface coverage ~ brought into confo~ance with ~e c~e, as shown on the proposed survey, prior to occupancy of the new dwelling. The applicant stated to the Co~ission that at one time these two parcels were separate. M~ION ma~e b~ Weilan~, secon~e~ b~ ~ohnson, to reco~end approval of the ainor s~lvision an~ variance reco~en~e~ b~ staff~ with the inolusion of the following conaition~ - a ~n~ or escrow ~eposit be receive~ prior to building pe~lt issuance to insure r~oval of the accessory st~ct~es locate~ on Parcel ~. ~ION carried S - 1. Those in favor were~ Clapsaddle, ~ohnson, weilan~, Jensen~ an~ M~chael. Hanus op~sed. Hanus co~ented that he is in favor of the request, however, voted in opposition ~cause he d~s not agree with the park dedication fee requirement as it is not cons[stent with the ordinance. 41. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of January 10, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jori Sutherland, Building Official Minor Subdivision and Variance Request Lawrence Coppin 94-05 2300 Chateau Lane, Lots lO & 11, Block 1, 13-117-24 43 0146 R-2 Two Family Residential John S. Carlson, BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to create another buildable site for immediate construction of a new single family dwelling. This property is located in the R-2 zone and both lots exceed the minimum 6,000 square foot lot area as Parcel 1 will have 8,153 square feet, and Parcel 2 will have 7,586 square feet. This request results in variances of 10.8 feet to the required 15 foot rear yard and 1.3 feet to the side yard setback for the existing house on Parcel 2. The house on Parcel 2 has a tuckunder garage. Parcel 1 has a number of issues to resolve before it will be conforming to hardcover and the existing accessory structures need to be removed. This could be done prior to the issuance of a building permit with a bond or escrow deposited to insure removal. The proposed house on Parcel 1 is conforming to setbacks and other respects of the code. Sewer and water service has been stubbed to the new parcel being created. Staff Report 2300 Chateau Lane January 10, 1994 Page 2 Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Items listed in City Engineer's report. e Park dedication fee of $1,000 be paid ($500 per lot) as required by City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3. e Hard surface driveway be installed prior to occupancy of the new dwelling (according to City Code Section 330:130, Subd. 13). Impervious surface coverage be brought into conformance with the code, as shown on the proposed survey, prior to occupancy of the new dwelling. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. JS:pj McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors January 3, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Coppin Minor Subdivision Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, John S. Carlson Addition Case #94-05 MFRA #10611 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the information furnished for the above referenced subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainaqe The material submitted does not include a proposed Grading Plan; therefore, one will need to be included if and when an application is made for a building permit. We would recommend that 5' wide drainage easements be required along both sides of the proposed dividing line between the new parcels and also along all exterior lot lines adjacent to private property. See the attached copy of the survey with said easements indicated. Streets and Utilities It appears both parcels are served with existing sewer and water services. The survey shows a water service curb box for Parcel 1. Our records indicate that a new water service was provided when the new watermain was installed during reconstruction of County Road 15, which should be verified with Public Works. The records should also be checked to verify if this service was paid for; if not, the cost for same should be assessed at this time. Because both streets are improved and driveways exist to both parcels, there should not be any concerns regarding access to either parcel. In conclusion, we are recommending the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval: An Equal O!Dportunity Employer Mr. Jon Sutherland January 3, 1994 Page Two Final grading plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and as shown on Exhibit A. Verification that a water service to Parcel 1 was installed and paid for. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC: 3 mk Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472.0620 ,- '~eo + '~ DEC 2 71993 Distribu__tion: City Planner X' DNR " Public Works .~< Other City Engineer ~ Case No. Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: $1~000 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please tyl~ or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Zoning District ~"? Use of Property 's Address Applicant's Name 6fo~hermanow~r) Address Name of Surveyor m¢J%c'~--- ~ ~'%~-, [% Name of Engineer Day Phone Day Phone Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~'~. I~ ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. slgWatdre of owner - U : - Date ~]-gnature of Owner Date VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0~20 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other DEC 2 7 1993 Application Fee: $:50.00 Address of Subject Property Lot ~ \ Heas~ type or print the following information: Block Zoning District Owner's Name Use of Property: Pm No. \ ''-~' \~' "&~t-~:'50/ dcJo Day Phone q--) ~3...-~ .3 \ ~ Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner). Address Day Phone 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 I Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): [ SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Side Yard: (s~S~j~)) I(~) "ft. ~ ft. ~ \, } ft. Side Yard: ( N ) .~...~ ~ ft. -7 / ft. {,~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N~E W ) 16 - ft. ft. 10' ~ ft. Lakeside: ( N x3 E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft at ft al ft Hardcover: sq ft _sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (0~. ff Yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~)/. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature,r~~~ C~L~ Date ~ '~- ~' -} C~ Applicant's Signature Date HARDCOVER_ C ~AL~-_ULATIONS EXL_~TINO LOT AREA E~_~'INO I/)T AREA HOUSE: oo / ~ ~ ..SQFTX30% ~/S 3 SQ Fl' X LENGTH WIDTH 12Z3 / 5'~6'. o 19'o, o OARAOE: DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY (~,?) DECK: TOTAL DECK . . · · · · · · · · . T0~AL DECK (~ S0%' . · · · : · . . OTHER: ~OTAL C)THBR. · · . . · · · · · · TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER . . . . . . . · · · . . · . l. 2 $ ? ~ MEETS hOT . ' ADDRE$8 B ARDCO .VER___C tALC-- ULAT!0NS EX[STING LOT AREA AREA 7YJ~' · . SQ FI' X 30% = I SQ FI' X 15% = , //3 ~' HOUSE: LENGTH 27,~ WIDTH SQ FT' ~7..8 = .... /$23 X X TOT~kD:HO~SE', ,-,.o · · · ·., , o. GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: ' X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY · · · · · · · · · L, ECK: TOTAL DECK (~ 50% · · · · , · , · OTHER: OTHER , . · . . , · · ' ' ' :_._ fern,) , TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER . , . . . . · · · · · . · . MEETS bO~ COVE]U%G~ REQUIREMENTS? . , , · · · · . . . L~ YES ____NO · DATE_ /Z- Z/- ? ]' _., -. ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT: FRONT: N S · W SIDE: N S SIDEI N S E R~AR: N S ~SHO~ _ 50' (~eaoured (r~ ~tH?W.j 45 Engineers, Planners, Surveyors 15050 23rd Ave. N., Plymouth, MN 55447 TO 612/476-6010 Fax 612/476-8532 WE ARE SENDING YOU /~Attached [] Under separate cover via > f [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] [] Samples the following items: [] Specifications THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] For your use /As requested For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submited [] Approved as noted [] Returned for correction~ 19 I-I Resubmit_ n Suba~ [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints I-I PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once By: ~~,~ Date: /- Z-4L.- ~e~ Checked By: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Wor~ Client: J~~,~t/ · Project: ~2~~' ~~ Project No.: _ File: Rev. 03189 oooooooooooooooo: ®\ L oJ, q ~. /VI°IS'w' 7850 I ti ,11 'x / MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMiMI ION JANUARY 13~ 1994 INTERVIEWS FOR NEW PARK COMMISSIONER A. WILLIAM E. DARLING, 2600 GROVE LANE Mr. Darling explained that he is interested in becoming a Park Commissioner because he is interested in politics and government. He moved to Mound in July 1993 and he likes the small town atmosphere and the lake. He has visited two parks in Mound with his children, Mound Bay Park and Langdon Park, and feels they are very nice parks with good playground equipment. He has no schedule problems for meeting attendance. He is not familiar with the commons dock program. If he could improve Mound, he would want to increase the friendly atmosphere and economics, but not the population. If he could do anything to the Lost Lake property he would like to see a natural setting with trees and walking trails. He is not familiar with the Nature Conservation Areas program. B. JOHN C. EDEWAARD, 5125 HANOVER ROAD Mr. Edewaard has lived in Mound for 2-1/2 to 3 years and in that time has grown with the community and made friends. He is familiar with the fact that Mound has 60 acres of parks/commons and 420 dock sites, and he is familiar with the commons dock program. It is his opinion that the Park Commission's role is to manage the parks. He is familiar with the Nature Conservation Areas plan and feels this is a positive thing, as is the Adopt a Green Space program. He would like to see the Park Commission get involved in regulating developments within the City. He has never served on a similar commission before. His main concern with the community is its environment. He would like to see the City develop an effective process to review the impact of developments in the community. The applicants were advised that the Park Commission will make a recommendation for appointment which will be reviewed by the City Council on January 25, 1994. VOTE= BALLOT RESULTS FOR NEW PARK COMMISSIONER_ Ahrens stated that she will not vote because she was not present for the interviews. The results of the ballots were as follows: William Darling John Edewaard 2,2,2,2,1,1,1 = 11 1,1,1,1,2,2,2 = 10 The candidate with the lowest score is the Park Commission's first choice for appointment to the Park Commission. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Park Commission to appoint John Edewaard to the Commission. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on January 25, 1994. Park and Open Space Commission Work Rules "Exhibit B" BALLOT NA~ME OF CANDIDATES CHOICE # WILLIAM E. DARLING JOHN C. EDEWAARD CHOICE #: I = first choice, 2 = second choice, etc. The secretary will collect the ballots and total the choice points. The candidate with the least amount of points is your first choice, etc. 2, ca ' gg3 WILLIAM E. 26~ Grove Mo~ ~ 553~ (612) 472-5350 ~sifion of ~ Co~ioner for ~e Ci~ of o~CT~: I would ~ honor~ ~you wo~d ~i~r me for the ~ employ~ as Mo~& I mov~ to Mo~ ~s y~ ~er gl~g ~om a~ve ~ Dir~or, l~o~6On ~4~ ~ Blae Cros~lue Shield of ~e~ and I now ~'e ~ a ~ 6me mem~r of ~e ~e~ ~r Na6o~ G~& I ~ ofigi~ly from ~e Tx~m Cities ~ I bring ~6~ me a world of e~fien~, I f~i wo~d not o~y e~n~ ~e ~i~' of life here ~ Mo~ ~t w~d help Mo~d grow. I ~ire to get involv~ ~ my ~u~' ~d ~s wo~d ~ a gr~t o~~ for me. My ~ffe, ~ rel~ ~om a~ve ~ in ~e Um~ Smt~ ~r For~ g~'~s as a flight n~ ~ ~e ~e~ ~r Nato~l G~d ~E~ONA~EA~R~ S~: - ~oven Track R~rd of ~gement and ~P - S~ong Motivation ~d ~te~ Ex~llent ~1 ~d W~tten Co~fions . ~ply Co~R~ to ~ Smn&r~ and ~li~' S~II~ at Re~lving Co~ic~ and ~omoting ~ony - Well ~~ Eff~ve ~d A~ressive EDUCATION: MASTERS OF SCIENCE, Management Information Systems 1989, Lesley College, Massachusetts BACCALAUREATE OF SCIENCE, Management, 1983, Southwest Texas State University, Texas WORK EXPERIENCE - NONMILITARY~ DIRECTOR, INFORMATION SERVICES, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota Direct the da)' to day operations and strategic planning of health care information processing in support of current and future direction of managed care, state laws and federal health programs. WORK EXPERIENCE - MILITARYA CHIEF OF MAINTENANCE, Minnesota Air National Guard. Responsible for milita~ air traffic control and portable communications in a hostile environment as part of a forward combat communications support team CHIEF, SYSTEMS SOFTWARE AND IBM COMMUNICATIONS, The Pentagon, Responsible for effective systems' management and controlled access on a complex data network supporting communications needs for thc Offices of thc Secretary of Defense, thc Joint Chiefs of Staff and thc President of thc United States. Hand selected to prox4de VIP tours/mission briefings for all foreign dignitary and diplomatic visits to Pentagon computer facilities. FLIGHT COMMANDER, ICBM MISSILE COMBAT CREW Commanded ICBM combat crews responsible for control of 50 Minuteman ICBMs. Assigned as thc Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Offcer responsible for release of information. R[~"9 NOV 2 4 1993 John C. Edewaard 5125 Hanover Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-3254 Fax: (612) 472-2637 November 22, 1993 Ed Shukle 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: I would like to be considered a candidate for an opening on the Park and Open Space Commission. I have been a resident of Mound since August of 1991. My greatest strength is my willingness to volunteer my time. I believe that my commitment to the community can be felt through my involvement. I take pride in my accomplishments, and I want to be proud of the city in which I live. John C. Edewaard 5125 Hanover Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-9395 612-472-3254 January 20, 1994 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED Thank you for this opportunity to become a member of the Mound Parks and Open Space Commission. Forgive me for not being able to attend the January 25, 1994, council meeting. My involvment with the city to date has been mainly as an observer. I have become familiar with the Mound Comprehensive Plan, and the City Budget for 1992 and 1993. I have in one form or another observed most action taken by the City Council and Park Commission during 1992 and 1993. It is my intention to maintain a more pro-active role in the city's future. I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. I served with the 1982-83 multi-national peace keeping forces. Prior to becoming a self employed contractor with the State of Minnesota, I was a District Manager for a large retail corporation based in Century City, CA. This position accorded the opportunity for me to demonstrate and hone my skill in management and marketing. I created and implemented a manager training program, developed solid communication skills in crisis management, represented the company to the public, and created a wealth of contacts within industrial circles. In my business today the computer takes on a full-time roll. From establishing budget priorities, measuring salary requirements of my associates and myself, to ensuring my vendor relationships are solid. My company specializes in technical writing and consulting in USDA, and FDA packaging and handling industries. This encompasses a wide range of services from writing technical manuals to creating video scripts and promotional material. I have excellent skills in problem solving, communication, organization, and research. I bring all of this with me to the Mound Parks and Open Space Commission. Again, I thank you for this opportunity, and apologize for my absence. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, .~-Qohn C. Edewaard PROPOSED RESOLUTION L#94- RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO REMOVE PRIVATE STRUCTURES FROM PUBLIC LANDS AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING LIGHT AND BIRD FEEDER ON WAURIKA COMMONv ABUTTING 1550 CANARY LANE, LOTS 3v 4; 5, & PART OF 2; BLOCK 4; WOODLAND POINT, DOCK SITE #01900 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the structures recognized on this portion of Waurika Common include a stairway in need of repair or replacement, a retaining wall in poor condition, a bird feeder, and electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons that is supplied from the abutting dwelling and services a light at the shoreline, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Chuck Champine, current resident at 1550 Canary Lane, takes no responsibility for the stairway, but was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988 for this site. The original permit for a stairway was issues to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976, and; WHEREAS, this area of common is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done to prevent erosion on the hillside on City property, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine states that the light is used to help illuminate a skating rink that is plowed annually on the lake, and; WHEREAS, repair, and; the existing light and electrical is in need of WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: City staff is hereby directed to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel~ wo Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. Proposed Resolution 1550 canary Lane Page 2 2. The retaining walls are to be removed at the direction of the Building official and Parks Director. This area will be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3. The abutting owner, Mr. Chuck Champine, shall correct the electrical work on the common and bring the light up to code as outlined in the ,,Guidelines for Lights on Public Shoreland". A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply with the city Council Resolution within 180 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. · . ' ' '11 5. Approval of the existing bird feeder, if it is indeed located on the common. 6. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until compliance of these conditions is achieved. October 10, 1991 CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION Guidelines for Allowing Lights on Public Lands Se Se e Lights are allowed only to illuminate substantial safety hazard areas such as stairways with an excessively steep incline, and for substantial security reasons. The light shall be limited to illuminate only the area specified and must be shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. Lights must be installed by a licensed contractor and installed to code. If there is an alternative location for the light on private property, it shall not be allowed on public property. The applicant must provided the City with a survey or a scaled site plan showing the location of the light after it is erected. The light is to be maintained by the applicant. Abutting neighbors shall be notified of meeting date when a request is proposed to be heard. The light shall conform to Zoning Ordinance Section 350:730 relating to Glare (copy attached)· The character consideration. of the commons shall be taken into HOUND CITY CODE SECTION 350=725, SUBD. 7. C. 4. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected and shall provide existing trees with a watering equal to one-half the crown area. Notwithstanding the above, the removal of trees seriously damaged by storms, or other natural causes, shall not be prohibited. Section 350:730. Glare. In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky- reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way· Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candles (meter reading) as measured from said property line. Section 350:735. ~ulk Storaqe. All uses associated with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline, liquid fertilizer, chemicals, and similar liquids shall require a conditional use permit in order that the governing body may have assurance that fire, explosion, or water or soil contamination hazards are not present (that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare). All existing, above ground liquid storage tanks having a capacity in excess of ten thousand (10,000) gallons shall secure a conditional use permit within twenty-four (24) months following enactment of this Ordinance. The City Council may require the development of diking around said tanks. Diking shall be suitably sealed, and shall hold a leakage capacity equal to one hundred fifteen (115) percent of the capacity of the largest, single tank. 81 3/15/93 LMCD REGULATIONS or 2) have any horizontal dimension greater than 8 feet, 3) have a greater horizontal surface area than 36 square feet, or 4) be used for advertising. Subd. 12. Lighting. Multiple docks or mooring areas and commercial docks shall be suitably and adequately lighted in accordance with district regulations. No oscillating, rotating, flashing or moving sign or light may be used on any dock. Dock lighting shall not be directed toward the Lake in such a manner that it impairs t~e vision of or confuses operators of water- craft. No lighting in the area of the Lake shall be installed or directed so as to affect adjoining dock use areas or create a hazard to navigation. Subd. 13. No Vested Rights. It is anticipated that in the future it may become necessary for the LMCD to attempt to make an allocation or apportionment of multiple dock, mooring area, commercial dock and launching facility privileges on and within the Sake, on an equitable basis, in order to avoid overcrowding of the Lake, or portions thereof and in order to balance the many conflicting demands upon the Lake. In order to give notice to licensees that the license does not create any vested rights and that future regulatory actions by the LMCD may necessitate modifying or discontinuing the facility for which the license is granted, each license shall state upon its face that the licensed facility is subject to existing and future density polices and regulations adopted by the Board. Subd. 14. Renewal of Licenses. Applications for renewals of licenses under this section shall be made no later than December first of the year preceding the year for which the license is sought. The Executive Director shall not accept license applications received after December 1st unless the application is accompanied by a late fee, which shall be estab- lished from time to time by resolution of the Board. A public hearing is not required for a license renewal unless requested pursuant to Section 1.06, Subd. 12. Subd. 15. Transient Authorized Dock Use Area. The transi- ent use of docks or specified portions thereof may be authorized by the Board for commercial docks. Such docks or portions there- of may be used only for transient uses of the commercial estab- lishment and no watercraft shall be permitted to remain overnight. Section 2.04. District Mooring Areas. Subd. 1. Establishment. District mooring areas may be established and maintained in the Lake beyond the authorized dock OF A M ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1994 . pUBLIC ~ PERNXT~ CHUCK CHJ~PXNE, 1550 CANKR~ ~igt WAURXK~ COK~OM, DOCK SXTg #OXg00 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The city Council referred this case back to the Park Co.mission to specifically address the light and electrical work as noted in the applicant's revised request and city Council minutes of August 24, 1993. All other aspects of this case remain the same with the exception that there is an additional yard light on a post and it needs to be determined if it is on the commons. The Park Commission, in its recommendation, should consider whether the lights will be in conformance with the -Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands" adopted October 10, 1991. Please note staff's original recommendation that remains the same. Photographs were made available to the Commissioners which detail the location of the lights and electrical work· A site plan needs to be provided that will locate the electrical supply line if this case is approved by the City Council· The staff recommendation remains the same, as follows, with the exception that the second yard light must be considered· 1. The City Council direct the city Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. 2. The retaining walls are to be removed at the direction of the Building official and Parks Director. This area will be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. Electrical work: a. The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. b. In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. Park and Open Space Comm£seion Minutes January 13, 1994 Mr. Champine addressed the Commission and answered questions. He clarified that the light at the lakeside is nonfunctional at this time, however, he would like to keep it as it provides a public service for a skating rink in front of his house. He is willing to bring the light up to code and install a switch so it may be turned on or off when needed. Champine requested 180 days, verses the 60 days as recommended, to repair the light to meet code. It was noted that Mr. Champine would like a copy of the Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands. Champine explained that the light at the top of the hill is not a light at all, but a bird feeder. The Parks Director stated that there is no problem in allowing a bird feeder if it is located on the commons. MOTXON made by Schmidt, seconded by Meyer to recommend to the City Council that the light be allowed to remain as long as it meets the Guidelines for Lights on Public lands, and the balance of the request be approved as recom,ended by staff. Ahrens arrived at 7:45 p.m. Casey debated the approval of the light at the shoreline, he does not feel the City's policies are being followed. Casey referred to packet page 13 consisting of the Park Commission Minutes of August 12, 1993 where a motion was unanimously passed to recommend removal of the light; he questioned what has changed. The Commission noted that the change is that the applicant is now requesting the light to remain to benefit the skating rink. It was also noted that the applicant is willing to repair the light and bring up to code. Schmidt noted that this is an existing light in need of maintenance, and if the request was for a new light it would be perceived differently. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those Heyer, Ahrens, Goode, Geffre, Casey opposed. in favor were: Schmidt, Steinbrinq, and Byrnes. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF MOUND 534.1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT January 13, 1994 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting ABUTTING OWNER: ABUTTING ADDRESS: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~}O~A ~ · Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ Chuck Champine 1550 Canary Lane, Lots 3, 4, 5, & part of 2, Block 4, Woodland Point, PID/t12-117-24 43 0010 COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 01900 CLASS: SUBJECT: D Update to Staff Report Dated August 12, 1993 Public Land Permit The City Council has referred this case back to the Park Commission to specifically address the light and electrical work as noted in the applicant's revised request and City Council minutes of August 24, 1993. All other aspects of this case remain the same with the exception that there is an additional yard light on a post and it needs to be determined if it is on the commons (see photograph #1). The Park Commission, in its recommendation, should consider whether the lights will be in conformance with the "Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands" adopted October 10, 1991. Please note staff's original recommendation that remains the same. Photographs will be available at the meeting that adequately detail the location of the lights and electrical work. A site plan needs to be provided that will locate the electrical supply line if this case is approved by the City Council. Staff Report 1550 Canary Lane, Champine January 13, 1994 Page 2 Staff Recommendation The staff recommendation remains the same, as follows, with the exception that the second yard light must be considered. The City Council direct the City Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. The retaining walls are to be removed at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area will be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3. Electrical work: The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 24, 1994. MINUTES_- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 1993 1.8 DOCK J01900, CHUCK CHAMPINE, STAIRWAY, ELECTRIC The Building official explained that the proposed resolution includes the Park Commission recommendations not the recommendations of the Staff. He further explained that the Park Commission's recommendation is, "to have City staff remove the stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common abutting 1550 Canary Lane, Dock Site #01900, and all costs associated with such removal be taken out of the City budget, not including the dock fund." The Building official explained that the electrical originates from Mr. Champine's private property. Mr. Champine was present and stated he has changed his mined about the electrical and will apply for a State Electrical Permit. He did not agree that he as an abutting property owner should have to pay for improvements to the stairway, erosion control or retaining wall. The city Attorney suggested that this item be continued until Mr. Champine's application for an Electrical Permit has been processed. The city Manager stated that the Park Commission has recommended all these Common's maintenance costs not be taken out of the Dock Fund. It is his recommendation that these costs be charged against the Commons Dock Fund. NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to continue this item relating to Dock Site J01900 until the Electrical Permit has been processed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. The Council discussed approving the remaining items as a package. The Council discussed Dock Sites 01940 & 01960. The Council asked that the Building Official make sure that the dock site holders have been notified of the intent to remove the stairway. Councilmember Jessen stated that the money to fix and maintain the Commons should come from the Commons Dock Fund. Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not agree that only the dock holders, through the Commons Dock Fund, should have to pay for m~intenance and improvements to the Commons. Revised 5/17/93 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road. Mound. MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: Building Official MCWD DNR LMCD Date Received Park Meeting Date City Council Date ~PE OF APPLICATION (check one) 55364RE(jEIVED AU$1 9 1993 ~'~n,!.IND ?LA,,~!i!NG & INSP, ' ' CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). ' ' PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ,; CONTg~"JATiON OF o~TTM~ku~. l u~' ?~? T~ ~? _ to allow an ex,sting improvement tO remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ' ' LAND ALTERATION change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Se. ction 320, Subd. 4). like boathouses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORNINO USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits granted are for a limited time, are non-trs--~--o~, ....... ructure must meet State Building Code. 01900 Champine, Chuck ADD] 1550 Canary OWN] Mound LEGA ..... ,~.r a XWtn LOT(S) nan~ MN 55364 ur AOUTTING PROPERTY: ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND OWNER' S DAY PHONE BLOCK PID # DOCK SITE #_ __ SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) PHONE CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR' S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # PHONE # VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): DESCRIBE & / REQ?EST PURPOSE: ~[ ~iqnature of Applicant Date This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect s~ff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission' Min~¢s of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION 193- RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO REMOVE PRIVATE sTRUCTURES ON PUBLIC L,%NDS, KNOWN ~ WAURIK~ COMMON, /~BUTTING 1550 DOCK SITE $01900 NHERE~S, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHERE~S, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; NHERE~S, the structures recognized on this portion of Waurika Common include a stairway in need of repair or replacement, a retaining wall in poor condition, electrical, and a light, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Chuck Champine, current resident at 1550 Canary Lane, takes no responsibility for the stairway, but was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988 for this site. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976, and; WHEREAS, this area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity, and; WHEREAS, staff confirmed with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine stated at the Park Commission meeting that the ground fault interrupter which services the electrical on the common was installed on his house a couple years ago, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine states that the light is used to help illuminate a skating rink that has been plowed annually on the lake, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside on City property, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this issue and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To have City staff remove the stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common abutting 1550 Canary Lane, Dock site $01900, and that all costs associated with such removal be taken out of the City budget, not including the dock fund. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK 8ITE ~01900~ CHUCE CHAMPINB~ 1550 CANARY LANE ~TAIRNA¥ & ELECTRIC Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. Mr. Chuck Champine resides at the property abutting this dock site, however, he no longer has a dock license and takes no responsibility for the stairway, but was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988 for this site. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976. There is no record of a permit for the electrical work and the light pole. It was confirmed with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence. Mr. Champine states he has some electrical knowledge and recognizes this electrical work does not meet the Electrical Code and he would go ahead and correct it. Mr. Champine was notified that approval by the City Council is required prior to any work being done, other than removal work, and furthermore, that a licensed electrical contractor must do the work according to the Electrical Inspector and the State Electrical Code o There are two small retaining walls adjacent to this dock site that are in poor condition. Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside. This area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity. It is the City Council's decision whether to attribute these costs for removal and restoration to the abutting owner or take them out of the City's budget possibly out of the dock fund. ' Staff recommended the following: The city Council direct the City Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. The retaining walls may be repaired at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area could be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. Electrical work: The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply and Open S~ace Commission 14~nute8 August 12, 1993 with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the city Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. b. In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of city Council approval. 4. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. Mr. Champine addressed the Commission and commented that he does not feel the abutting owners to commons should be responsible for retaining walls that retain city property. In reference to the light, he stated that it is used to help illuminate a skating rink that has been plowed annually on the lake. He admitted that he installed the electrical service on the common and that the ground fault interrupter was installed on his house a couple years ago. He suggested that the city be required to obtain the electrical permit. He also stated that some day he hopes to retire and then he hopes get a dock license. He would like to keep the light for the skaters and for the beach. Staff noted that there is a street light which illuminates the beach. Ahrens commented that she has heard a lot of people state that they will not take responsibility for dilapidated retaining walls on the abutting public property. Schmidt and Ahrens agreed that everyone else who has installed electrical services on the commons has been required to have it installed by a licensed contractor and inspected by the State. Mr. Champine objected to getting a permit for work on land that is not his. Casey expressed a concern that the light does not meet the Park and Open Space Commission's Guidelines for Lights. The Parks Director read the guidelines to the Commission. It was noted that there are no safety or security reasons for the light as there is no dock at this site. Casey wants to see the light removed. It was suggested that the city should fix or remove the retaining wall, but that the cost should not come out of the dock fund as there is no dock licensed on this site. Casey is in favor of putting the property back into its natural state. Mr. Champine is not opposed to the removal of structures. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Case¥ to recommend that City staff remove tho stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common abutting 1550 Canar~Lano, Dock Site $1900, and that &11 costs associated with such removal bo taken out of tho City budget, not including tho dock fund. Motion carried unanimously. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534, MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ,612~ 472-0600 FAX ~612~ 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING OWNER & DOCK HOLDERs ABUTTING ADDRESS: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and A~licant Jon Sutherland, Building Official~. Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ Chuck Champine -~ L/ 1550 Canary Lane, Lots 3, 4, 5, & part of 2, Block 4, Woodland Point, PID $12-117-24 43 0010 Waurika 01900 D Update of Public Land Permit The current owner at the above address is Mr. Chuck Champine, who no longer has a dock license and takes no responsibility whatsoever for the stairway, however, he was issued a dock license -in 1987 and 1988. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976. There is no record of a permit for the electrical work and the light pole (note photo attached to application). I did confirm with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence. Mr. Champine states he has some electrical knowledge and recognizes this electrical work does not meet the Electrical Code and he would go ahead and correct it. I notified him that approval by the City Council is required prior to any work being done, other than removal work, and furthermore, that a licensed electrical contractor must do the work according to the Electrical Inspector and the State Electrical Code. Other Issues There are two small retaining walls adjacent to this dock site that are In poor condition. Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside. printed on recycled paper August 12, 1993 Pa~e 2 comment s This area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity. The City Council must decide whether to attribute these costs for removal and restoration to the abutting owner or take them out of the City's budget, possibly out of the dock fund. Staff Recommendatio~ staff recommends the following= 1. The City Council direct the City Manager to direct staff to remove the a with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work stairw y .... =A ~tv,s budoet, some minor restoration in the to the abutting owner or u.~ ~ ~ ~ form of seed and mulch will be needed. 2. The retaining walls may be repaired at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area could be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3. Electrical work: a. The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply with the city Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. b. In the event the electrical work is to remain, the Permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City council approval. 4. A dock Permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. The~utth~owne~havebeennotified, and~s~ ~hedulcd~bch~by~cC~tyC~°nAu~24'1993' Councilmember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 78-4q3 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMHENDATION OF THE PARK COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE COMMONS MAIN- TENANCE PERMITS AND STAIRS AT END OF WOODLAND ROA0 BE REMOVED AND METAL FIRE ESCAPES NOT BE ACCEPTE0 AS STAIRS ON THE COMMONS idI4EREAS, the Park Commission must recom~end whether Commons Maintenance Permits are to be continued and allowed, and WHEREAS, listed below are the permits and encroachments on commons that must have Councll approval: 1545 Bluebird Lane 1551 Bluebird Lane 155q Bluebird Lane 1587 Blueblrd Lane 1593 Bluebird Lane 1599 Blyebuld Lane 1601 81ueblrd Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1555 Oove Lane 1558 Oove Lane 1562 Dove Lane 1559 Eagle Lane 1566 Eagle Lane 1583 Gull Lane 1661 Gull Lane 5000 Enchanted Road q964 Paradise 1749 Wildhurst 1767 Wildhurst 1733 Gull Lane 1720 Dove Lane 1749 Bluebird 1737 Canary Lane 1716 Bluebird 1586 Dove 1600 Heron Posts & Rope Railing remove fire ring & Natural stairway flc~ver bed Picnic Table & trash can Stalrway (needs I handrail, remove metal stakes & general cleanup) Wooden stalrway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Retalnlng wall (needs repair) Steel stairway (needs 2 handrails) Wooden shed (paint earthtone) Steel stairway Steel shed (remove within I yr) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) f Concrete steps (needs 2 handrails) Concrete steps Stairway (Remove) Wooden stal r~ay (needs 2 handrails) Railroad ties to sod access (General cleanup markers installed & o~ner billed) Cement stairway (needs 2 handrails cleanup) Storage Bldg (has no foundation) Wooden Shed (needs repair general cleanup) Stairway & retaining wall Birdhouse Stairway (needs I handrail) .Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair step) Sandbox Stairway (needs 2 handrails) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, MOUND, HINNESOTA: That Council does hereby concur with the reco~nendation of the Park Cemmisslon to approve the commons maintenance permits and stairs at end of Woodland Road be removed and metal fire escapes not be accepted as stairs on the commons. The motion for the adoption of the foregolng resolution Nas duly seconded by Councilmember Polston, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Wlthhart, the follosvlng voted agalnst the same: none, whereupon sald resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and hls slgnatur~tte~t~/~d by the City Clerk. . May6r --~ = ~'~ ttest. Cltv Clerk 1988 DOCK pER)lIT APPLICATION- :-' ~ CITY OF HOUND, HN. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 'a,g "7'" '; APR - 8 Please complete and return BEFORE )lARCH It 198B~t (must be post- fore )larch l). A~llcations received after are ~ ~C~(~ A,/ ~ marked be ...... · o,~ nn a olaced in the 3rd priority ' ' subject to a late Tee us +tv .... ndr category. To share a dock this year, there is an additional $25.00 fee. Also note the 'new L.H.C.D. Boat Fee. Renewals not received by APRIL 1ST. WILL NOT be issued a permit for this year. All information pertaining to you m~St be fllled in o~applicatton.will be returned. ~ HOUND ADDRESS ~' ~~~ WORK PHONE ~ -/0 G~ - Owner (paying fee ~_Permanent Resident ~Su~er Resident ~Renter ~ for renter) HAILING ADDRESS, IF SUMMER ~SIDENT ~ Renewal _ New Application 1987 Permit I ~/~ ~ - (Shown on a~dress la6el on envelope) You may ~ a dock with another )fOUND RESIDENT ONLY, (see statement on fee above) ~ I am sh[ring a dock with ~ne ~ Work Phone Address List ALL boats to be kept at this dock. Furnish HN Watercraft Nu~er, make and size of boat.~This'tncludes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.H.C.O. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERHIT ~Itt BE XSSUE~ WIIHOUT THIS IHFORHATIO~ and photocopies of all watercraft lice~es: ~N Watercraft Hake _ ten ~h Fee 6~-{-~~-- .oat 3 .' This is an application only and no dock can be installed until a location is granted. AOO $25.00 FOR pAYHENT OF ALL FEES HU.___ST ACCOHPANY APPLICATION DOCK SIZE Straight Dock (2 ft. to 4 ft. wide) t or T Oock -.any width U or Special Size (See Oiagram on next page) SHARED DOCK BASIC F~ $ 100.00 []~ $ 150.00 $ 180.00 (SEE OTHER SIDE) 1987 DOCK F£~"'T AFFLICATION CITY OF ML 2, MN. -- DE~ ..ND RESIDENT: Please toe. late and return BEFORE RARCN 1st. Applications received after Rarch 1st are subject to a ~ate fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. To share a dock after Rarch 1st, there Is an additional $25.00 fee. Renewals not received by APRIL 1st, WILL NOT be issued a permit for this year. ~" All Information pertain ng'~you must be filled In or permit will be delayed. ~ .OUN0 ADORESS/~--~ ~~. ~ ~RK PHONE ~-~-/~ ~ILING AOORESS, IF SUHHER RESIDENT renter) 1~86 Permit I ~/~ ~ Renewal Ne~ Application (S~ on address label on~nvelope) -- ~ NO PE~IT gILL BE ISSUED ~ITHOUT A PHOTOCOPY OF DNA VATERC~FT LICENSE or application for transfer of each ~at to be kept at y~r dock. This Is required each year and ~st ~ enclosed ~en su~i~ing~hls appllcation for a d~k. Also list ty~, MN ~, and~e ~ this line ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ~~ You may S_HARE a dock with another MOUND RESIDENT ONLY, I---1 I am sharing a dock with Address (see statement on late fee above) Phone I NO PERHIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT A PHOTOCOPY OF DNA WATERCRAFT LICENSE or application for transfer of each boat to be kept at.your dock. This is required each year and must be enclosed when submitting this application to share a dock. Also list type, HN ,~r~'nd size on this llne This is an applicat!on only and no dock can be installed until a location Is granted. PAYMENT OF FEE HUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATIDU DOCK SIZE BASIC FEE [---'J Straight 0ock (2 ft. to 4 ft. wide) $ 8S.00 ~ L or T Oock- any width $135.00 ~ U or Special Size (See Diagram on next page) $160.00 Senior citlzens (65 or older) pay I/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $q2.50, $67.50 or $80.00. ' Senior cltizens (65 or older) sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/~ the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, I.e. $21.25, $33.75 or $~0.00. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/q the base permit fee, i.e. $63 50, $101.25 or $120. OO. ' SENIOR CITIZEN BIRTH DATE Any false Information glven or violations of Oock Ordinance #332 shall be.reason for denlal or revocation of permit. I understand If I allo~ boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my dock, I violate City of Mound Ordinance 1332. (See next page Section 26.930k, Sub. 13) DATE Applicant's Signature BASIC FEE PAID (~'~'~,.e/~~ ADD FOR LATE SHARE ~:~ LATE PENALTY . ._j~fC~'~, ~'".~ TOTAL LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (we) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on t~ch is/~iv~te property. · DATE .~-~'~.~f"~ Signature Signature R~TURN THIS APPLICATION ONLY~. KEEP THE OTHER SHEETS FOR YOUR INFOR/~TION. i GOVT LOT 8 .- PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC L~ND FOR A STAIRWAY, SHED, AND ELECTRICAL ON WAURIKA COMMON, ABUTTING 1558 DOVE LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 3, WOODLAND POINT, DOCK SITE #01980 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the structures recognized on this portion of Waurika Common include a metal (fire escape type) stairway in good condition, a 4' x 6' shed, electrical supply, and a mercury vapor light which is in need of repair, and; WHEREAS, the shed is no longer consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the Public Land Procedure Manual calls for amortization of these structures, and; WHEREAS, the mercury vapor light is currently not hooked-up or used and is in need of repair, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Stairway: Approval of a five year permit consistent with the new policy for existing stairways. The stairway permit is subject to the following conditions: ae The applicant is responsible for maintenance. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Ce The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. Accessory Structure (shed): Approval of a Continuation of Structure Permit for the accessory structure according to (16) on the Flow Chart: "Grant permit up to 3 years, not renewable. To be checked annually." This permit does not allow any maintenance work to be done to prolong it's existence. PropOSed Resolution 1558 Dove Lane Page 2 3 Electrical: If there is electrical service, red b the Sta~~s~ec%~-~ ~r be appro . Y ~ _ ~---Any ~le~trica~ work on public ' equlreu uu ~ ~ e leot~'i~~r., ~n s~2u ~{ a ~ ' '~s ~2~ d t ~ 1 ~~t~ ~~I~~ ~rom the dwelling to the outlet ~ndergroun~ ~=£¥x~= ~ ' 4. The special permit for the electrical work and light will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 5. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until compliance of these conditions is achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1994 L! PE ! ' O. C D 5 0 ES E 0 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant has received adequate notice of this report as requested by the Park Commission on August 12, 1993. The original permit issued in 1976 included both the existing stairway and the 4' x 6' accessory structure, and has expired. The stairway is a metal fire escape type and is in good condition. The Structure may have electrical supply or fixtures, and this needs to be verified with the owner on site. Staff has discussed the issues with the property manager, who states the abutting dock site is not used, but they would like to maintain the accessory structure and dock spot. The shed is no longer consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the Public Land Procedure Manual calls for amortization of these structures. Staff recommended the following: 1. tal~A!r~L~X: Approval of a five year. permit consistent with the new policy for existing stairways. The stairway permit is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant is responsible for maintenance. b. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. c. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 2. Accessory Structure Cshe~l: Approval of a Continuation of Structure Permit for the accessory structure according to (16) on the Flow Chart: "Grant permit up to 3 years, not renewable. To be checked annually.- This permit does not allow any maintenance work to be done to prolong it's existence. 3. ~: If there is electrical service, the work must either be approved by the State Electrical Inspector or removed at the applicant,s expense. Note: Any electrical work on public lands is required to be installed by a licensed electrical contractor, inspected, and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. A site plan is needed to locate the underground service from the dwelling to the outlet. Mike Bahia of ROI Properties, the property manager for 1558 Dove Lane informed the Commission that the Staff Recommendation is acceptable to the owners and it is understood that the shed must be removed within the time specified. It was noted that a light fixture does exist on the site, however, it is not hooked up or used, and it is lying on the ground. Mr. Bahia stated that they could remove the fixture, and confirmed that they understand a permit could be applied for to allow the light. MOTXOM made by Byrnss, seconded by Ahrens to rsconend approval of tho Public Lands Permit &s recommended by staff. Steinbring stated that the light does not look safe in its present condition. Jo Haugen, also representing the property, stated that if the light could be brought up to code, it may be the desire of a future renter to keep the light. The Commission clarified that staff,s recommendation for the light requires that the "work must either be approved by the State Electrical Inspector or removed.. · " Therefore, it was the opinion of the Commission that the light could remain if it was brought up to code. Casey stated that he could not vote in favor of the motion as he is not in favor of allowing the light. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor wers~ 8Chidt, Meyer, Ahrens, Goods, Geffrs, and Byrnes. Eteinbring were opposed. Casey and This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: OWNER: January 13, 1994 Park & Open Space commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Sutherland, Building oz~ ~ j Jon . ~ Jim Fackler, Parks D~rector' 1558 Dove Lane, Lot 4, Bloc~/3, woodland Point, PID #12-117-24 43 0004 Marvyl O. McLeod DOCK SITE HOLDER: None COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 01980 CLASS: D SUBJECT: update of Public Lands Permit of this report as The applicant has received adequate notice requested by the Park commission on August 12, 1993. d in 1976 included both the existing The original permit issue .... ~ Las exnired The , cessorv structure, ~nu ,, ~ · _. stairway and the 4' x 6 ac _- __~ ~. 4, mood condition. The stairway is a metal fire escape type anu ~o ~-. ~ Structure may have electrical supply or fixtures, and this needs to be verified with the owner on site. staff has discussed the issues with the property manager, who states the abutting dock site is not used, but they would like to maintain the accessory structure and dock spot. The shed is no longer consistent with the Shoreland Management ordinance, and the Public Land Procedure Manual calls for amortization of these structures. Staff Recommendation - stairway staff recommends approval of a five year permit consistent with the new policy for existing stairways. The stairway permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is responsible for maintenance- Staff Report 1558 Dove Lane, McLeod January 13, 1994 Page 2 The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. Staff Recommendation - Accessor Structure Staff recommends approval of a Continuation of Structure Permit for the accessory structure according to (16) on the Flow Chart: "Grant permit up to 3 years, not renewable. To be checked annually.,, This permit does not allow any maintenance work to be done to prolong it's existence. ~taff Recommendation - Electrical If there is electrical service, the work must either be approved by the State Electrical Inspector or removed at the applicant,s expense. Note: Any electrical work on public lands is required to be installed by a licensed electrical contractor, inspected, and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. A site plan is needed to locate the underground service from the dwelling to the outlet. JS:pj The abutting owners have been notified, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. ~ES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMg~SSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK Sltll'~101940 & #01960 ~.FaT~ .=[, -A on~- -~a~-s ownershlp to. The ,t~}[ switchback sta~rw /pa=n un~ ,.v . . wever th~'~$t~;way is not needed access dock8 as thlS are~ ~ uut&~~2~- ~ ~t~rwav i, this loca=lo- as Staff reeo~ended the 1 direct staff to remove the stair and e~:~~~: ::~irector with the Parks restore ~he area wi d mulch. Removal would be under the Depart~nt ~taf~ ~..v. seconde~ Sc~idt to reco~end ~e n~F-;~h-t~the costs incurred not ~e oil August 24, 1993. ~K 8ITS ~0198~ ~L O. MCLEOD, 1~58 ~VE ~E, STAIRWAY, ELECTRIC, SHED Parks D~rector, Jim Fackler, reviewed the .revised" staff's report. The original permit issued in 1976 for this site included both the existing stai~ay and the 4' x 6' accessory structure, and has expired. The stai~ay i8 a metal fire escape type and does not meet code. The Structure ~ay have electrical supply or fixtures, and this needs to be verified with the owner on site. Staff has discussed the issues with the pro~rty manager, who states the abuttin~ dock site is not used, bug they would like to maintain the accessory structure and dock spot. The shed ~8 ~o longer consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the ~blic ~nd Procedure Manual, adopted by City Council, calls for amortization of these structures. Staff reco~ended approval of a permit to replace the existing stairway to c~e as red,red by the Building Official. Plans are required to be submitted and approved prior to any work bein~ done. The stairway permit ~s sub~ect to the following conditions: 1. ~e applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and ins~cted and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permi=, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Staff reco~ended approva~ ~f a~Co~u~i:~$~$~$$: Per, it for the .Grant permit accesso~ structure accorolng =o [aol ~.. ~.. up to 3 years, nog renewable. To be checked annually. If there is electrical service, a certification from the State Electr[~l Inspector is required. Additionally, staff ~oted that the owner was mailed today the -revi~ed" staff report and ghat no-one was present to represent this request. M~ION ~a~e b~ ahrens, secon~e~ b~ Casey, to table this permit revlew until the owner has been apprise~ of the situation. Motion carr~e~ unanimously. Councilmember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 78-4~3 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARK COHMISSION TO APPROVE THE COMMONS MAIN- TENANCE PERMITS AND STAIRS AT END OF WOODLAND ROA0 BE REMOVEO AND METAL FIRE ESCAPES NOT BE ACCEPTED AS STAIRS ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, the Park Commission must recommend whether Commons Maintenance Permits are to be contlnued and allowed, and WHEREAS, listed belc~v are the permits and encroachments on commons that must have Council approval: 15q5 Bluebird Lane 1551 Bluebird Lane 155q Bluebird Lane 1587 Bluebird Lane 1593 Bluebird Lane 1599 Blyebuid Lane 1601 Bluebird Lane 1550 Canary Lane mm~ 1555 Dove Lane 1558 Dove Lane 1562 Dove Lane 1559 Eagle Lane 1566 Eagle Lane 1583 Gull Lane 1661 Gull Lane 5000 Enchanted Road q96~ Paradise 17q9 Wildhurst 1767 Wildhurst 1733 Gull Lane 1720 Dove Lane 17q9 Bluebird 1737 Canary Lane 1716 Bluebird 1586 Dove Posts & Rope Railing remove fire ring & Natural stairway flower bed Picnic Table & trash can Stalrway (needs I handrail, remove metal stakes & general cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides) Wooden stalr~ay (needs 2 handrails) Retaining wall (needs repalr) Steel stairway (needs 2 handrails) Wooden shed (paint earthtone) Steel stairway Steel shed (remove within 1 yr) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) f Concrete steps (needs 2 handrails) Concrete steps S ta [ twa y (Remove) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Railroad ties to sod access (General cleanup markers installed & owner billed) Cement stairway (needs 2 handrails cleanup) Storage Bldg (has no foundation) Wooden Shed (needs repair general cleanup) Stairway & retaining wall Birdhouse Stairway (needs 1 handrail) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair step) Sandbox Stairway (needs 2 handrails) 1600 Heron Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUNO, MOUN0, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby concur with the recommendation of the Park Coa~nlsslon to approve the commons malntenance permits and stairs at end of Woodland Road be removed and metal fire escapes not be accepted as stairs on the commons. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Polston, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted In favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Wlthhart, the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signatur~;tte~t~d by the City Clerk. Maydr "~ ~ Citv Clerk 2~, ,~/z'o 3 134.78 ~ES GOVT LOT OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1994 BLUEBIRD HOUSE~ Meyer explained that he would like to start a Bluebird/songbird recovery program. His objective is to involve families with children, and each family would adopt one or two bird boxes at a local park. He has four goals for this program, as follows: 1. Promote a positive family activity with no cost other than transportation. , 2. To nurture curiosity and respect for the outdoors. 3. To help bluebirds and most other cavity nesting birds survive when their natural habitat is shrinking at an alarming rate. 4. Hopefully this will help more birds survive for the enjoyment of the whole community. There will be no cost to the City, he will work with the Parks Director in finding locations for the boxes. The boxes need a fairly large open area and he would like to start with two or three parks. The boxes will be supplied by Peter Meyer. Different birds that use these boxes are bluebirds, swallows, chickadees, finches, wrens, and other songbirds. The boxes will be installed in pairs on a "T" post about 20 feet apart. The size of park needed would compare to Philbrook or Swenson Parks. It is important to monitor the boxes and he would try to find families directly adjacent to the boxes who can physically open to boxes 1 to 7 times per week. It is important to know when eggs are laid and when they will hatch. Merging this program with the Adopt a Green'Space Program was discussed, and it was suggested it be called Adopt a Birdhouse. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes to recommend to the City Council approval of the Adopt a Bluebird Rouse Program. ~otion carried unanimously. It was suggested that the "City Contact- and "The Laker. be used to advertise the program. WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHE PEAS: WHE PEAS: Volunteerism is an integral part of our great culture and heritage; and In Minnesota, more than two million volunteers of all ages annually contribute volunteer service valued at $4.7 billion; and Volunteers make significant contributions to the quality of life in Minnesota and through their efforts help to ensure a brighter future for our state; and Volunteerism promotes personal, social and intellectual development of young people and prepares them to become involved and responsible citizens; and Individuals and groups volunteering at the local and state levels are making their neighborhoods better places in which to live by providing support to those in need, solving community problems, improving schools, helping people with disabilities, and preserving the environment; and W~EREAS: Volunteers are Minnesota's magic, and recognition should be given to our dedicated volunteers who have demonstrated their commitment to the betterment of our communities throughout the year; NOW THEREFORE, I, ARNE H. CARLSON, Governor of the State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim April 17-23, 1994 to be VOLUNTEER RE COG N ~ T I ON wEEK in Minnesota. As we continue to face the challenges and opportunities of our society, I call on all citizens of the State to sustain and increase Minnesota's voluntary spirit now and for the future. Together we can serve Minnesota and serve it well. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Minnesota to be affixed at the State capitol this seventeenth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four and of the State the one hundred and thirty-fifth. S~/~RETARY OF STATE GOVERNOR TO: FROM: RE: DATE: RECEIVED .;i 8 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MEMORANDUM LMCD MEMBER CITIES BILL JOHNSTONE, CHAIR OF LMCD LMCD DISSOLUTION RESOLUTION JANUARY 14, 1994 As many of you know, the Cities of Orono and Spring Park have passed resolutions requesting the dissolution of the LMCD. Several other member cities have expressed, either formally or informally, their support for the continuation of the LMCD. Under the LMCD's enabling legislation, Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.605, Subd. 4, the LMCD "may be dissolved by a decision of the governing bodies of three- quarters of the municipalities in the district." The LMCD consists of 14 member cities. The Board of the LMCD believes that the question of dissolution needs to be resolved. Continuing uncertainty with respect to this issue serves no important purpose and impairs the LMCD's ability to carry-out its responsibilities. If the requisite number of member cities believe that dissolution is appropriate, then the decision should be made and alternative arrangements for management of the lake should be developed and implemented with appropriate legislative approval. Alternatively, if the requisite number of member cities do not favor dissolution, the Board believes that this decision should be made formally and documented. Members of the Board of the LMCD have discussed the issue of dissolution.with their respective member cities and other interested persons. Based on those discussions, a substantial majority of the Board supports the preservation of the LMCD. At the same time, the Board is aware of the concerns and criticisms of some of the member cities and others and is committed to working with the cities to address the criticisms and concerns in a fair and responsible manner. Attached to this Memorandum is a form of resolution regarding dissolution of the LMCD. The Board of the LMCD requests that the city council of each member city that has not formally acted on the question of the LMCD's dissolution consider the resolution as soon as is convenient. If your city has taken formal official action on the question of dissolution, please send a certified copy of the action to the LMCD's offices for filing. I would be happy, as would each of the Board members, to discuss this matter further or respond to your questions. Thanks for your attention to this matter. c: LMCD Board Members £IT¥ OF WAYZATA 600 RICE STREET, V~'AYZATA, MINN. 55391 PHONE 473-0234 January 24,1994 JAN 2 5 199 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Gentlemen: Attached for your information is a resolution that was adopted by the Wayzata City Council at their January 18th meeting, at which Gene Strommen was present. Following lengthy discussion, the consensus of the Council was to dissolve the LMCD in its present form and to communicate via letter to the LMCD Board Wayzata's expectations and concerns over the role of the LMCD. The Council is of the opinion that the Board should be more of a facilitator and less of a regulator. The perception is that the LMCD is trying to regulate that which it was never intended to regulate, e.g., shoreland development. The Council further expressed grave concern that reserve funds in excess of $600,000 go beyond normal and acceptable limits. There was consensus that the Board reconsider their 1994 budget, not charge dues to any of the cities for 1994, and operate off the reserve funds with the understanding that the District in its present configuration be dissolved by January 1, 1995. Prior to that date, Council Members felt a task force should be formed to look into the possibility of establishing an agency that would act as a clearing house for things such as dock regulation and speed limits so that everyone on the Lake would operate under the same rules. However, regulation and enforcement of the rules would be done by the individual cities. Another concern is that a Board of fourteen members each with one vote, regardless of financial contributions or lakeshore is unfair. In addition, the overall budget seems exorbitant and sixty + meetings a year is unwieldy, unmanageable and unnecessary. There was general consensus that the LMCD is doing some good in areas such as dock regulation, but that the Board gets bogged down in administrative details and as a Lake Minnetonka Conse~ation District Page 2 Janua~ 24,1994 whole seems to be a level of government that is out of control. The Board should return to its initial function of managing the lake surface activities and leave shoreland management to the cities and the elected officials. Sincerely, Allan Orsen City Manager js cc: Member Cities CI T Y OF WA YZA TA 600 RICE STREET, ~AYZATA, MINN. 55391 PHONE 473-0234 RESOLUTION NO. 2491 RESOLUTION RELATING TO LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT; FAVORING THE DISSOLUTION THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Wayzata, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. Recitals. The City is a member of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (the "LMCD"), organized under Sections 103B.601 through 103B.691, Minnesota Statutes. Pursuant to Section 103B.605, Subd. 4, the LMCD may be dissolved by the decision of the governing bodies of three-quarters of the municipalities thereof. Certain cities within the LMCD have adopted resolutions requesting its dissolution. The Board of Directors of the LMCD has requested that all member cities take formal action on the question of dissolution thereof. 2. Determination and Decision. The City of Wayzata favors dissolution of the LMCD in its present form by January 1, 1995. 3. Filing of Resolution, A certified copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the LMCD for filing in its official books and records. Council Member Harmon introduced the above resolution and moved its adoption. Council Member Petit seconded the motion and upon a vote thereon, five members voted "yes", and no members were opposed. Adopted by the Wayzata City Council this 18th day of January, 1994. ATTEST: C~ Manager Allan Omen Mayor Robert D. Gisvold ACRONOH¥ S£RVIC£S OIVISlON ~0 ~ES1 PLA10 BOULEVARD SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ~107 TELEPHON£s (~12) 29&-Al2) NOTICE OF APPOINll~NT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR FOR CITY OR TOWNSHIP INSTRUCTIONS 1) Complete this form. 2) Return to the County Agricultural Inspector:. Greg Sen,st 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 1309 NAME OF PERSON APPOINTED FACKLER 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD C1T~, STATE, ZiP CODE MOUND, MN. 55364 IELEPNONE 140. IIKCLUDE AR~A C(?PEI 63.2-4'72-0600 . APPOINTUE~T LOCATION . CITY OR TOWNSHIP NAM[ MOUND COUUT¥ HENNEPIN DATE. OF APPOIUTMFNT JANUARY 25,. 1994 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES 18.231, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3, PERTAINING TO ASSISTANT TEED INSPECTORS, THE ABOVE-NAMED PERSON IS HEREBY APPOINTED TO BE ASSISTANT tEED INSPE.CTOR FROM THE DATE INDICATED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MAYOR OR TO~N BOARD ~ISMES TO TERMINATE THE APPOINTMENT. THIS APPOINTMENT CONFERS ON THE APPOINTEE ALL THE DUTIES, AUTHORITY, AND PRIVILEGES OF ANY LOCAL · EEO INSPECTOR AS OUTLINED BY LA~. ISIG~ATURE [UA¥OE OE CNAIE OF TOWNSHIP BOARP) lilLE DATE SICNE~ MAYOR 1 - 25- 94 mSIR£EI ADDRESS CZlY AND STATE ZiP CODE __.5341 MAYWOOD ROAD , MOUND, MN. 55364 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT; OPPOSING THE DISSOLUTION THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of , Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Recitals. The city is a member of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (the "LMCD") organized under Sections 103B.601 through 103B.691, Minnesota Statutes. Pursuant to Section 103B.605, Subd. 4, the LMCD may be dissolved by the decision of the governing bodies of three-quarters of the municipalities thereof. Certain cities within the LMCD have adopted resolutions requesting its dissolution. The Board of Directors of the LMCD has requested that all member cities take formal action on the question of dissolution thereof. Determination and Decision. dissolution of the LMCD. The City opposes Filinq of Resolution. A certified copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the LMCD for filing in its official books and records. Member seconded the resolution and upon a vote thereon, members voted yes, and members voted no, and the resolution was declared passed this day of , 1994. Mayor Attest: Clerk BILLS January 25, 1994 BATCH 3123 BATCH 3125 TOTAL BILLS $145,270.04 29,252.39 $174,522.43 z Z Z ! I o ? :Oz I-- ~ , Z O, 0 · (30 IA/ oi Z o UJ ~ UJ r~ · Z 0 '-I, 0 Z Iii I Z 0 oO z~ ooo ! ! oo e Z 0 .J 0 I o v9 Z rY Z Z CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT DEC. 1993 GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Ucenses Non -Business Ucenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments DEC. 1993 Y'rD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,21 7,590 553,473 1,110,314 (107,276) 91.1 9% 3,260 0 10,436 7,176 320.12% 69,500 3,966 71,367 1,867 102.69% 860,500 368,654 858,138 (2,362) 99.73% 48,750 897 10,593 (38,157) 21.73% 65,000 0 50,484 (14,516) 77.67% 58,500 32,651 66,949 8,449 114.44% 12,390 807 1 4,355 1,965 115.86% TOTAL REVENUE 2.335.490 960.448 2,192,636 (142.854) 93.88% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 244,200 1 2,274 296,288 52,088 121.33% 113,550 3,238 110,813 (2,737) 97.59% 1,200,000 1 40,336 1,329,754 129,754 110.81% 350,000 23,659 336,816 (13,184) 96.23% 650,000 52,595 656,471 6,471 101.00% 4,200 0 4,475 275 106.55% 73,280 0 71,029 (2,251) 96.93% o1/18/94 rev-93 G.B. CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT DEC. 1993 DEC. 1993 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 57,500 2,359 52,380 5,120 91.1 0% Promotions 2,000 (110) 1,192 808 59.60% Cable TV 1,380 0 927 453 67.17% City Manager/Clerk 170,380 17,888 172,504 (2,124) 101.25% Elections 2,140 45 2,443 (303) 114.16% Assessing 46,550 18 46,993 (443) 100.95% Finance 145,900 15,641 144,377 1,523 98.96% Computer 24,000 362 22,545 1,455 93.94% Legal 79,000 19,544 111,150 (32,150) 140.70% Police 779,200 75,504 767,403 11,797 98.49% Civil Defense 4,000 1,120 4,165 (165) 104.13% Planning/Inspections 1 38,440 13,992 129,689 8,751 93.68% Streets 406,750 37,951 371,361 35,389 91.30% Shop & Stores 17,100 2,234 9,801 7,299 57.32% City Property 97,1 50 6,246 1 04,925 (7,765) 107.99% Parks 174,340 10,697 157,527 16,813 90.36% Summer Recreation 33,100 0 26,110 6,990 78.88% Contingencies 10,000 1,652 4,293 5,707 42.93% Transfers 136,840 10,244 122,920 13,920 89.83% GENERAL FUNDTOTAL 2,325,780 215,387 2,252,705 7.3,075 96.86% Area Fire Service Fund 244,200 19,330 252,625 (8,425) 103.45% Recycling Fund 99,350 9,706 145,548 (46,198) 146.50% Uquor Fund 194,620 14,675 190,841 3,779 98.06% Water Fund 358,190 32,857 331,665 26,525 92.59% Sewer Fund 761,350 46,023 845,174 (83,824) 111.01% Cemetery Fund 4,790 252 4,058 732 84.72% Docks Fund 55,440 3,299 53,195 2,245 95.95% exp-93 01/18/94 G.B. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AMENDED Meeting Notice and Agenda LMCD Lake Access Conmnittee 7:30 pm, Tuesday, January 25, 1994 (Changed from Mon. Jan. 24 LMCD Office Conference Room 160 Norwest Bank Bldg., 900 E. Wayzata Blvd. (Handicapped entrance, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd.) 1. Review of 1/10/94 meeting minutes as ~ mailed. Report of redraft of semi-final 1992 Lake Access Task Force study, amending language and minor provision s as identified in meeting of 1/10/94; Recommend proposed date for Lake Access Task Force meeting to conduct full review of final draft of the 1992 Lake Access Task Force study; Discuss procedure for city/agency review of Task Force Report review in which it will be ultimately accepted as the final Task Force report product. 5. Adjournment. COPY TO: 14 LMCD Member cities All LMCD Board Members Media RECEIVED '"1 8 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Agenda 8:30 am, Friday, January 21, 1994 Conference Rm 135, Norwest Bank Bldg 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata (Handicapped entrance west door Wayzata Blvd) Introductions, Chair Tom Penn Review, accept/amend minutes of 11/19/93 as mailed; EWM Situation Analysis review per 1/14/94 outline, identifying Task Force positions on suggested actions: a. On shore / aesthetics and recreational; b. Near shore / aesthetic & recreational; c. Off shore / recreational; d. Boat Landing / recreational AND ecological (combined) e. Near shore and off shore / ecological Long Term Considerations: a. Comprehensive aquatic plant management plan for Lake Minnetonka; b. Position on other exotics -- Zebra Mussel, Ruffe, etc Hennepin County Public Access, Spring Park Bay, report on examination of a barrier to prevent milfoil fragments from drifting into access area, ramp structure, to reduce milfoil fragment spread potential; Hennepin Conservation District grant status for LMLOA funding of experimental weed pulling equipment, phase one completion and preparations for phase two funding; 6. MN DNR Report, Chip Welling: a. Sonar study plans on whole lake tests, 1994 b. Triclopyr study update for Lake Minnetonka, 1994 c. Annual Report on Aquatic Exotics in MN Lake association reports; Additional business Next meeting, adjourn; ECEIVED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Report to the Mayors 1st Quarter 1994 AGENDA 7:00 am, Friday, January 28, 1994 LaFayette Club 2800 Northview Rd., Minnetonka Beach 1. Welcome and self introduction of persons present e Presentation of the LMCD Board and its legal counsel's position on the budgetary process relating to the Eurasian water milfoil program funding for the years 1989 through 1993, and consideration of the 1994 funding based upon the 1993 law changes Outcome of city positions/resolutions relating to the continued operation of the LMCD e Results of staggered term re-appointments per action taken by various cities 0 Chair Johnstone's forecast for LMCD's program emphasis for 1994 "Save the Lake" Recognition Dinner'announcement: 6:15 pm, Thursday, February 17, Lord Fletcher's 7. Additional comments from the mayors, board members 8. 2nd Quarter Meeting Date, Friday, April 29 9. Adjournment (8: 30 am) ~leas~ ~SVP. 473-7033. by. ~ ~ Thank yo~ I RECEIVED ".:;1 8 1981, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Meeting Notice and Agenda LMCD Lake Access Committee 7:00 pm, Monday, January 24, 1994 LMCD Office Conference Room, Rm. 160 Norwest Bank Bldg., 900 E. Wayzata Blvd. (Handicapped entrance, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd.) 1. Review of 1/10/94 meeting minutes as mailed; Report of redraft of semi-final 1992 Lake Access Task Force Study, amending language and minor provisions as identified in meeting of 1/10/94; Recommend proposed date for Lake Access Task Force meeting to conduct full review of final draft of the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Study; 4. Additional business 5. Adjournment COPY TO: 14 LMCD Member Cities All LMCD Board Members Media January 14, 1994 RECEIVED CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway 0rono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Eugene Strommen Executive Director Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Strommen, This letter is to express the City of Orono's concern that the Lake Access Committee meeting, at which the draft report of the Lake Access Task Force was discussed, was scheduled in conflict with the regularly scheduled meeting of the Orono City Council. The City of Orono was very active on the Lake Access Task Force until the City's frustration with the Task Force process led it to end its formal participation on the Task Force. However, the LMCD is aware that the City continues to be strongly interested in the work of the Task Force. The City is concerned that the meeting at which the Task Force's report was presented was scheduled such that the Orono Council members had to choose between attending the regularly scheduled Council meeting or attending the Lake Access Committee meeting. The City of Orono strongly urges the LMCD to take into account the schedule of regular Council meetings when scheduling its committee meetings to avoid tiffs conflict in the furore. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator cc: LMCD Board Members DNR Telephone (612) 473-7357 * FAX 473--0510 "~ [ ~ January 14, 1993 RECEIVED CITY of ORONO Mailing Address: Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Eugene Strommen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Strommen, The Orono City Council at its December 13 meeting took action to request a refund, of the City's past payments for the LMCD's milfoil program. This request is based on the LMCD's recent indication that these payments were voluntary contributions to the milfoil program. Because the Council was not aware of the voluntary nature of the payments at cbe time they were made, the Council is requesting the payments made to the milfoil program for the years 1990 through 1993 be refunded. The refunding may be accomplished by fa'st applyg]g the past payments to the City's remaining 1993 LMCD membership payment and the 1994 quarter fee payment. The remainder is to be a cash refund to the City. If you have any questions regarding the Council's action, please call me. Sincerely, City Administrator cc: LMCD Board Members Telephone (612) 473-7357 ' FAX 473-0510 MINLrYF, S OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1994 Those present were: Commissioners Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Bill Voss and Michael Mueller were absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: LaVern reit, James Veit, Catherine Veit, Gary Fedo, Jill Fedo, Lyn Mexum, Lance Coppin, Roger Dolliff, and Don and Terry Bonnicksen. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1993 were presented for approval. Johnson requested the following be added to the second paragraph on page 5, "He also stated that Mound does not have a Storm Water Management Plan, therefore, the 75% rule is not applicable in this situation." Michael also noted an error on page 3, within the motion; Mueller should be omitted from the vote as he was not present. KOTION made ~y Hanus, seconded ~y Clapsaddle to approve the Planning Commission Kinutes of December 13, 1993 as amended. ~otion carried unanimously. CASE ~93-05S:. JAMES & CATHERINE VEIT, 2563 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID #Z4-lll?-Z4 22 0032. EASEMENT VACATION. This request was tabled at the December 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for gathering information relating to Lot 17, the parcel to the north, the land availability to the west, and speculations by the City on anticipations of the Storm Water Management Plan. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed a letter which he mailed to the applicant on December 30, 1993 that requested additional information regarding the balance of the easement on lot 17 and the area to the west that is City owned. Sutherland noted that staff has not received any additional information to-date. Vern reit, original developer of the Lost Lake Subdivision and representing the applicant, submitted to the Planning Commission a packet of information including: "Reasons for needing partial vacation of draining easement," drainage calculations, and a copy Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 of State Statue 505.02 with the following highlighted "The purpose of any easement shown on the plat must be clearly stated, and shall be confined to only those that deal with public utilities, and such drainage easements as deemed necessary for the orderly development of the land encompassed within the plat." Mr. Veit also displayed a drawing on tagboard consisting of the surveys for lots 17, 18, and 19. Mr. Veit proceeded to expound on the reasons for needing the vacation, as follows: Easement area designated is grossly oversized for its need and use. The land planners (Coffin & Gronberg) did a poor job designing this lot. If vacation is not granted, a 9 foot high retaining wall would be required to allow for the driveway which would not be aesthetically pleasing. If a terraced wall is installed, it would need to encroach into the easement, or require partial vacation of the easement (approximately 12 feet). A terraced retaining wall would continue the continuity of this development. It was noted that the drainage calculations have not been submitted to the City for staff review prior to the meeting. Mr. Veit stated that the City Engineer did have the opportunity to review them. The Planning Commission discussed that this is a good example of a house not designed for the lot. Clapsaddle commented that he wanted to hear the City Engineer's comments on the applicants information. Hanus commented that it appears impractical to expand the pond to either the north or the south, and the logical direction for expansion would be to the west. He discussed this issue with John Cameron earlier in the day, and he indicated that the applicant's needed to provide documentation that the easement is not needed. Michael reiterated that the required information was not submitted by the applicant in time to be reviewed by the City Engineer. It was noted that there may have been a lack of communication between staff and the applicants as they were unclear as to what information was to be provided. Sutherland noted in his letter that the applicant's surveyor was to contact either himself or the City Engineer to clarify the needed information; and this was never done. Veit stated that the City Engineer has all the same information that they presented this evening. The Building Official noted that this information does not reflect the current conditions of the site as the pond was not installed as it was intended. 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 MOTION made by Hanus to recommend approval of the vacation of the easement up to the southern edge of the walkway easement, provided the applicants reverse the City Engineer's opinion, and it is recommended the City Council table this issue at their meeting on January 11, 1994 until the applicant can discuss with the city Engineer what information is required, due to an obvious communication breakdown. When the information is available the case should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Michael. The Commission discussed the fact that the Council has a scheduled public hearing for this case tomorrow, and how does this affect the motion. MOTION withdrawn by Hanus and Michael. MOTION made by Hanus to table the request for an easement vacation until the applicant can provide further information supporting their claims. Clapsaddle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission requested their message be forwarded to the city Council at their meeting on January 11, 1994. CASE ~94-01~ LYN HEXUMm 1543 BLUEBIRD ~AqEm PART OF LOTS 1, 2, & 32~ BLOCK 6w WOODLAND POINT, PID ~12-117-24 43 0037. VARIANCE FO~ ENTRY ROOF. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance of 4 feet to the required 20 foot setback for a front entry roof overhang that was constructed without a permit. Roof eaves may extend out 2 feet into the front yard setback, however, this overhang is supported by posts and footings so the setback is measured to the structure. Also involved with this case is recognition of the existing nonconforming hardcover of approximately 943 square feet. The roof overhang that extends out 4 feet from the house and is 8 feet long is minimally sized and provides protection from the elements. It is installed over an existing front landing/deck and also has a minimal impact on the current hardcover. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the request is minimal with only a 4 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot setback. The overhang is also a useful reasonable appendage to the building and follows the existing deck and entry landing line. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. CASE ~94-02~ DON & TERRY BONNICKSEN, 2L56 CENTERVIEW L~NE, LOTS B & 311 BLOCK 7, ABI~W~d~ LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARKt PID ~13-~17-24 31 0052. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the following: 1. Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed. Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being converted into a laundry room. Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage. Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck. Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans), this addition steps back from the footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming. The front yard setback would actually be improved by the removal of the front entry roof (this roof is not shown on the survey), and the construction of the decorative 2 foot entry gable. Due to the oncoming winter weather and time constraints of the variance process, the applicant has, at his own risk, installed the garage slab. It was inspected for proper setbacks and construction prior to pouring. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as this project represents a substantial improvement to the property, improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance, upon the condition that the nonconforming shed and existing front entry roof be removed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 11, 1994. 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 CASE ~94-03~ G~R¥ & JILL FEDO, 1901 8HOREWOOD L~NB~ PART OF LOT 1, 8HADYWOOD POINT, BLOCK 12. PID ~18-117-23 23 0060. VARI]%NCE FOb PORCH AND DECK~ Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance of 28.4 feet to the required 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation. The OHW takes an abrupt turn into the adjoining city property, that is a drainage area which is low, partially wooded, and occupies some flood plain. An existing nonconforming front yard setback of 23.83 feet also needs to be recognized. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1977 and there is no record of a variance to it's nonconforming setbacks. As for the proposed addition, there is not a great deal more of encroachment ~-.han the existing dwelling, however, it is difficult to define any ~rdship in this case. The Planning Co~mission may wish to ~onsider the abruptness in the shoreline contour or an alternate flip-flopped plan. Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the abrupt shoreline contour or an alternate plan that may provide for the needs of the applicant with a minimum impact to the required 50 foot setback. Hanus questioned the applicant if this was the only viable option for the location of the addition. The applicant stated that due to the having the addition in this location is more suitable to the existing floor plan and will allow more light into the house. It will be located further from the neighbors house and closer to the adjacent City property which is vacant and therefore will be less obtrusive and it will look better from the lake as it will blend into the trees. The applicant feels this is the only viable option for the addition. He explained that the addition is only. 4.5 feet closer to the OHW. The Commission noted that the expansion has a minimal impact on the already nonconforming setback. It was noted that the shape of the shoreline could also be taken into consideration. Hardships were discussed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the requested variances of 6.17 feet to the front (street) property line, and 28.4 feet to the OHW, as recommended by staff, upon the following findings of facts: - There is a practical difficulty in locating the addition on the east side of the lot given the current structural layout of the house. 5 Plann£ng Comm£ss£on M£nutes January 10, 1994 The shape of the shoreline on the adjacent lot is odd-shaped and takes and abrupt curve. The house is already too close to the OHW, and the addition will minimally increase the already nonconforming setback. A variance would be required regardless of which side of the house the addition is constructed. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. CASE ~94-04: ROGER DOLLIFFt $$33 SHORELINE DRIVE (COSSETTE PROPERTY) t LOTS 5 & 6t AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 170~ PID 24 33 0076. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PUBLIC HEARING). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed Mark Koegler's report. The applicant is proposing to acquire the subject property which is presently used as a body shop for both automobile and boat repairs. The proposed use is for storage of privately owned, vintage automobiles. The interior of the building would be used for parking only; body work, repairs and similar activities would not occur. Additionally, the applicant has stated that 1) all existing boats and cars will be removed from the premises, 2) the paint booth in the building will be removed, 3) the building will be painted as necessary, 4) windows may be replaced with glass blocks, and 5) no items or materials will be stored outside. The proposed use does not precisely fit any of the Central Business (B-l) uses identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance. In examining the subject proposal, staff felt that it is analogous to a commercial parking lot, however, in this case, the parking occurs indoors instead of outdoors. The proposed vintage auto storage facility is an appropriate interim use of the site until such time as comprehensive redevelopment efforts occur. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: The building may be used only for storage of privately owned automobiles. Sales of vehicles of any type on the property stall be expressly prohibited. Ail existing boats, cars, parts and other junk materials shall be removed from both the interior and exterior of the building. 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 3. The existing paint booth shall be removed and repair or body work on vehicles of any type shall be expressly prohibited. 4. Exterior storage shall be expressly prohibited, including fenced areas on the existing site. The Planning Commission discussed the classification of ,,Commercial Parking Lot" as suggested by staff. It was questioned if "Private Garage" would be a better classification, but it was noted that this is only allowed as an accessory use. It was questioned what happens to the existing conditional use permits attached to this property, and it was noted that it would be beneficial to the downtown to eliminate the uses currently permitted. Vice-chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no comments from citizens present, Vice-chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by weiland, seconded by Clapsaddlo to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Commercial Parking Lot for the storage of vintage automobiles as recommended by staff, with an additional condition that the existing conditional use permits for this property be revoked upon transfer of the property. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on February 8, 1994. CASE ~94-05~ LAWRENCE COPPIN, 2300 CHATEAU LANE, LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 1, JOHN S. C~LSON, PID ~13-117-24 43 0146. MINO~ SUBDIVISION ~%ND VARIANCE- Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create another buildable site for immediate construction of a new single family dwelling. This property is located in the R-2 zone and both lots exceed the minimum 6,000 square foot lot area as Parcel 1 will have 8,153 square feet, and Parcel 2 will have 7,586 square feet. This request results in variances of 10.8 feet to the required 15 foot rear yard and 1.3 feet to the side yard setback for the existing house on Parcel 2. The house on Parcel 2 has an attached garage. Parcel 1 has a number of issues to resolve before it will be conforming to hardcover and the existing accessory structures need to be removed. The proposed house on Parcel 1 is conforming to setbacks and other respects of the code. Sewer and water service 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 has been stubbed to the new parcel being created. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Items listed in City Engineer's report, as follows: ae Final grading plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer at the time of Building Permit application. bo Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and as shown on Exhibit A. Ce Verification that a water service to Parcel i was installed and paid for. Park dedication fee of $1,000 be paid ($500 per lot) as required by City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3. Hard surface driveway be installed prior to occupancy of the new dwelling (according to City Code Section 330:130, Subd. 13). Impervious surface coverage be brought into conformance with the code, as shown on the proposed survey, prior to occupancy of the new dwelling. The applicant stated to the Commission that at one time these two parcels were separate. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision and variance as recommended by staff, with the inclusion of the following condition: a bond or escrow deposit be received prior to building permit issuance to insure removal of the accessory structures located on Parcel 1. MOTION carried $ - 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Johnson, #eiland, Jensen, and Michael. Hanus opposed· Hanus commented that he is in favor of the request, hoWever, voted in opposition because he does not agree with the park dedication fee requirement as it is not consistent with the ordinance. 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 REVIEW OF CASE ~93-058- The Building official and Planning Commission discussed issues relating to this case. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK RULES. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning commission Work Rules for 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously. REVIEW PL~/TNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES FOR 1994~. The calendar was reviewed and it was noted that the meeting scheduled for December 26, 1994 will be cancelled. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1994: Vice-chair Michael opened the position of chair. CHAIR ; VICE-CHAIR,. floor for nominations for the Weiland nominated Geoff Michael for Chair. seconded the nomination. Weiland moved to close nominations for Chair. seconded. Motion to close nominations unanimously passed. Geoff Michael accepted the nomination. Clapsaddle Clapsaddle for Chair Weiland moved to elect Geoff Michael as Planning Commission chair for 1994. Clapsaddle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Michael opened the floor for nominations for vice-chair. Johnson nominated Bill Voss for Vice-chair. Michael nominated Brian Johnson for Vice-chair, Jensen seconded the nomination. nominations for Vice-chair. motion. Motion carried weiland moved to close Clapsaddle seconded the unanimously. Weiland moved, and Clapsaddle seconded a motion to elect Brian Johnson as Planning Commission Vice-chair for 1994. The vote was unanimously in favor. 9 Plann£ng Coeunies£on M£nutee January 10, 1994 CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council Minutes of December 14, 1993, and the agenda for the January 11, 1994 meeting. Jensen suggested that the Building Official's monthly report also be included within the Planning Commission packets. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m. unanimously. by Weiland, to Motion carried Vice-chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 10 January 18, 1994 Mound Planning Commissioners, At the January 10, 1994 Planning Commission meeting Mark Hanus requested information regarding Curt Pearson's "presentation" at a meeting of the Three Points neighbors. I did not attend that meeting. The Council had other meetings with the City Attorney regarding this issue. Before responding to Mark I wanted to make sure the information I had was not confidential due to its being related to litigation. The following is intended to answer Mark's questions and address the issues he raised. Since this was discussed at a Planning Commission meeting it seemed appropriate that I respond such that the entire Commission gets the same information. Dennis Flack and some of his neighbors (Flack et al) have filed a legal action against the city. Flack et al own land that abuts one of the Commons in the Three Points area. That particular Commons appears to be dedicated to the property owners within, a specific subdivision. If Flack et al are successful it is likely the non-abutting property owners in that subdivision will lose access to and use of the lake via that Commons. The City Council directed the attorney to take appropriate action to defeat Flack et al. As the City named in the Flack et al action, Mound responded. The City of Mound is also a property owner in that subdivision. The City Attorney believes our position could be enhanced if the other property owners in that subdivision also responded to the Flack et al action. With the knowledge and support of the City Council, Curt Pearson attended a meeting of these property owners. Since I did not attend the meeting I do not know what he said. I expect he presented information about the Flack et al action, its potential impact and encouraged the neighbors to get legal council to participate in or respond to the Flack et al action. The majority of the Council, including me, believes Curt's attendance at this meeting was an appropriate use of General Funds. Liz Jensen cc Mound City Council MINUTES OF A MF ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1994 Present were: Commissioners Carolyn Schmidt, Tom Casey, Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, David Steinbring, Janis Geffre, and Mary Goode, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also present: Jo Haugen, Mike Bania, Charles Champine, John Edewaard, and William Darling. ELECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIR Commissioner Tom Casey was unanimously elected as temporary Chair. MINUTES MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Scb~idt to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 2, 1993 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES The following items were added to the agenda for discussion: - Bluebird Houses - Wetlands Conservation Act - Skating Rinks - Music in the Parks: Update from Committee Members INTERVIEWS FOR NEW PARK COMMISSIONE~ 'WILLI~AM~E,-'D;~RLING,~ ~60~'GROVE'luANE Mr. Darling explained that he is interested in becoming a Park Commissioner because he is interested in politics and government. He moved to Mound in July 1993 and he likes the small town atmosphere and the lake. He has visited two parks in Mound with his children, Mound Bay Park and Langdon Park, and feels they are very nice parks with good playground equipment. He has no schedule problems for meeting attendance. He is not familiar with the commons dock program. If he could improve Mound, he would want to increase the friendly atmosphere and economics, but not the population. If he could do anything to the Lost Lake property he would like to see a natural setting with trees and walking trails. He is not familiar with the Nature Conservation Areas program. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 B. JOHN C. EDEWAARD, 5125 HANOVER ROAD Mr. Edewaard has lived in Mound for 2-1/2 to 3 years and in that time has grown with the community and made friends. He is familiar with the fact that Mound has 60 acres of parks/commons and 420 dock sites, and he is familiar with the commons dock program. It is his opinion that the Park Commission's role is to manage the parks. He is familiar with the Nature Conservation Areas plan and feels this is a positive thing, as is the Adopt a Green Space program. He would like to see the Park Commission get involved in regulating developments within the City. He has never served on a similar commission before. His main concern with the community is its environment. He would like to see the City develop an effective process to review the impact of developments in the community. The applicants were advised that the Park Commission will make a recommendation for appointment which will be reviewed by the city Council on January 25, 1994. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: CHUCK CHAMPINE, COMMON, DOCK SITE ~01900 1550 CANARY LANE, WAURIKA Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The City Council referred this case back to the Park Commission to specifically address the light and electrical work as noted in the applicant's revised request and City Council minutes of August 24, 1993. All other aspects of this case remain the same with the exception that there is an additional yard light on a post and it needs to be determined if it is on the commons. The Park Commission, in its recommendation, should consider whether the lights will be in conformance with the "Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands" adopted October 10, 1991. Please note staff's original recommendation that remains the same. Photographs were made available to the Commissioners which detail the location of the lights and electrical work. A site plan needs to be provided that will locate the electrical supply line if this case is approved by the City Council. The staff recommendation remains the same, as follows, with the exception that the second yard light must be considered. The city Council direct the City Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 will be needed. The retaining walls are to be removed at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area will be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3. Electrical work: The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. be In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. Mr. Champine addressed the Commission and answered questions. He clarified that the light at the lakeside is nonfunctional at this time, however, he would like to keep it as it provides a public service for a skating rink in front of his house· He is willing tv bring the light up to code and install a switch so it may be turned oD o~ off-~ whe~ needed.- _~hamp~ne requeSted 180 days,~ verses the 60 days as recommended' to repair the light to meet code. It was noted that Mr. Champine would like a copy of the Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands. Champine explained that the light at the top of the hill is not a light at all, but a bird feeder. The Parks Director stated that there is no problem in allowing a bird feeder if it is located on the commons. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Meyer to recommend to the City Council that the light be allowed to remain as long as it meets the Guidelines for Lights on Public lands, and the balance of the request be approved as recommended by staff. 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 Ahrens arrived at 7:45 p.m. Casey debated the approval of the light at the shoreline, he does not feel the City's policies are being followed. Casey referred to packet page 13 consisting of the Park Commission Minutes of August 12, 1993 where a motion was unanimously passed to recommend removal of the light; he questioned what has changed. The Commission noted that the change is that the applicant is now requesting the light to remain to benefit the skating rink. It was also noted that the applicant is willing to repair the light and bring up to code. Schmidt noted that this is an existing light in need of maintenance, and if the request was for a new light it would be perceived differently. Motion carried ? to 1. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Meyer, Ahrens, Goode, Geffre, Steinbring, and Byrnes. Casey opposed. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT: MARVYL COMMON, DOCK SITE ~01980 O. MCLEOD, 1558 DOVE LANE, NAURIKA Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. The applicant has received adequate notice of this report as requested by the Park Commission on August 12, 1993. The original permit issued in 1976 included both the existing stairway and the 4' x 6' accessory structure, and has expired. The stairway is a metal fire escape type and is in good condition. The Structure may have electrical supply or fixtures, and this needs to be verified with the owner on site. Staff has discussed the issues with the-property manager, who states the abutting dock site is not used, but they would like to maintain the accessory structure and dock spot. The shed is no longer consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the Public Land Procedure Manual calls for amortization of these structures. Staff recommended the following: 1. Stairway: Approval of a five year permit consistent with the new policy for existing stairways. The stairway permit is subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant is responsible for maintenance. b. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 Ce The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. Accessory Structure (shed): Approval of a Continuation of Structure Permit for the accessory structure according to (16) on the Flow Chart: "Grant permit up to 3 years, not renewable. To be checked annually." This permit does not allow any maintenance work to be done to prolong it's existence. Electrical: If there is electrical service, the work must either be approved by the State Electrical Inspector or removed at the applicant's expense. Note: Any electrical work on public lands is required to be installed by a licensed electrical contractor, inspected, and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. A site plan is needed to locate the underground service from the dwelling to the outlet. Mike Bania of ROI Properties, the property manager for 1558 Dove Lane informed the Commission that the Staff Recommendation is acceptable to the owners and it is understood that the shed must be removed within the time specified. It was noted that a light fixture does exist on the site, however, it is not hooked up or used, and it is lying on the ground. Mr. Bania stated that they could remove the fixture, and confirmed that they understand a permit could be applied for to allow the light. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens to recommend approval of the Public Lands Permit as recommended by staff. Steinbring stated that the light does not look safe in its present condition. Jo Haugen, also representing the property, stated that ,~.- ~if~the. light could be brought up to code, it may be the desire of a future renter to keep the light. The Commission clarified that staff's recommendation for the light requires that the "work must either be approved by the State Electrical Inspector or removed.. ." Therefore, it was the opinion of the Commission that the light could remain if it was brought up to code. Casey stated that he could not vote in favor of the motion as he is not in favor of allowing the light. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Ahrens, Goode, Geffre, and Byrnes. Steinbring were opposed. Schmidt, Casey and This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 25, 1994. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 AGENDA Cth~NGES Casey requested the addition of another discussion item to the agenda, "Stairways on Public Lands: Liability and Ownership." DISCUSSION: NATURE CONSERVATIONAREAS - PLAN OF ACTION. POTENTIAL WORKSHOP DATE OF SATURDAY, JANUARY 29t 1994 Ahrens commented that she will not be able to attend any Saturday workshops. Casey noted that he will be out of town on January 29, 1993, and that he would like to be present at the meeting. Byrnes stated that she feels the Park Commission should await direction from the city Council before pursuing any further on the issue of Nature Conservation Areas. Schmidt stated that her interpretation of the intent of this meeting was to be an opportunity to informally discuss current Park Commission issues with the new members to help orientate them, and then review the seven proposed NCA's if there is time. Casey suggested the meeting date be February 5th so he may attend. Schmidt noted that she may have a conflict on February 5th. MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Byrnes, for the Park and Open Space Commission to hold an informal meeting on January zg, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall to orientate the new members on current issues being discussed by the Co.mission. Motion carried ? to 1. Casey was opposed because he is unable to attend. Staff is to ensure accessibility to city Hall for the meeting. REVIEW OF '1994 AGENDA CALENDAR The Commission reviewed the calendar. It was determined to have discussions regarding "Capital Outlay/Park Improvements for 1995" in February to verify that a request can be developed in a timely manner. Staff is to have information in the February packet clarifying what qualifies as capital outlay items, and how they can request for monies to be designated for items not defined as capital outlay. The Park Commissioners are to come prepared to the February meeting with specific items to be budgeted for in 1995. Ahrens requested that the subject of "dock removals" be included on the agenda calendar in March, along with review of the Dock License Ordinance and 1995 dock forms. 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 ELECTION OF OFFICERS (CHAIR AND VICE-CHaIR) Casey opened nominations for the position of Chair. Casey nominated Schmidt for Chair. Geffre seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations, Carolyn Schmidt was unanimously elected as Park and Open Space Commission Chair for 1994. Casey opened nominations for the position of Vice-chair. Schmidt nominated Casey for Vice-chair. Steinbring seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations, Casey was unanimously elected as Park and Open Space Commission Vice-chair for 1994. BLUEBIRD HOUSES Meyer explained that he would like to start a Bluebird/songbird recovery program. His objective is to involve families with children, and each family would adopt one or two bird boxes at a local park. He has four goals for this program, as follows: Promote a positive family activity with no cost, other than transportation. 2. To nurture curiosity and respect for the outdoors. To help bluebirds and most other cavity nesting birds survive when their natural habitat is shrinking at an alarming rate. Hopefully this will help more birds survive for the enjoyment of the whole community. There will be no cost to the City, he will work with the Parks Director in finding locations for the boxes. The boxes need a fairly large open area and he would like to start with two or three parks~ The.~o~e~w~besVup~tied by Peter Meyer. Different birds that use these boxes are bluebirds, swallows, chickadees, finches, wrens, and other songbirds. The boxes will be installed in pairs on a "T" post about 20 feet apart. The size of park needed would compare to Philbrook or Swenson Parks. It is important to monitor the boxes and he would try to find families directly adjacent to the boxes who can physically open to boxes i to 7 times per week· It is important to know when eggs are laid and when they will hatch· Merging this program with the Adopt a Green Space Program was discussed, and it was suggested it be called Adopt a Birdhouse. MOTION made by Cas.y, seconded by Byrnes to recommend to the City Council approval of the Adopt a Bluebird House Program. Motion carried unanimously. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 It was suggested that the "City Contact" and "The Laker" be used to advertise the program. WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT Casey commented that he saw in the Council Minutes approval of the Wetlands Conservation Act and the City being designated as the Local Government Unit (LGU). He questioned what is the City's role as the LGU and what is the Park Commission's role. Casey requested staff provide information to explain the Wetland Conservation Act and the City's role as an LGU and what the Park Commission may do. Casey requested this topic be added to the February Parks agenda. Ahrens stated that she will also raise the question at the Committee of the Whole meeting to find out if the City Council sees the Park and Open Space Commission as having a role. SKATING RINKS Steinbring announced that he took a tour of the skating rinks in Mound, and he likes the size of the skating rink at Three Points Park, however, the other two rinks at Philbrook and Highland are so small they are impractical for a family to use. Steinbring would like to see a skating rink maintained in front of Mound Bay Park on the lake consisting of a speed skating loop and a recreational skating area such as the City of Plymouth has on Parker's Lake. He emphasized that the depot can be used for a warming house. He would like to see the City obtain the proper equipment to maintain a rink on the lake. He stated that Plymouth plows the rink, then shaves it, then floods it. Using a pump to flood the rink was discussed. Concern about expensive equipment being used on the lake was expressed. It was suggested that this issue be discussed with the Hockey Boosters. .steinbrlng questioned if the ice rink at Highland Park could be expanded. Fackler noted that some excavating would be required. This topic is to be included in the budget discussion in February. SNOWMOBILE ACCESSES Steinbring commented that when he and his family were sliding at Highland End Park some snowmobiles raced through the park, and he was concerned about the safety of the kids sliding. Staff clarified that snowmobiles are not allowed in the Parks. The Commission recalled previous discussions on this subject where a study was started at one time to locate all the snowmobile accesses. There was discussion on how snowmobiles can be kept out of the parks and become more informed of the designated accesses. 8 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 This issue is to be reviewed at the February meeting. Staff is to include in the February packet the information previously compiled relating to lake accesses. MUSIC IN THE PARKS: UPDATE FROM TaRK FORCE MEMBEBP Marilyn Byrnes and Carolyn Schmidt recently attended the Task Force Meeting headed by Jim Glasoe at Community Services regarding "Music in the Park." At the meeting they set aside dates for programs, and reviewed potential programs. In February they will be discussing who they will solicit for funds to support the programs. Also, on February 1, Schmidt, Byrnes and Mike Loobey will be visiting the City of Robbinsdale to look at their new showmobile. STAIRWAYS ON PUBLIC LANDS: LIABILITY aND OWNERSHIP Casey questioned if the City determines ownership of the stairways on commons, and who has the right to use the stairways? If a permit is issued, does this determine exclusive use of the stairway? If there is a permit, who is liable? Should the City hold the permittee harmless? The Parks Director stated that he cannot answer the questions, but it has always been his understanding that the stairway is an extension of the dock, and it is considered private. Fackler referred to City Code Section 320 which refers to permitting requirements for "private structures" on public lands. VOTE: BALLOT RESULTS FOR NEW PARK COMMISSIONE~ Ahrens stated that she will not vote because she was not present for the interviews. The results of the ballots were as follows: William Darling John Edewaard 2,2,2,2,1,1,1 = 11 1,1,1,1,2,2,2 = 10 The candidate with the lowest score is the Park Commission's first choice for appointment to the Park Commission. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Park Commission to appoint John Edewaard to the Commission. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on January 25, 1994. City Council Representative's Report. No comments. 9 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes January 13, 1994 Park Director' s Report. Fackler had nothing specific report other than to announce that a new playground structure will be installed at Mound Bay Park, as discussed earlier in the meeting. Dock Inspector's Report. Tom McCaffrey reported that dock license applications are starting to come in, and there are 13 people on the waiting list, which is about average. MOTION made by &hrens, seconded by steinbrlng to adjourn the Park and open space Commission Meeting at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 10 RECEIVED "SAVE THE LAKE" Twenty-Seventh Anniversary RECOGNITION BANQUET THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1994 LORD FLETCHER'S OF THE LAKE Yes, confirm my reservation for the Twenty-Seventh Anniversary "S A V E T H E L A K E" Recognition Banquet, Thursday, February 17, 1994. My check (payable to LMCD Save the Lake) is enclosed for _ persons at $22.50 each, total $ NAME ORGANIZATION Return to amve by February 14th to: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 ,%a~t Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 &RNE H. CARLSON January 14, 1994 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 130 STATE CAPITOL SAINT PAUL 55155 RECEIVED 1 Dear Minnesotan: Our state is known throughout the country as a good and safe place to live. Yet nearly one out of every three Minnesotans said they were victims of crime in 1992 and violent crimes committed by juveniles have increased by 60 percent since 1988. Too many people no longer feel safe in their homes, schools and communities. I believe the state, must play a key role in reversing this alarming trend. In 1992 and 1993, our office worked very closely with the state legislature to implement a comprehensive package of laws which included longer prison sentences for the most serious violent crimes including murder, rape and drive-by shootings; doubled funding for victims' programs; and directed more resources to key prevention programn for juveniles and children. But we must go further. This year I am asking the legislature to support a series of measures which includes a mandatory minimum 15-year prison sentence for those who commit three crimes against a person. Currently violent offenders serve a wide range of sentences. But in the case of the dangerous predators, sentencing has the potential to be woefully inadequate. Our aim is to incapacitate all violent offenders who have demonstrated a pattern of predatory behavior and who threaten the safety of others, ff the legislature accepts our proposal, these dangerous repeat offenders will be locked up for at least 15 years, and perhaps longer. Three times, and they're out. In addition, I have proposed to make it easier to certify a juvenile as an adult if he or she commits a crime with a weapon. I want to eliminate laws that currently restrict those who work with youth from sharing critical information about potentially dangerous and troubled young people. In addition, we must stop erasing serious criminal reCOrds of juveniles, when they reach age 18 and require prosecutors to publicly disclose the number . of times that gun possessions are plea bargained out of a criminal trial. Accountability is critical to an effective criminal justice system. It is time we send a message that says: in Minnesota, serious crimes result in serious consequences. EQL -XL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 But our long-term prosoe~s of stopping violence lle in our ability to prevent crimes before they occur. That is why I have also proposed the creation of summer service camps for at-risk youth, and have renewed our commitment to providing conflict resolution training in schools. We can make a real difference in the lives of young people if we reach them early with effective intervention programs. Too many Minnesota children are learning violence everyday in their homes, neighborhoods and from the media, and too many women are quietly living the painful existence that comes with domestic abuse. I have pledged more resources to help children and serve victims in the next budget cycle. We all know that violence oRen begins at home and this is where it must end. Stiffer sentencing, more accountability, an effective prevention agenda and a greater emphasis on services to victims will go a long way to curb violence. Still, government cannot change a culture. It's up to all of us to do our pan and to reafrm'm those core values, such as respect and responsibility, that we lmow contribute to a strong and caring' community. I hope you will join us in supporting these key initiatives. Warmest regards, Governor 1994 ANTI-CRIME INITIATIVES December 13, 1993 GOVERNOR ARNE H. CARLSON HOUSE INDEPENDEHT-REPUBUCAN CAUCUS SENATE INDEPENDENT-REPUBUCAN CAUCUS Three part plan: Basic Prevention, Targeted Prevention, Punishment/Public Safety BA,.~IC PREVF. NTION EMBRACE VALUES THAT SUPPORT STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES UP TO $1 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR COMMUNrrY POLICING AND BLOCK CLUBS - grants to local police and communities - police/community interaction works PARENTAL EDUCATION - Early Childhood Family Education - HIPPY - Home Instruction Program for Pre-school Youngsters - Head Start FUND CONFLICT RESOLUTION TRAINING FOR STUDENTS - stop violent crime where it often starts - in school WELFARE REFORM - Continue to push for six-month residency requirement before receiving benefits - Mirmegota Family Investment Plan launched in April 1994 HOLD MEDIA AND OTHER BUSINESSES ACCOUNTABLE - Consumers must say "no" to violence on tv, movies and video games T,4R~ETED PREVENTION IDENTIFY AT-RISK YOUTH AND INTENSIFY EFFORTS TO SAVE THEM PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST RIGOROUS SERVICE CAMPS FOR YOUTH AND JUVENILES AGES 12-17 WHO HAVE BEEN IN LEGAL TROUBLE - Three month summer camp; 1000 youths - Disciplined. with education component - Hourly compensation for participants REQUIRE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING ~UVENILES . More 16-year olds are arrested than any other age group . Part:nts must expect to be involved CIlAg'GE DATA PRIVACY LAWS THAT NOW PROHIBIT SCHOOLS AND LAW ENFORCEME,~F FROM SHARING DATA VITAL TO THE SAFETY OF OTHERS pUNISHMENT.. UBLIC SAF ENSURE SWIFT, CONSISTENT AND APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC THREE TIMES AND OUT - Mandatory minimum of 15 years incarceration for those who commit three felony crimes against a person - 6% of offenders commit 70% of all crime PUT VICTIMS FIRST - Consistent and swift consequences for all offenders - Re-direct more funding to Victims ($10 million annually) - Support recommendations from Minnesota Crime Victim Advisory Council: · increase in witness and juror compensation · greater protection for witnesses - prohibit employer retaliation · victims of juvenile crime should have same protections as victims of adult crime - allow victims and supportive person to be present at juvenile sentencing · prohibit removal of restitution obligation in civil lawsuits · reorganize the state office of Crime Victims Ombudsman TREAT JUVENILES LIKE ADULTS - Easier to certify a juvenile as an adult if used a weapon during a crime - Make juvenile fadlity in Red Wing secure ..CORRECTIONS Creative sentencing options Enhance offender accountability including victim and community restitution FLEXIBLE JUDICIAL SYSTEM - Mandatory sentences for felons in possession of a weapon - Tougher sentences for offenders who threaten use of a weapon during the commission of a crime - Weekend and evening court hours - Specialized courts to deal with specific crimes OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ARNE H. CARLSON GOVERNOR JOANELL M. DYR$' 9 LT. GOVERN~N FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 14, 1993 CONTACT: Cyndy Brucato 296-0017 (O) 924-0512 (H) GOVERNOR CARLSON OUTLINES ANTI-CRIME INITIATIVES Targets families, at-risk youth and repeat violent offenders Governor Arne H. Carlson, joined by Independent-Republican legislators, today highlighted the major elements of his 1994 anti-crime strategy in a speech to the Thomas-Dale Block Club in St. Paul. Key components of the plan include establishing a pilot youth service summer camp for juveniles and a proposal to require those convicted of a third violent crime to serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. q"hroughout our violent crime conference last week, I repeatedly heard that Minnesota must maintain a strong prevention agenda and reaffirm our values," Governor Carlson said. "This means we will continue Our major emphasis on children, and we will not be afraid to define and embrace those values that yield strong families and responsible communities. "At the same time, we must realistically deal with the here and the now," he said. '"Today 16-year-olds are arrested more than any other age group - _thi.~ is a frightening signal that says violence is likely to escalate in the short-term unless we take action to stop it." · Governor Carlson and Republican legislators propose the creation of highly disciplined summer service ~:amps for young people who are identified as "at-risk" by courts and social service workers. Juveniles would engage in educational activities and rigorous community service work for which they would receive modest compensation. C. amps would give juvenile court judges an alternative sentencing option for young people who require., close supervision yet demonstrate a willingness to improve. The Governor pledged to commit more state dollars to fund local police efforts to establish block clubs and expand community policing. "Organizations like block clubs bring neighbors together with neighbors and enable them to invest in their communities and truly make a difference." Governor Carlson also proposed a law which would guarantee that those convicted of a three crimes against persons a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years. Known as a ~}'~ 4.~ -more- Cyndy Brucato Deputy Chief of Staff Director of Communications 130 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 "three-time loser" provision, the law would go further to incapacitate the six percent of the people who, according to the U.S. Bug~eau of Justice Statistics, commit roughly 70 percent of the crimes. ~ 'Despite 0fir. intense prevention efforts, some individuals will ultimately pose a serious threat to society.. And when they are apprehended, Minnesotans have the right to know that these dangerous repeat offenders will be off the streets for a long period of time,' Governor Carlson said. In addition, the Governor emphasized the need for parenting education for teens and new parents, welfare reform, and violence prevention in schools. He also proposed requiring parents to accompany the'ir children in court, and making it easier to certify as as adults those juveniles who commit crimes with weapons. "I applaud Governor Carlson for coming forth with a strong crime package in' conjunction with the Republicans in the house and senate,' House Minority Leader Steve Sviggum said. 'We intend to work together to pass this legislation and make our streets, neighborhoods and schools safer." Senator Patrick McGowan, IR-Maple Grove, who also works as a detective with the Minneapolis Police Department, said, '"Fhis proposal is a balanced approach. It addresses the long-term solution of prevention and education coupled with public protection and offender accountability.' Governor Carlson said Minnesota's best hope in stopping violence lies in its willingness to reaffirm core values such as responsibility, trust, respect and diversity. "We must not be afraid to talk about Minnesota values and the need to build strong families,' he said. "If each one of us took responsibility for our share of the problem, we could go a long way to stop violence at the core." RECEIVED HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 4'17 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540 t- '1309 Phone ~12j348-6846 FAs, {6 '! 2) 348-8532 CERTIFIED MAIL January 18, 1994 Public Hearing on February 10, 1994, 11:00 a.m. Hennepin County Board Room, A-2400 Government Center Proposed amendments to Hennepin County Ordinance Thirteen, Source Separation and Recycling To All Interested Parties: A public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 10, 1994, at 11:00 a.m., in the Hennepin County Board Room for the purpose of establishing a fee of $100 per load, to be effective May 1, 1994, if the mixed municipal solid waste load disposed of by commercial generators contains more than one-third, by volume, of corrugated cardboard, wood pallets, glass, aluminum, and high grade paper. Ordinance 13, adopted October 24, 1986, which regulates the separation of recyclable materials from mixed municipal solid waste was amended and a public hearing was held on December lc regarding amended Ordinance 13. As a result of the December 14 public hearing, staff reviewe,: the amended ordinance and recommended some changes. Enclosed is an excerpt, Sections I am: II, from amended Ordinance 13 with changes highlighted. For your information, approval ~ amended Ordinance 13 will be in Committee on February 10, 1994. Written comments on the proposed fee and/or amended Ordinance 13 would be welcome ant will be entered into the hearing record. Testimony will also be taken on February 10. Please to contact Jim Craig at 348-6848 for questions regarding the proposed fee, or Carl Michaud at 348-3054 for questions regarding amended Ordinance 13. Sincerely, /~et Leic~°'~k- ~ v Division Manager attachment HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer The following are Sections I and H of amended Ordinance 13 with changes highlighted: SECTION I DEFINITIONS The following words and phrases, when used in this ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Subsection 1 'Aluminum Recyelables' means all disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum and commonly used for soda, beer or other beverages. Subsection 2 "Can Recyclables" means all disposable containers fabricated primarily out of metal or tin. Subsection 3 'Cities' means statutory and home rule charter cities and towns authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364. Subsection 4 'Collection' means the removal of recyclables from the place at which they are generated and includes all activities up to the time the waste is delivered to a waste facility. Subsection 5 'Collector(s)' means any person(s) who owns, operates or leases vehicles for the purposes of collection and tra~. sportation of any type of mixed municipal solid waste, and/or recyclables. Subsection 6 'Commercial Waste' means waste generated by stores, offices, businesses, restaurants, warehouses, and other non-manufacturing activities, and non-process wastes such as office and packing wastes generated at industrial facilities. Subsection 7 'Corrugated Cardboard' means any clean, ~5~ sorted, stiff, moderately-thick paperboard with internal alternating ridges and grooves commonly used to ship merchandise to stores, offices, businesses, restaurants, warehouses and other non-manufacturing activities. Subsection 8 'County Board' means the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and their authorized representatives. Subsection 9 'Department" means the Hennepin County Department of Public Works, Division of Environmental Management. Subsection 10 'Generation' means the act or process of producing waste. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 11.) Subsection 11 'Generator' means any person who generates waste. (as defined in lVfmn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 12.) Subsection 12 'Glass Recyclables' means jars, bottles and containers, which are transparent or translucent and primarily used for packaging and bottling of various matter. Subsection 13 'Hauler' is a person engaged in the business of collecting, transporting, or disposing of recyclable materials, or a serf-hauler who disposes of recyclable materials in excess of five (5) tons per month. Subsection 14 "High Grade Paper' means clean, dry, ~, groundwood free, sorted, primarily white ledgers, envelopes, computer and copy paper .from offices. Subsection 15 'Metropolitan Council' means the council established in lViinn. Stat. Chapter 473. Subsection 16 "Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" means garbage, refuse, and other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates for collection, but does not include auto hulks, street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, used oil, and other materials, collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 21.) Subsection 17 'Municipality' means any incorporated city within the boundaries of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subsection 18 'Paper Recyclables' means paper of the type commonly referred to as newsprint. Expressly excluded, however, are all magazines or similar periodicals. Subsection 19 "Person' means any human being, any municipality or other governmental or political subdivision or other public agency, any public or private corporation, any partnership, firm, association or other organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent or other legal representative of any of the foregoing, or any other legal entity, but does not include the pollution control agency. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 116.06, subd. 17.) Subsection 20 'Political Subdivision" means any municipal corporation, governmental subdivision of the state, local government unit, special district, or local or regional board, commission or authority authorized by law to plan or provide for waste management. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 24.) Subsection 21 'Recyclable Materials" means materials that are separated from mixed municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling including paper, glass, plastics, metals, automobile oil and batteries. Refuse-derived fuel or other material that is destroyed by incineration is not a recyclable material. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 25a.) Subsection 22 'Recycling' means, in addition to the meaning given in MTum. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 25b, yard waste, composting and recycling that occurs through mechanical or hand separation of materials that are then delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that precludes fu~er use. Subsection 23 "Recycling Container" means any receptacle that is used to collect recyclable materials and meets the spechticati0~$ adopted by the County Board. Subsection 24 'Recycling Facility' means a facility at which materials are prepared for reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of the materials in a manner that precludes further use. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 25c.) " Subsection 25 ~$olid Waste~ means garbage, refuse, sludge from a water supply treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and sludges, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial, commercial,, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include hazardous waste; animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders, rock; sewage sludge, solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents or discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (as defined in Minn. Stat. 116.06, subd. 22.) Subsection 26 *Source-Separation* means the separation of recyclable materials from mixed municipal solid waste at the source of generation. Subsection 27 "Waste Tire~ means a tire that is no longer suitable for its original intended purpose because of wear, damage or defect. (as defined by Minn. Stat. 115A.90, subd. 11.) Subsection 28 'Wood Pallets* means any portable wood platform ~!~:..:~.:...:~.~ on which goods are placed for storage or transportation. SECTION Il GENERAL PROVISIONS Subsection 1 It shall be the responsibility of each municipality to adopt an ordinance or ordinances relating to the separation of recyclables within the boundaries of the municipality, the purpose of said ordinance being to reduce the amount of solid waste generated within the municipality by at least 16% during the calendar year 1990 which is an amount established by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the Hennepin County Board as set forth in Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan. Subsection 2 The implementation and enforcement of said ordinance shall be the responsibility of each respective municipality. If a municipality should fail to implement a program by January 1, 1988, or implement a program which fails to meet the 16% waste reduction percentage during calendar year 1990, as set forth in Subsection 1, the provisions appearing in Section V of this Ordinance shall come into effect. This Ordinance shall not prohibit a municipality or municipalities from entering into agreements relating to any facet of source separation of recyclables. Subsection 3 A commercial waste generator shall not place the following materials for disposal in mixed municipal solid waste: corrugated cazdboard wood pallets glass recyclabl~ aluminum recyclables high grade paper SECTION IH THROUGH VIII WERE NOT CHANGF..D IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY, THUS THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED. FOR A COPY OF THE WHOLE AMI::NDED ORDINANCE 13, PLEASE CONTACT lANE HEATON AT 348-4656. TOA~ TMTm~e ,I. Mm~'mnn' ' January 10, 1994 Mayor Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 Dear Mayor Johnson: It is our pleasure to inform you that Edward Shulde has suc~ssful!y completed the first section of the Toastmasters International Communication and Leadership Program. The Communication and Leadership Program is a training program designed to help participants improve their speaking and leadership skills in a club environment. To finish the program, participants must complete a series of rigorous assignments which provide instruction and practice in the basic techniques of public speaking. Participants also learn to offer constructive evaluation of others' efforts, and they have the opportunity to serve as club leaders. Since the program is self-paced, those completing the program show a high degree of self-motivation and a strong interest in self-improvement. The achievement of Toastmaster Shukle will benefit you as an employer. Participation in the Toastmasters program involves working and communicating with people from a wide variety of professions and vocations. Through such interaction, participants gain a valuable awareness of the business and professional community in which they live and work. They increase their self-confidence and understanding of others, and they become better listeners, thinkers and leaders. These skills help them become more effective in their work environment. We know you will be pleased to leani of this recognition and to make note of this important development in the life of Toastmaster Shukle. SiiiL'~rely, ~, Jo COMMUNICATION AND LEADIRIHIP TJM:ne Enclosure i '1) NOV t 6 1,.q93 SENTENCING TO SERVICE Dept. o! Corrections--Dept. o[ Natural Resources 450 North Syndicate Street. "300 St. Paul. MN 55104 612 / 642-0337 FAX-612/642-0223 November 15, 1993 Dear City Administrator, Sentencing to Service (STS) is a program operated by the Minnesota Department of Corrections which offers a sentencing alternative to the courts in dealing with Iow risk, non-dangerous offenders. Presently, approximately 70 Minnesota Counties contract with the State to provide the STS service. The program begins with the hiring of a trained crewleader who is assigned a 1 5 passenger van, and various small equipment and hand tools such as chainsaws, shovels, rakes, hoes, etc. The crewleader is assigned to a particular county's program and performs as a working supervisor, spending the day in direct supervision of the STS crew. The crew consists of approximately 4-8 offenders who work an eight hour day. STS offers its "crews" services to public and non-profit agencies throughout the contracting county. Projects worked are projects that would not get done otherwise, whether it be from shortage of staff, financial, or work that simply is not high enough on a priority list. The program is very cautious not to interrupt the operation of local labor operations. Hennepin County presently has STS service seven days per week, with crewleaders receiving their crewmembers from the County's Workhouse in Plymouth. As the county has contracted with the State, there is no charge to agencies using the STS crew. With the approaching winter weather, the crews are particularly interested in finding indoor projects. Around the state crews regularly work at washing and waxing fire trucks, squad vehicles, ambulances, etc. We also do a lot of painting, picnic table construction and refurbishing, recycling, etc. Outdoor projects include extensive trail development and maintenance, landscaping, community cleanup and ma0y, many other labor intensive projects. I'd welcome an opportunity to meet with you and your staff to further explain the STS program, and answer your questions. Please contact me at your convenience to schedule a time to learn more about the STS program in Hennepin County. Sincerely, [lob Hunter, Supervisor STS Region VI Jim Rasmussen Amy Foley CC: F o :E-/: E HENNEPIN IL ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 January 24, 1994 RECEIVED "'~ 2 4 lgg( Edward J. Shukle, Jr. Mound City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Re: Letter From Vincent D. Forystek (PID 19-117-23-33-0061, 3137 Inverness Lane) Mr. Forystek purchased his neighbor's home for $50,000 on September 14, 1993. He left a message for me at 4:40 p.m. that same day indicating he wanted to file an abatement for the January 2, 1993, Estimated Market Value of $63,000 for taxes payable in 1994. several 1993, Prior to inspecting the property on September 27, matters were clarified with Mr. Forystek. 1. Due to the sale date, we would review the January 2, 1994, assessment for taxes payable in 1995. 2. The property in question was not exposed on the open market making the transaction somewhat suspect. 3. If a review of the property and his purchase agreement indicated a reduction was warranted, I would send him an abatement for the January 2, 1993, assessment for taxes payable in 1994. Bill Davy's form appraisal for the 1994 assessment came in at $58,000. Because of Mr. Forystek's $50,000 purchase price, I asked Bill to pull a few comparable sale properties to see if they supported the form appraisal conclusion. The sales did support an adjustment to $58,000 on Mr. Forystek's property. I then asked Bill to call Mr. Forystek with the results. Bill went over all of the information we had considered with Mr. Forystek. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Edward J. Shukle, Jr. January 24, 1994 Page 2 At first Mr. Forystek wanted to negotiate something between $50,000 and $58,000. When Bill told him we could not do that, Mr. Forystek began demanding a reduction to $50,000, and said he wanted a copy of Bill's appraisal. Bill offered to send him a copy of his form appraisal but Mr. Forystek rejected that saying he wanted an appraisal with comparables. Bill explained that we did not have that type of appraisal available on his property and would not have one until an abatement appraisal or court appraisal had been completed. Mr. Forystek was then referred to me. I talked with him for a considerable length of time explaining the assessing process and his rights of appeal. Mr. Forystek has two methods of appeal open to him regarding the 1993 Estimated Market Value for taxes payable in 1994. They are: 1. File a Tax Court petition by May 15, 1994. 2. File an abatement by December 31, 1994. As for the lots mentioned in Mr. Forystek's last paragraph, I have put them on a list of items to be reviewed prior to the May 10th Local Board of Review. Yours truly, Principal Appraiser KMR: jb cc: Vincent Forystek 3131 Inverness Lane, Mound, MN 55364 ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRY RESOURCES, INC. 7912 73rd Ave. N. Brooklyn P~rk, MN 55428 (612) 493-2255 RECEIVED Z I denu~ry20,1994 Mound City Council Hound Minreaota 55364 Ladies and 8entleman, Please find enclosed 8 copy of a letter eent to Kelth Ronecfeldt, The Principal Appri~oc foe the Cltyoft'lound. i undwstmdthattheremaybepmeeucesWk~~~l~up' Howevw, $50,000.00 dollws is what I paid foc the pmpwty and the Arms l.~lllllb. ~, detwmlned It's valu~ I also own othe~ partials d I~opa'tY that I feel ere over valued. I sm getting ve~ little mope-etlon fr~m the Hmmpin County ^~ offtce. It is reasonable to want s ~vernment body to oonduct Itself tn s trust ._m~__ Ilks manner end discloee facts end flour'ee fr~m which they make there decisions. Please feel free to call me should you need my more Information in this matter or' would like to help megst tt squwed away. Office phone above, Hobile 860-2476, I-kmm phofle 472-8756. Thank you for youP ttma and considaratton. Vinoent D. Foryat~ ~nuar¥ 20, 1994 ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRY RESOURCES, INC. 7912 73rd Ave. bi. llrooklyn Park, MN 55428 (612) 493-2255 % Keith Renorfeldt Principal Appreisor (City of Mound) Hennepin County ~s Office ^-2103 Oovernment Center 300 ,South 6th Street Minneapolis Minnesota 55487 re: Market value for home at 3137 Inverness Lane and two adjacent parcels. Kelth, This letter ts to serve as documentation for my dealings with your department relating to the tax value of the home at 3137 Inverness Lane. I, also have a problem wlth the manner in which your department has conducted it's business, relating to this matter. The home was purchased by me on September 14th 1993. The purchase price of the home was $50,000.00 dollars. The day of the purchase I contacted Bill Dave,,/of your department and requested a meeting to have him view the house and reduce the market value as listed on the tax statement. Bill Devey cancelled our first appointment September 20th and was not able to m-schedule and actually mint with me until ,September 27th 1993. On October 7th 1993 Bill Davey informed me that he would not consider reducing tax value of the home any lower than $58,000.00 dollars. I remind you that the home was purchased during 1993, and there is e Certificate of real Estate Yalue, on file for $50,000.00 (bi]ar& He has Informed me tl~t he would not even show any reduction In market value, untll the 1994 payable 1995 year. Bill Bavey informed ma that he had done his own appraise1. I asked him to send ma a copy of, and or show me his eppr'aisel. He refused to do so end has informed me that he deesn't have to provide that information to me. In the interim I have paid to have my own appraisal done by a professional licensed appraise-. I c~lledyou during the first week of December and informed you of the appraleel. I ~ln asked you for e ropy of the appraisal done by your department. I also offered to exchange appraisals. ,~g~ln you ~ Informed me that you do not h~,e to provide me this Information, page ! of 2 4! 'ii In the private sector it would make good sense to meet and compare notes (appraisals) and hopefully come to a reasonable solution before spending more taxpayers money by going to court with the matter. As a taxpayer I em especially frustrated with the posture you are showing. The home was purchased well before the end of 1993 and any change to it's market value should be made for the 1993/payable 1994 tax year. Additionally, at this time, this letter is to serve as a formal request to consider lowering the values of two other lots I own in the area. These lots have P.I.O. numbers ! 9-117-25-;~$-0070 end 19-1 ! 7-25-:~3-0064. Both Iota are lend locked and have no city street running In front of them. The cost to bring the street in would be approximately $1S,O00.O0 per lot. The cost of the street Improvement would be equivalent to the maximum value of the property inclusive of the street improvement. At this time ! feel that the maximum market value of the two parcels is no greater than $2,500.00 dollars. Please respond. Slncel'ely, Vincent D. Forystek c.c. Mound city council RECEIVED2 4 lgg LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, January 26, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Minnetonka Yacht Club, Deephaven, Carsons Bay, new multiple dock license application for transferring mooring buoys to dock slips and for reconfiguration of the docks 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL INSTALLATION OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone 1. LMCD's Quarterly Mayors' Meeting, 1/28/94 2. Save the Lake Recognition Banquet, 2/17/94 ADING OF MINUTES - 12/1/93 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 1/8/94 meeting B. Stead Variance, 21600 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South; recommending approval of the draft Findings & Order with review of the communication from the neighbors for reconsideration of a one year review period on the variance C. Revier variance, 2691 Ethel Ave, Orono, Carmans Bay; recommending approval of the draft Findings and Order, taking into consideration Runkle letter of 1/5/94 * D. Cochrane's Marina, New Multiple Dock License application, 21900 Mtka Blvd., Greenwood, Excelsior Bay; recommending approval of changes per new site plan 11/12/93, and allowing storage of a charter boat at transient slip ~11 * E. Excel Marina, New Multiple Dock License application, 141 Mtka Blvd., Excelsior, St. Albans Bay; recommending approval of minor changes proposed, without rental fishing boats LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 1/26/94, Page 2 * F. Foxhill Homeowners Assoc., New Multiple Dock License application, 1801 Shoreline Drive, Orono, Smiths Bay; recommending approval of new site plan dated 12/1/93 * G. Methodist Lakeside Assembly, New Multiple Dock License application, 17700 Front St., Woodland, Wayzata Bay; recommending approval of changes per new site plan dated 11/29/93 * H. Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm; recommending approval of correction to the site plan changing two slip widths from 8' to 10' per previous site plan * I. Schmitt Marina, 701 Minnetonka Blvd., Excelsior, Excelsior Bay; recommending approval of change in site plan, waiving the requirement for fencing on the south side provided "no parking" signs are installed, and subject to an as built survey Ordinance Relating to Storage of Unrestricted Watercraft amending Section 1.02; Section 2.05; Section 2.045; and Section 2.03; recommending approval of second reading as amended by board Envelope Concept for multiple docks; recommending formation of a sub-committee consisting of Board members and other public members to address feasibility (see Administrative Committee minutes for recommendation) L. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 1/10/94 meeting Lakeshore Lighting subcommittee; recommending a public hearing be held (prior to 2/23/94 Board meeting) Liquor License fees; recommending charging $1,000 for liquor license fee and $200 each for the wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses per draft resolution attached 1994 Save the Lake Recognition Banquet; recommendation for Special Deputy Award recipient * E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report F. Additional business $. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol * A. Approval of minutes, 1/10/94 meeting B. Progress on the 1992 Task Force Study Report C. Set full Task Force meeting date on Wed., February 9, 7:00 PM 4. ENVIRONMENT ~ A. Environment Committee, Chair Rascop LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 1/26/94, Page 3 B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Approval of minutes, 1/21/~94 meeting 2) Committee report per minutes 5. ~DMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone * A. Approval of minutes, 12/1/93 meeting B. Approval of minutes, 1/12/94 meeting C. Save the Lake Advisory committee; recommending that a committee be formed to include board members, former board members and citizens for advice on fund raising activities and expenditures for the "Save the Lake" fund. D. 1994 Budget adjustment; recommending an adjustment in the Boat Density Study expenses be made to offset the liquor license revenue reduction due to fee changes proposed by the Lake Use committee FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. December Year-end Close Financial Statement and Balance Sheet B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout) ECUTIYE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Staff compensation report - annual adjustments NEW BUSINESS * A. Designation of the Laker as an additional official Newspaper for 1994 due to reduced circulation of the Sun Sailor B. RFP for 1994 Boat Density Study C. Consider cost share - Coffee Cove public fishing pier ADJOURNMENT 1121194 RECEIVED 2 4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, December I, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Vice Chair Penn ROLL CALL Members Present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; David Cochran, Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Duane Markus, Wayzata as noted; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: Wm. Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; George C. Owen, Victoria; Orono, no appointed Board member. OATH OF OFFICE - INSTALLATION OF SECRETARY LeFevere administered the Oath of Office to Douglas Babcock, Secretary. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements from the Chair. READING OF MINUTES Reese moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the minutes of the 10/27/93 meeting with the following corrections: Page 8 2nd Paragraph to read: Penn said an investigation to modify an LMCD harvester to pull EWM could not be done without an expenditure of about $10,000. The cost effectiveness of the pulling alternative for LMCD's operation is not supported by a comparison of cost alternatives initially prepared by Reese. The Task Force will continue to pursue a private proposal for an EWM pulling test. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attend- ance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Cochran moved, Foster seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended by removing Item IA. Items so approved are indicated by a "*". Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1, WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes. Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to approve the minutes of the 11/20/93 meeting noting Runkle's request for the following change: - continued LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1~ 1993 Page 4~ 2nd paragraph: Runkle submitted a letter dated 11/18/93 to supplement his letter of August 12, 1993. He also stated that the LMCD staff recommended to him that there not be a dock in this area as a result of his letter of May 18, 1992. (Staff does not agree with Runkle's interpretation of the staff statement.) Foster said it was his understanding that the Stead variance had been recommended for approval rather than the "concept" and the neighbors could, prior to 1/1/95, ask for a review. He said currently the Steads have their boat at the public marina in Greenwood. If the variance is not granted they would have diffi- culty getting back on the city dock~ due to a waiting list. Foster asked to amend the minutes so the motion states that there be approval of the variance with no sunset provision and the deletion of the 1/1/95 date. 6rathwol said he understood the variance was granted,subject to a review of the dock use area after one year. LeFevere said there should be no change in the minutes as they reflect the action taken. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Babcock and Foster agreed to amend the motion for approval of the minutes so that the motion recommend- ing approval of a variance for Stead, 21600 Fairview Street, Oreenwood~ Lower Lake South is to read: "The variance as presented at the Public Hearing is to be granted providing the District has not received a written request from an adjoining neighbor for review, before 1/1/95, with a statement demonstrating a hardship. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously B. Stead Variance, 21600 Fairview Street, Oreenwood~ Lower Lake South MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve a variance for Gale and Seannie Stead, 21600 Fairview Street, Greenwood, as presented at the Public Hearing providing the District has not received a written request from an adjoining neighbor for review, before 1/1/95, with a statement demonstrating a hardship. The attorney is to prepare the Findings and Order. Penn expressed concern about setting a precedent in granting a variance but allowing anyone to object. Babcock said the intent is to approve the variance and allow a year for review without a new application. Markus arrived. LeFevere said this allows the neighbor to request reconsid- eration , without applying for their own variance. The neighbor can re-open the application without a new application. Penn said he feels that puts the Steads at the mercy of their neighbors. He believes the variance should just be grant- ed. MOTION TO AMEND: Cochran moved, Babcock seconded, to amend the motion by deleting the time frame for review. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 C. Revier Variance, 2691 Ethel Avenue, Orono, Carmans Bay The committee recommended approval of an adjusted dock use area per the 10/5/93 site plan, with conditions per 11/20/93 com- mittee minutes. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the LMCD staff recommendation described as follows: The extended north side site line of Revier's property is to be adjusted 25 degrees to the north on the Runkle side and the extended side site lines of Revier's and Amundson's properties to be adjusted 25 degrees to the south on Amundson's and Kauffmann's side. Revier and Amund- son are to share a common dock for storage of no more than two boats, with a beam limit of 8.5' The dock length is limited to 40'. The 5' side setbacks must be maintained with no canopies allowed. DISCUSSION: David Sellergren, attorney representing the Runkles, said the Runkles are opposed to the variance because: l) There is no showing that what worked in 1993 or was suggested by the mediator does not work. 2) The record does not show any practi- cal difficulties or unnecessary hardship in complying with the regulations. 3) Revier (the applicant), Amundson and Kauffmann all own land in R.L.S. 115. The Revier, Amundson and Kauffmann deeds state Revier is allowed use of the 15' owned by Amundson for a dock. That has been the situation since 1956. The appli- cant states limiting his use to the 15' is a hardship. Revier was aware, when he purchased the property, of the limitations. Amundson and Revier used a dock in 1993 without a variance. Photos show them anchored in the right places and not over Run- kle's extended lot line. Runkle has no objection to them using it that way again. 4) At the Board's direction and after dis- cussion with LeFevere, the parties went through mediation result- ing in a plan, suggested by the mediator, which requires no adjustment of the lines, as recommended by staff. It did require the Runkles to accept a zero setback along their south property line. There is no evidence that would not work. Kauffmann and Amundson did not complete participation in the mediation process. Sellergren said there appear to be two solutions that work. If there are two plans that work, there cannot be a hard- ship. The committee recommendation is for a 40' straight dock, 2 boats with a maximum beam of 8-1/2' and no canopy. Those condi- tions are fine. The problem is with the 25 degree variance which results in the extension of the dock approximately 20' over the extended lot line of the Runkles. It affects the view from their home and crosses their extended property line. It affects their property value. Sellergren said the burden is on the applicant, Revier, to show a practical difficulty. It appears neither he, Kauffmann nor Amundson will agree to the 1993 solution or the mediator's solution. There is no hardship because he knew what he was buying. It is a self-created hardship. He made arrangements to use the 15' for a dock. Therefore he cannot say he has to have a dock in another location. In 1993 the dock worked as it paral- leled the extended lot line of the Runkles. Sellergren believes - CONTINUED LNCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 inconvenience is the hardship. If that is the case the inconven- ience among Revier, Amundson and Kauffmann should be decided among themselves and not through an LMCD variance. Sellergren believes Revier would be maximizing his property value at the expense of the Runkles. To grant the variance would reward the others who refused to participate in the mediation process. Grathwol asked if the Runkles' objection would hold true if the dock does not go over their extended property line. Runkle said he would like to see the dock location defined and drawn out. Markus asked what would happen if Kauffmann moved his dock north, forcing Revier and Amundson into shallow water. Seller- gren said Kauffmann has information on his deed that there is a right to a dock on the 15' and he could not obstruct that right. Babcock said Kauffmann is not willing to give up more of his dock use area so there is no encroachment on the Runkles. Amundson said he had a hardship with the dock location in 1993. He had to put his 26' boat at a commercial marina. He has had a dock extending straight out from his property for 30 years, as he was a partner with the previous owner of the Revier proper- ty. Foster said he is troubled about granting a variance when people will not go to mediation. In this case there was a staff recommendation that was agreeable to Revier and Amundson but not Runkle. Foster does not believe there should be staff recommen- dation in the future as then there is no reason to go to media- tion. It is Foster's belief that the variance should be denied because they did not mediate. Cochran said he does not believe this is any different from other solutions from staff which have been approved. Bloom said, because of the information in the Amundson, Revier and Kauffmann legal descriptions, it should be known to Kauffmann that Revier and Amundson would share a dock use area. He does not believe the dock should go to the north on the Runkle property. Reese said he does not believe a mediator can understand these complex situations without the background of the District. He believes the staff has' made a fair and unbiased solution. Slocum suggested thrusting the dock more to the Amundson side. Babcock said this is a combined dock use area. The Revi- er/Amundson lot line is immaterial. The staff proposal adjusted the dock use area, leaving the placement of the dock up to Revier and Amundson. Babcock asked LeFevere to comment on the District position in the past in extending lot lines from the 929.4' shoreline and taking into consideration lot lines platted below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). LeFevere said the Ordinary Low Water Level (OLWL) on Lake Minnetonka has never been determined. In the past, during low water, whole bays were exposed. The Dis- trict cannot take into account where those plat lines are locat- ed. Until there is an adjudication, and that is for the courts to decide, the District should extend the lines from the OHWL according to the LMCD Code. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 Sellergren said the Runkles are not suggesting addressing the question of who owns what below 929.4'. He said Revier, Amundson and Kauffmann have always contemplated that there would be a dock in the 15' owned by Amundson. The staff report puts the dock somewhere else. He said the dock should be in the 15' or the variance denied. LeFevere, commenting on the subject of mediation, said mediation has the potential to help in getting a better solu- tion. It is not a good idea to force people into mediation. It has to be undertaken voluntarily and the resolution agreed to by both parties. Mediation is not the same as arbitration. He said it is counter-productive for the district and a waste of the mediator's time to force people into mediation. He added that it was said the mediator suggested a dock plan. Mediation is a private matter. The mediator has no business proposing a dock plan. The mediator is not to make recommendations. Amundson said he called the mediation service and said he would come to the second session. They never called back with a date. LeFevere added that the 1993 plan and the mediator's solu- ~!ion both require a variance. The mediator's solution shows the Revier boat parked next to the Runkle lot line. Runkle would have to agree to a zero setback. Also the Kauffmann extended lot line runs through the whole dock plan. Foster asked if Kauffmann has used the 15' Thibault ex- plained that only Revier and Amundson have the right to use the 15'. The notation on the Kauffmann deed is for information only. Grathwol said he is disturbed that the Board is taking a neighborhood that was getting along fine for 35 years. Now the Board is saying Amundson and Revier are to have a combined dock use area. Grathwol then made a motion which he and seconder agreed to separate into two parts. MOTION TO AMEND: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to amend the motion by adding a condition that the Board is not encouraging the applicant to extend the dock over the Runkles' extended property line. DISCUSSION: LeFevere said the staff recommendation would move Revier's north extended lot line 25 degrees to the north. That would still give Amundson a 15' wide corridor. There would be a more rectangular dock use area for Revier. If they do not com- bine Amundson does not have the right to use the Revier property. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carried. Grathwol, Foster, Bloom, Markus, Cochran and Babcock voted aye. Rascop, Slocum, Reese, Carlson and Penn voted nay. NOTION TO AMEND: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, that a condi- tion of the Order is to require Amundson and Revier to record these actions on their deeds. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carried unanimously. NOTION AS AMENDED: The original motion, as amended, is to have staff and the attorney prepare the Findings and Order as direct- ed. - continued 5 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December lv 1993 DISCUSSION: Carlson expressed concern that the variance criteria in the Code have not been addressed He would like more discus- sion of the criteria before voting on the Findings and Order. In response to a question from Slocum about water depths it was reported there is just about 4' of water depth at the apex of the dock use area. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried, Foster and Bloom voted nay. D. Gideons Point HOA Dock Length Variance, 6ideons Bay, Tonka Bay MOTION: Penn moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the Findings and Order granting a dock length variance to the Gideons's Point Homeowners Association with the following minor changes: 1) Page 2, 3rd full paragraph add "from 929.4' NGVD'. 2) Page 6, 2nd paragraph, last sentence - change "concentrating docks" to "grouping docks". Page 7 - Condition 3, last sentence, the color of the canopies to be the same "solid dark" color. VOTE: Motion carried, Markus, Rascop, Babcock and Bloom voting nay. E. Draft ordinance Relating to Storage of Unrestricted Watercraft The Board received a draft ordinance Relating to Storage of Watercraft amending Section 1.02; Section 2.05; Section 2.045; and Section 2.03; committee recommending first reading as amend- ed. MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the first reading of the ordinance as amended by the committee. Staff submitted a memo, dated 12/1/93, asking if the Board intends to include the "uncounted'* unrestricted watercraft pro- vided for under subd. 11 in the WSU calculations for fee purposes or would they be exempted from fees. Babcock said he believes they should be exempt as they provide a public service. There was no further Board comment on the memo. Thibault will prepare a revised Resolution covering the exempt Watercraft Storage Units for the second reading. Penn said he wants the Board to understand that if it changes from 1 watercraft per 25' of shoreline (1:25) to 1:15' it will be allowing 458 additional boats to be stored on the 12 properties identified in the 11/24/93 chart detailing multiple docks presently storing unrestricted watercraft. Slocum comment- ed that would be a remote possibility. Babcock said the appli- cant would have to prove public use. Grathwol said the committee recommendation changed Subd. 11, item 3 from 15' of shoreline to 25' of shoreline. While some Board members support this, that creates a problem for the sail- ing school programs at Wayzata Bay and in Deephaven. In talking to people, he finds they support the 1:25' with a provision added to cover the sailing programs at those two locations. He calls that to the committee's attention before the next reading. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 3, 1993 Penn said boats for public rental should be allocated at 1:25' and boats for educational purposes should be allowed up to 1:15'. Babcock supported the 1:15' allowance with an upper limit at any given site. That would limit the growth at the large frontage locations. Cochran questioned how that upper limit would be reached. Carlson said he would be uncomfortable going back to 1:15' He believes a line has to be drawn some- where on shoreline density. He can see some consideration for the 1:15' for educational uses. Rascop said he also doesn't support 1:15' and would withdraw his second if the motion is amended. MOTION TO AMEND: Slocum moved, Bloom seconded, to amend the motion to allow 1:15' density for unrestricted watercraft under the control of a non-profit educationally oriented institution or a public educational facility, such as the University of Minne- sota. DISCUSSION: Reese suggested expanding the wording to further define educational. Markus wondered how that affects educational institutions that charge for the lessons. LeFevere said the Board needs to answer whether the organization's tax status relates to what public purpose the Board is interested in. It may be decided some sailing school is deserving some extra con- sideration because it is a school, notwithstanding the fact that it is not tax exempt. This does include rental fishing boats, which would be at commercial marinas. The Board has to decide what the standard is. Is the Board talking about providing public access even though people have to pay for it or does it have to be a purely charitable, give away, program free to the public? Markus said there are sailing schools charging $200 to $300 for the lessons. He would want to know if that money is used just for the school or if it goes to other uses of the organiza- tion. He said the additional density for sailing schools will have an affect on the use of the Lake for other activities, such as waterskiing. He doesn't support the 1:15' provision. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carried. Foster, Grathwol, Cochran, Bloom, Reese, Babcock, Penn and Slocum voted aye. Markus, Rascop and Carlson voted nay. Rascop withdrew his second of the main motion. Grathwol seconded the main motion. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried. Foster, Grathwol, Cochran, Bloom, Reese, Babcock, Penn and Slocum voted aye. Markus, Rascop and Carlson voted nay. The Draft Ordinance will be revised for the second reading. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster D. 1) Recommendation to move Lakeshore lighting Subcommit- tee from Water Structures Committee to the Lake Use and Recrea- tion Committee. MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, that the lakeshore lighting issue be addressed by the Lake Use and Recreation Com- mittee. DISCUSSION: Babcock, Chair of the Water Structures Committee, said he has no objection. - - j j,, I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 Markus said he believes it would be a conflict of interest for Foster, as a member of the Wayzata Yacht Club, to vote on any issue involving lighting at the WYC. Foster said he would ab- stain on any voting on the WYC lighting. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. Other Business Foster reported on receipt of a letter from a resident living next to the Carson Bay launch ramp. The complaint is that snowmobiles entering the Lake from the ramp travel within the 150' shorezone. The Lake Use Committee thought there might be other locations on the Lake with a similar problem. The commit- tee would like to have a snow fence or signage put up at the Carson Bay location for a one year trial with an estimated budget of $500. MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to approve installation of signs and possibly snow fence at the Carsons Bay Ramp in Deephaven to delineate the 150' shorezone at an estimated cost not to exceed $500. DISCUSSION: Markus asked how the 150' shorezone restriction can be enforced. He also wondered if a private party could put up a snow fence to protect a private skating rink. Foster said that is something the committee will have to consider. Strommen explained that the Code provides for a 15 mph maximum speed for snowmobiles within the 150' shorezone as they enter and leave the Lake. No travel within 150' of shore is allowed except to and from the point beyond 150', except restricted areas like chan- nels'strommen said there are problems with putting up a snow fence and then removing it in the spring when the ice thaws. He suggested putting up a series of 25" x 30" signs at the 150' mark. This could be done at all appropriate winter access sites. He estimated a cost of $1000 to $1500 for 24 signs and installa- tion. Bloom said they should be reflectorized at 360 degrees. Babcock would want a review of the liability issue. Rascop suggested the snowmobile groups could assist with the installa- tion and public information. Carlson said he would not object to a one year trial at Carsons Bay only with signage on land. MOTION ADDITION: Foster and Cochran amended the motion to in- clude signs at public winter accesses at a top cost of $1500 with a request to the snowmobile groups for assistance. VOTE: Motion carried. 3. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol B. Progress on the 1992 Task Force study Report Grathwol reported drafts of the LMCD Lake Access Task Force study have been prepared. The LMCD Lake Access Committee will review them. The Task Force will meet following this review in January or February. // LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 4. ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Rascop 1) Evaluation of Consultant's Phase Two Progress The committee received the Phase Two Work Plan as submitted by Consultant Dick Osgood, dated for the December 14, 1993 Envi- ronment Committee meeting. Rascop said Osgood and the executive director worked on the Phase Two Work Plan with an emphasis on water quality and data gathering. Babcock said he needs information on how the budgeted money is being spent. The Spring Park council considers this a dupli- cation of work being done by other agencies. The executive director said this is a comprehensive program with considerable information based upon the Management Plan direction. Osgood prepared a detailed outline for the Environ- ment Committee. The Environment Committee consists of of agen- cies having a.responsibility for the Lake such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, MnDNR, Minnesota Health Department and the Hennepin Conservation District. The consultant is working to bring agency efforts together. The agencies would pay for any ~)rogram costs which they would agree upon, not the LMCD. This :;~eets the environment objectives of the Management Plan. Osgood has offered to meet in a small group situation with Board members to answer questions. Babcock said he needs something to take back to Spring Park to justify the consultant's cost. The executive director said $30,000 has been budgeted for 1994 consultant services. Osgood is doing what the District approved in the work plan. Cochran said the message to cities and agencies should be that the Environment Committee is a coordinating function. The city councils have to understand the district is not duplicating any agency's program services. Babcock said he needs the results of Phase One to present to his council. Rascop said Phase one was a survey which determined what persons concerned about the Lake want done and what they do not want done. Reese said the District should be creating a data base of all available Lake environmental data. Babcock suggested peti- tioning the MCWD to create the data base the District needs. Rascop said he would like to see the approach be to cooperate. The executive director was directed to make a further assessment of the consultant's work program, being mindful of the Board's concerns for cost. B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn Penn called to the Board's attention the MnDNR preliminary report on the use of SONAR. The results of the enclosure test in St. Alban's Bay were not conclusive. The MnDNR will not pursue any additional enclosure tests. Full lake treatment will be used in 1994 in Parker's Lake and Lake Zumbra. Consultant Dick Osgood put together a synopsis of the EWM situation in a detailed analysis. It is detailed on Page 2 of EWM Task Force minutes of 11/19/93. LNCD BOARD OF D/RECTORS December I, 1993 Penn reported the Hennepin Conservation District approved a $5,000 grant for a private contractor to see if pulling EWM is more viable than cutting. Thins,would be an independent project. Penn is not recommending that. LMCD is not putting any addition- al money in modifying the harvesters for pulling at this time. penn said weevils continue to be found. The foremost priority is to do the harvesting better. In answer to a question from Markus, the executive director said the District received $60,000 from MnDNR for harvesting operations. The executive director said there will be two fifty acre test sites for Garlon on Lake Minnetonka in 1994. Garlon could replace 2-4.D as the best spot application herbicide. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, chair carlson MOTION: carlson moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the Adminis- trative Committee recommendations regarding cost issues unre- solved with the Fee study Subcommittee, as determined at the 12/1/93 committee meeting, as follows: l) The costs relating to processing code amendments to be charged to multiple dock licensing if they are amendments for multiple dock related issues. 2) The costs for Lake Use boat density studies would be charged at 30% of cost, based on percentage of boats using Lake from multiple docks as determined by boat density study. 3) Cost allocation from litigation and failure of compliance with Code/order/Stipulation requirements to be charged back to the defenders as court orders may allow or wh~re a specific violation has been identified by .~taff. Costs not charged to specific licensees will bt charged to multiple dock licensing in general. 4) Cost allocation of LMCD overhead (admn. support staff, rent, insurance phones, supplies, equipment) in addition to executive director and administrative technician staff time to be charged consistent with time spent by executive director and administrative technician. DISCUSSION: Babcock asked what the fee structure will look like in the future. Carlson said it cannot be based on one year's experience. The multiple dock licensees (participating in the fee study) recommended doing the fee allocation after staff time studies are complete at the end of the year. Fees are agreed upon and set for 1994. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Carlson reported that the Administrative Committee sent the "envelope" concept back to the Water Structures Committee to discuss the pros and cons at its January meeting. Carlson will take the matter of residential slip rental and lighting on the Lake to the next Mayors' meeting. Carlson said the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Associa- tion (LMLOA) has offered to join in a funding drive with the LMCD to benefit the Save the Lake Fund. Babcock said he was not sure the LMLOA understood the controls on the Save the Lake Funds. .lO LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 Penn said the Save the Lake Fund should be kept separate from any special interest groups. Carlson said the District would have to know what the objectives of the LMLOA would be. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. Audit of Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve payment of bills in the amount of $41,393.55, Checks No. 9446 through 9452 (Checks between Sept. and Oct. Board Report) Checks No. 9494 through 9541 and payroll checks 1152 through 1166. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. A. October Statement of Cash Transactions The statement was referred to the executive director for a clarification of an apparent error. C. Status report on city levy payments for 1993 The executive director has talked to administrators of two cities who have waited until the end of the year to pay their obligations. Carlson would like to know if there is something the Dis- trict can do if payments are not made on time. LeFevere said it is important to let them know it is a legal obligation. The Treasurer can establish exactly when payments are due. D. Legal Services 1) Counsel MOTION: Penn moved, Carlson seconded, to approve an in- crease of $3.00 per hour for general civil matters and litiga- tion. The 1994 fee will be $101.00 per hour for general civil matters and $108.00 per hour for litigation. The rates for clerks and paralegals will remain at $65.00 and $60.00 per hour respectively. DISCUSSION: Markus questioned the paralegal fees. Grathwol suggested talking about how to reduce the total fee. One method would be to set a flat fee for the year. The time spent at meetings could be reduced by changing the agenda to allow the attorney to leave early. LeFevere said he will ask direction from the officers and executive director about that. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2) Prosecutor's Fee The executive director reported the prosecuting attorney, Steve Tallen, has asked for a $5.00 per hour increase effective 111194. MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to approve $80.00 per hour for Steve Tallen's services in 1994. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 E. 1993 Audit The executive director has asked Mark Babcock of Babcock, Langbein & Co., for a proposal to do the 1993 audit. Babcock was paid $1040.00 in 1993 for the 1992 audit and proposes $10OO.OO for the 1993 audit. In 1993 there was additional work involved in setting up the computerized system. MOTION: Carlson moved, Penn seconded, to employ Mark Babcock, Babcock, Langbein & Co., to do the 1993 audit for $1,000.00. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen 1) Strommen will have a performance review with Thibault and is preparing for his performance evaluation. 2) There was no cable video taping of the December Board meeting. The private "sponsor" discontinued the arrangement. Strommen asked if the Board would like him to make inquiry about continuing the cable telecast. Carlson said the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission (LMCCC) video tapes council meet- ings for the cities at no fee. Rascop suggested the executive director contact Barbara Brancel, Commission Chair. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee Chair Appointments, Chair Johnstone MOTION: cochran moved, Rascop seconded, to approve Chair John- stone's committee chair appointments for the 1994 year as roi- lows: Water Structures Committee Lake Use and Recreation Committee Administrative Committee Environment Committee Lake Access Committee Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Douglas Babcock Bert Foster William Johnstone Robert Rascop James Grathwol Tom Penn Johnstone asked for a volunteer to serve as chair of the Save the Lake Committee. OTHER1) The executive director distributed committee assignment sheets for the Board members to indicate their preferences. 2) The meeting calendar for 1994 was distributed. A quar- terly Mayors' meeting on Friday, January 28th was added to the January calendar. MOTION: Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, approval of the meeting calendar for 1994 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3) Robert Slocum, Woodland, expressed his farewell to the Board as this is his last meeting. He said the City of Woodland will continue to be one of the best LMCD supporters. David Cochran, Greenwood, also said this is his last meet- ing. (Cooperating with the staggered term plan of the Board.) The Board members expressed appreciation to Slocum and Cochran for their service with a round of applause. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 1, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Penn declared the meeting adjourned at 10 PM William Johnstone, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary RECEIVE0 "N 2 Y, )§g( LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT Action Report: Meeting: Water Structures Committee 7:30 AM., Saturday, January 8, 1994 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Parkl James Grathwol, Excelsior (as noted); Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Ron Kline, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shore- wood; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Babcock at 7:35 AM. 1. Maple Forest Addition New Multiple Dock License Application, Minnetrista, West Upper Lake. The committee received a revised site plan for an 8 slip dock from Dean Johnson, Maple Forest Addition. The City of Minnetrista has asked that the committee table the discussion until the city has had an opportunity to review the application. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to table the Maple Forest Addition new multiple dock license application at the request of the City of Minnetrista. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Stead Variance Application, 21600 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South. The committee received the draft Findings and Order approv- ing variances for Gale and Jeannie Stead. Babcock reported that Morris and Walsh, immediate adjacent neighbors to the Stead property, have asked for a reconsideration of a one year review period of the variances. Babcock said the committee cannot overturn the action of the Board which dropped the suggested one year review. He said the Board can review the communication from Morris and Walsh at the next Board meeting. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of the Findings and Order granting variances to Gale and Jeannie Stead, 21600 Fairview Street, Greenwood, as being consistent with the Board action. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The Board is asked to review the communication from the neighbors asking for reconsideration of a one year review of the variance. 3. Michael Revier Variance Application, 2691 Ethel Avenue, Orono, Carmans Bay. The committee received the draft Findings and Order approv- ing variances for Michael Revier. Dick and Janet Kauffmann, 2696 Ethel Avenue, property owners to the south of the Revier-Admund- son properties, sent a letter dated 1/4/94 expressing agreement WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE January 8, 1994 with the Order. David and LuAnn Runkle, 2684 Casco Point Road, property owners to the north of Revier, submitted a three page critique of the order, dated 1/5/94, concluding that no hardship exists and the variances should be denied. The Runkle communica- tion was referred to Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel. LeFevere could find nothing in the Runkle information to warrant changing the Findings and Order. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of the Findings and Order granting variances to Michael Revier, 2691 Ethel Avenue, Orono. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The communication from the Runkles is to be forwarded to the Board for its review. Grathwol arrived 4. Cochrane's Boatyard New Multiple Dock License application, 21900 Minnetonka Boulevard, Greenwood, Excelsior Bay. Thibault explained cochrane's Boatyard, Inc. (Cochrane's) is ~pdating its site plan to show the docks and slips as they cur- rently exist. There is no change from the slip sizes the Dis- trict has on file. Storage slip #22, which was next to transient slip #11 has been eliminated. The application is to request that slip #11 be used to dock a charter boat owned by the restaurant leasing the cochrane building. Thibault said there will be a reduction of one Boat Storage Unit. Cochrane said he understands that once lost, that BSU cannot be restored (due to the non- conforming, grandfathered density). John Foley, owner of the St. Albans Boathouse restaurant, showed pictures of the 1923 canal boat that is being refurbished for use as a tour boat. Plans are to serve cocktails and appe- tizers. Foley is aware of the standards the boat will have to meet to be licensed as a charter boat and the need for a liquor license. MOTION: Reese moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend a minor change in the Cochrane's Boatyard, Inc. multiple dock license by eliminating slip #22 and allowing storage of a charter boat at transient slip #11, accepting the revised site plan dated 11/12/93.. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Excel Marina New Multiple Dock License Application, 141 Minnetonka Blvd., Excelsior, St. Alban's Bay Excel Marina has withdrawn its application for reconfigura- tion of its entire dock. A new site plan has been submitted for a minor change. Yern Larson, Excel Marina, explained the plan is to replank the dock structure and remove the gas dock. The main walkway decking will be increased to 6'width from 4'. That will be at the expense of the length of the slips. The 1' wide walkways will be changed to 18". They propose to move slip #1 and slip #40 to the area now used for the gas dock. The former #! and #40 locations are proposed to be used for rental fishing boats. 2 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE January 8, 1994 Larson said the fishing boats-would be under 16s with lO hp mo- tors. The addition of the unrestricted size fishing boats would increase the Boat Storage Units. It was pointed out that the Code would not allow the increase because Excel Marina has a grandfathered, non-conforming density. MOTION: Grathwol moved, $ohnstone seconded, to recommend approv- al of the minor changes in the Excel Marina site plan as out- lined, without the rental fishing boats. DISCUSSION: Grathwol explained that the City of Excelsior does not allow land storage of boats. For the City this is a diffi- cult location because it is parallel to Minnetonka Boulevard, a heavily trafficked road. The motion as presented meets the re- quirements of the District and the City of Excelsior. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. City of Excelsior New Multiple Dock License Application. Thibault explained that currently there are two 16' docks on either side of a slide on Lafayette Avenue (Site 3). The propos- al is to eliminate those docks and to add another 40' dock at Hidden Lane (Site 2). That will place two 40' docks on either side of a slide. Babcock raised the question of the setbacks at Hidden Lane. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to table the City of Excelsior application for further information on the Hidden Lane setbacks. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. Foxhill Homeowners Assoc. (Foxhill) New Multiple Dock License Application, 1801 Shoreline Dive, Orono, Smiths Bay. Foxhill has submitted a new site plan with minor changes. Thibault explained Foxhill currently is licensed for 13 slips and is using an 8 slip site plan. The application is to add one slip to the site plan (for 9 total) and show on the site plan that Slip #1 is 32' with a 40' canopy. Foxhill has an agreement with the neighbor to the west to waive the side setback of the con- verging lot lines. The neighboring lot is not developed. Babcock said the license was reviewed in 1992. At that time the Board deemed that any future amendment of the 8 slip site plan would require reconsideration of the entire site plan. Foxhill has a shallow water variance to go beyond 100'. John- stone questioned whether the new slip, #9, has sufficient water depth at 3'. Thibault said the applicant has not mentioned a problem with the water depth. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of a new multiple dock license for Foxhill Homeowners Assoc., per the 12/1/93 site plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE January 8, 1994 8. Methodist Lakeside Assembly New Multiple Dock License appli- cation, 17700 Front Street, Woodland, Wayzata Bay. The applicant proposes a minor change to relocate two slips from the east side of the dock to the west side to meet the east side 30' setback. Babcock noted the change will move boats into the swimming area. Thibault said the swimming area is marked to keep boats out. MOTION: Eascop moved, Eeese seconded, to recommend approval of a minor change in the Methodist Lakeside Assembly multiple dock license according to the 11/29/93 site plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 9. Sandy Beach Place, 3995 North Shore Drive, Orono, West Arm Request of the applicant is to change two slip widths from 8' to i0' per the site plan in effect prior to the current site plan. MOTION: Reese moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend a correc- tion to the Sandy Beach Place 3]$]93 site plan changing two slip .,qidths from 8' to 10' per its previous site plan. '/OTE: Motion carried unanimously. .~. Schmitt Marina, 701Minnetonka Boulevard, Excelsior, Excel- :~ior Bay. The request is to amend the Schmitt Marina site plan dated 2/3/92 changing two slip lengths from 24' to 38' as reconstructed per the original site plan, and requesting that the stipulation for fencing on the south side of the dock be removed, approval subject to an as-built survey being submitted. Thibault explained that Schmitt had an 80' dock where slips 16 and 17 are now located. He reduced the dock length and added slips 17 and 18. The request is to correct the drawing to show the walkway between 16 and 17 is 38' in length. In essence Schmitt is reclaiming a larger slip that he had earlier. Thi- bault said there would be no increase in the BSUs but there may be in WSUs. MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of the site plan change for Schmitt's Marina as requested, waiving the requirement for fencing on the south side of the marina provided "No Parking" signs are installed, and the applicant to supply an as-built survey. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay. 11. ordinance Relating to Storage of Unrestricted Watercraft The committee received the Ordinance Relating to Storage of Unrestricted Watercraft as revised by the Board at the first reading on 12/1/93. An LMCD staff memo dated 12/1/93 regarding the fees to be charged for the unrestricted watercraft was received along with the amended Resolution Regarding Fees. The staff memo raises the question as to whether the uncounted unrestricted watercraft should be charged as WSUs or will they be exempt. For example, if exempted from WSU counts, would the 61 boats at the three WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE January 8, 1994 marinas noted in the 12/1/93 memo be deducted from their WSU count? If not exempted then would the one marina and two yacht clubs noted have to add the uncounted boats to their WSU counts? Johnstone said he thought the principal purpose of the Ordinance was to address the density issue. He did not recall any discussion of fees. He believes the Ordinance can be adopted without affecting the fee schedule. Staff clarified that if no action is taken on the fee resolution, these unrestricted water- craft would be included in fees. Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina, said he has 30 rental boats and canoes. He has been paying the WSU for them. He wonders why his boats are less of a public amenity than someone who is re- quired to have them for a special density permit and has not been charged a fee. Babcock said staff raised the same question and this is why it is being discussed. Rascop said if rental of fishing boats is a required amenity for a special density permit, the WSU fee should be charged. The same should apply to the sailing schools used as an amenity by the yacht clubs. Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., objected to paying a fee for something he does not want. The marina operators present, Rockvam, Pedersen, Rich Ander- , Jabbour of Tonka Bay Marina, and son of Sailor s World, Gabriel Frank Pillsbury of Minnetonka Boat Works expressed their opinions regarding the charging of fees. The consensus was that there should be equity without undue interference in the operation of the marina. Kline wondered why there is a different density allowance for public rental than for educational uses. He does not see how the District can give a greater density for educational purposes. He would like more information on the criteria for determining an amenity. He also asked how this ordinance impacts local {munici- pal) density controls. Babcock said the cities can be more restrictive. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of the second reading of the Ordinance as amended by the Board. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop and Kline voting nay. MOTION: Rascop moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend approval of a Resolution amendment stating that all unrestricted water- craft be exempted from fees. DISCUSSION: Johnstone expressed concern that he does not have a handle on how broad the effect would be if adopted. He would like to see a staff report on the effect of the elimination of the fees. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Kline seconded, to table the motion for a staff report. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE January 8~ 1994 12. "Envelope Concept" for Multiple Dock Licenses Johnstone asked about the time table for action on the envelope concept for multiple dock licenses. The executive director said any change would affect future budgeting. It should be resolved by May, 1994, if it is to be considered for the 1995 budget. Johnstone suggested a sub-committee, with some public mem- bets, which could study the proposal, hold public hearings and report to the Water Structures Committee. Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina, suggested this could be a continuation of the fee sub-committee. There is a need for new Board appointments to that sub-committee. He believes the en- velope concept goes hand in hand with the fee study. Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., said he is still looking for a memorandum of understanding from the fee sub- committee. The executive director said that the Fee Study Sub- committee agreed that the staff time study should first be com- pleted for 1993. That study is ready for the 1/12/94 Administra- tive Committee meeting. Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marina, asked to be notified anytime the issue is going to be discussed. The marina operators present spoke in favor of the "en- velope'' concept. Reasons given were: It could reduce over-regu- lation. It could be easier for the district to administer, par- ticularl¥ when inspecting the marinas and counting boats in storage. The District would take the existing dock "envelope" and allow the operators to work within it. The market place would determine what kind of slip is offered to the public within the envelope. This would allow the operator to react 'faster to changes in the market place. Rockvam said he does not believe there have been unduly large increases in the marinas. The increases in density on the Lake come from residential property owners renting slips, munici- pal marina expansion and increased yacht club activity. Johnstone said his philosophy supports the envelope concept. Too much time is spent on minuscule regulations. The District needs to take a closer look, and should do so within two to three months. He said there were good comments on the subject, but the details need to be worked out. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend the formation of a sub-committee consisting of Board members and other public members to address the feasibility of the envelope concept for multiple dock licenses. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 13. Minnetonka Boat Works - Request to continue use of Nine Slips Beyond 200~ Allowed Under Temporary Low Water Variance. Thibault explained that the Minnetonka Boat Works was grant- ed a temporary low water variance in 1989 for nine slips beyond 200' from shore. The variance was for five years because the docks are of permanent construction. It expires before the 1994 boating season starts. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE January 8~ 1994 The committee received a request from the Minnetonka Boat Works that it be allowed to continue use of the nine slips grant- ed under a temporary low water variance five years ago and to continue to use the nine slips that were taken out of service in 1989 due to low water. The executive director said the Boat Works was advised last summer that the variance would expire for the 1994 season. The other nine slips are now navigable. Grathwol said he would support a one year extension to decide how to handle it. He believes the slips will have to be removed or the Code amended. Rascop said Minnetonka Boat Works gave many assurances that these docks would be removed when the five years were over. Suerth wondered how this dock location would be affected by adoption of an envelope concept. Babcock said the nine temporary slips are not included in the Minnetonka Boat Works envelope. Frank Pillsbury, representing Minnetonka Boat Works, said the marina has incurred extra expenses each year. For example, they didn't expect to have to replace all the foam flotation at the Orono docks. He believes the nine slips do not extend out beyond the other slips. These slips serve larger boats than the ones they replaced and are rented. The slips pose no navigation hazard. The committee took no action, which results in the require- ment that the Minnetonka Boat Works remove the nine temporary low water variance slips beyond 200~ before the 1994 boating season. 14. Adjournment Reese moved, Johnstone seconded, that the meeting be ad- journed. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair 7 RECEIVED 2 4 lgg LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 5:30 PM., Monday, January 10, 1994 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 106 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grath- wol, Excelsior, as noted; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Thomas Reese, Mound; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 2. "Responsible wake" Education Brochure James Wyer, Deephaven, has volunteered to assist the Dis- trict in preparing a brochure explaining "wakes" and what consti- tutes a safe wake and the dangers of unsafe wakes. Wyer suggested a 7-1/2" x 8-1/2" brochure folded in half as a reasonable size. He said a two color process should be suffi- cient to present the illustrations. Wyer has contacted a photog- rapher who is willing to donate time and skill in preparing the illustrations. He also suggested using Graphic Arts students from Minnetonka High School in assisting with the layout. Foster, Bloom and the executive director will outline ideas as to what the brochure should contain. They will work with Wyer to bring a sample back to the next committee meeting. Grathwol arrived. 1. Lakeshore Lighting Subcommittee Reese introduced Tom Line, an electrical engineer, who has prepared material on lakeshore light fixture alternatives. Foster explained the purpose of Line's presentation is to offer a plan for installation of outdoor lighting on the Lake for the purpose of safety and security. An acceptable plan would be written into an ordinance which the cities would be encouraged to pass. That would be the procedure as the District does not have authority for land based activities. Reese added that the objec- tive is to write the specifications and ordinance in such a manner that the average person can understand it. Line presented a report on outdoor lighting and illustrated his points as to how various methods of shielding affect the spread of light. He said the secret to controlling obtrusive lighting is to shield the light source. There are many methods such as visors and louvered covers. Line has discussed the subject with Northern States Power representatives and lighting professionals. The suggestion is that individual bulb power should be less than 101 Watts. There was a round table discussion among the members and Line resulting in the exchange of ideas. * Motion detectors can serve a purpose but also have sensi- tivity problems in that they can go on and off with natural intrusions such as birds and animals. * Whatever is written has to be such that the enforcing agency can readily measure the distances and intensity of the light. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE January 10. 1994 * A determination is to be made as to what area is to be lighted. This involves the areas away from the Lake which re- flect on the Lake as well as personal lighting of the dock use area for security purposes. * Line submitted proposed rules for residential outdoor lighting and commercial outdoor lighting. He suggested doing a survey of existing lighting, inviting comments from Northern States Power, lighting contractors and suppliers. The agencies which would be called upon to do the enforcement should be in- volved. A review of the material by the LMCD attorney should be done. Public Hearings should be held. * Reese suggested approaching Lafayette Ridge HOA for a review of its lighting with the possible offer to join with it in covering the costs of remedying what he considers a problem situation. Bloom asked to have the opportunity to talk to mem- bers of Lafayette Ridge HOA before any other contact is made as the development is in Minnetonka Beach. * Foster said there has to be committee consensus before any action is taken. * Bloom asked what could be done about existing lighting. The executive director suggested that could be handled by placing a sunset provision in the ordinance. * It was agreed the light emitting portion of the fixture is not to be visible to an observer on the lake more than 100 feet beyond the dock use area. CONCLUSION: The committee recommended a Public Hearing before the committee at 7 PM, February 15, 1994, preceding a regular meeting. 3. Review Liquor License Fees The executive director submitted a comparison between the LMCD and some cities' liquor license fees. LeFevere's letter of 4/2/93 was attached. LeFevere called attention to the Mn Statute which says the liquor license fee is intended to cover the cost of issuing and inspecting, and other directly related costs of enforcement. The executive director recommends reducing the liquor li- cense fees to more closely reflect costs associated with licens- ing costs. NOTION: 6rathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend charging $1,000 for the liquor license fee and $200 each for the wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Report on Public Information Signs re Vehicle Operation within the 150' Zone. The executive director reported eighteen shorezone signs were placed in selected locations and are working very well. He was particularly pleased to see that they have not been vandal- ized. The cost of materials was under $500, with Deephaven donating lumber for the Carson's Bay Access signs. Bailey and Strommen installed the signs. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE January 10, 1994 5. 1994 Save the Lake Recognition Banquet The committee received work service achievement summaries for three Water Patrol Special Deputies. MOTION: Reese moved, Moiler seconded, to recommend Joseph Edward Martin be selected as the recipient of the Water Patrol Special Deputy Award to be presented at the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet on February 17. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director said Robert Dunn, Chairman of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board will be the main speaker at the banquet. Former Chair Cochran and Board members whose terms have been completed will be recognized. Hennepin County Sheriff Don Omodt will be recognized for his service as he completes 27 years of service this year. Omodt announced he is not seeking re-elect/on. 6. Water Patrol Report The committee received the monthly Water Patrol activity report. It will be forwarded to the Board. The executive director reported the Water Patrol had a snowmobile saturation over the January 8-9 weekend.. Sixteen citations and eight warnings were issued. There was one arrest on outstanding warrant. Twenty-one deputies were on duty for the weekend. 7. Special Event Definition The committee received a revised memo covering definitions of special events. No action was taken due to time limitations for full discussion. 8. Adjournment. Chair Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair RECEIVED "t T; 2 lgl LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Con~nittee Minutes 7:15 PM, Monday, January 10, 1994 Presenf: Chair Jim Grafhwo], Excelsior: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Ron Kline, Minnetrista; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Mike Markell, Larry Killien, Gordon Kimball, DNR Trails & Waterways; Executive Director Gene Strommen OPENING COMMENTS. Grathwol stated his understanding of the remaining service of the Lake Access Task Force to be that of l) Meeting to review, amend or accept the 1992 Task Force Study Report. 2) Determine if there is any other business that the Task Force should address, and if there be none 3) Declare the Task Force purpose complete and adjourn. As the LMCD Lake Access Committee determines that a final draft of the Task Force report is ready, the Task Force will meet to review, amend or accept the final draft. Cities and affected agencies will then be asked to comment on the draft within a specified time. The LMCD Board will then review for adoption the completed Task Force recommendations with city/agency comments. The LMCD Lake Access Committee will carry on the responsibilities identified in the Task Force report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The inventory count will be adjusted from 735 to 527 c/t parking spaces. The inventory containing the earlier 735 spaces will be included in the report. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF CAR/TRAILER PARKING SPACES. Committee discussion was held on equitable distribution of car/trailer parking spaces among the five lake zones. A specific car/trailer parking space goal of the five lake zones was not identified at this time. The zone goals carried over from the 1983 and 1986 studies are: Zone 1 -- 139 spaces -- " 2 -- 144 " -- " 3 -- 155 " -- " 4 -- 126 " -- " 5 -- 136 " -- Orono, Minnetonka Beach. Minnetrista, Spring Park Deephaven, Orono, Minnetonka, Wayzata, Woodland Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Orono, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Orono, Mound, Minnetonka Beach, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay Minnetrista, Mound, Shorewood, Victoria z7 LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/10/94, P. 2 Kline and Foster stated that their city officials encourage cities without accesses to take some access responsibility. As suggested in earlier Task Force discussions, this could include cooperative assistance in maintaining an access in a neighboring city, and/or providing some financial assistance. A statement in the chronology outline, P. 4, and P. 6 of the 12/9/92 Task Force Actions notes "all cities are encouraged to make a concerted effort to provide their share of.lake access c/t parking spaces, and to coordinate and cooperate (with other cities/agencies) to meet zone goals. The DNR supports equitable distribution as a goal. They asked that the committee develop a process to facilitate cities participating in this goal. STANDARDS FOR CAR/TRAILER PARKING. be more specific according to Foster. It was recommended subpara "b" be amended as shown in underlines: · . "Hours for parking will be determined by LMCD in cooperation with DNR and the member city." . and a new subpara "c" be added stating: ."Provide at least 350 c/t parking spaces 24 hours per day. Hours for parking should ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. A closing paragraph recognizing some individuals among the many participating in the Task Force study was recommended to be changed, leaving out all names, but thanking the Task Force as a group. COORDINATED REVISED DRAFT. Grathwol presented a revised outline of the Task Force draft report which he. worked on over the weekend with the input of other board members. The revisions endeavor to make the report more "reader friendly". Grathwol assures that the Task Force study data is intact. DNR reps Markell, Kimball and Killien agreed to look the changes over. Equitable distribution will be identified in the main text in this draft as identified in the appendix. NEXT MEETING. It was recommended that the committee will need to meet for a final review of this draft 6:00 pm, Wed., Feb. 9, in the LMCD conference room. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. Executive Director RECEIVED ?. 4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report 7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 12, 1994 Conference Room, suite 160, Norwest Bank Bldg. Present: Bill Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Doug Babcock, Spring Park; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Ron Kline, Minnetrista; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Executive Director Gene Strommen, Administrative Technician Rachel Thibault. Also present: Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boatyards; Frank Pillsbury, Minnetonka Boat Works. MEETING REPORT. The committee accepted the 12/1/93 meeting report, forwarding it to the Board for approval. FEE STUDY COST EVALUATION. For the benefit of the new board members, the executive director gave a history of the fee study subcommittee and why it was formed. Johnstone said in summary that the LMCD does not have authority to charge fees for licenses in excess of the costs to regulate those licenses. Therefore, the LMCD agreed to track staff time and other related costs for one year to determine if the present fees are justified. The fee study subcommittee was primarily concerned with multiple dock license fees. The subcommittee discussed which costs are appropriate to charge multiple dock license related activities (MDRA). Strommen reported that the costs agreed upon by the subcommittee were presented to the Administrative Committee and Board for review and adoption 12/1/93. The item dealing with the percent of cost for conducting lake use density studies, which was suggested at 15% of cost by the multiple dock owner representatives during the subcommittee deliberations, was amended by the Administrative Committee to 30% based upon the multiple dock share of boats on the lake during the 1992 lake use density study. The 30% was subsequently approved by the Board. Other cost items approved by the board that were discussed with no consensus from the subcommittee were items 5, relating to processing code amendments and item 8 relating to cost allocation from litigation and costs for failure of multiple dock licensees to comply with the Code, license orders or stipulations. Rockvam, Rockvam Boatyards, who is a member of the subcommittee was concerned that Scott Carlson and Dave Cochran are no longer on the Board. They attended all the subcommittee meetings. He asked for a summary of understanding of the subcommittee meetings. (A summary was prepared dated 11/12/93.) 1/12/94 Administrative Committee Meeting Report, Page 2 Johnstone agreed to schedule another fee study subcommittee meeting before any further board action is taken. It was agreed to meet the beginning of March. Carlson and Cochran will be asked to attend. A summary of the MDRA costs as determined by the LMCD will be provided for review by the multiple dock owner representatives. Johnstone also asked that it be determined what financial impact any changes will make on the 1995 revenues. RESOLUTION TO ENCOURAGE CITIES TO EXPRESS THEIR POSITION ON SUPPORT FOR LMCD. A draft resolution was submitted for discussion which is proposed to be sent to the cities asking them to take a public position on support for the LMCD to resolve the issue of dissolution. (The cities of Spring Park and Orono have passed resolutions to dissolve the LMCD. Mound has passed a ]?esolution supporting the LMCD.) Johnstone asked for feedback on whether or not the LMCD ~hould ask the cities to take formal action and if so, how to go about doing it. Rascop and Foster said that the LMCD should ask the cities to take formal action. The committee consensus was to have Johnstone prepare a letter to the cities. Rockvam and Pillsbury left. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANT DICK OSGOOD'S CONTRACT. The executive director gave a history of the environment committee and the subsequent decision to hire consultant, Dick Osgood, to put together a plan addressing how to implement some or all of the Management Plan objectives. Strommen explained that Osgood's plan proposed two phases. The first phase, in September 1993, was a survey of stake holders. Phase II, which began in November, included Osgood's recommendation for increased water quality monitoring. A meeting was held with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) suggesting a plan for expanded monitoring. The MCWD did not agree with the recommendation, advising it had other priorities for improving water quality on the lake. Foster expressed the opinion that the LMCD should back off of environmental issues, and focus on recreational and water structure issues. Strommen pointed out that the Management Plan has certain environmental objectives that need to be met. He believes these objectives are valid, although some completion dates may be unrealistic. He asked if the committee wanted to recommend tabling the Environment Objectives of the Management Plan or deal with the objectives through communications with the lead and cooperating ~agencies identified with each objective. 1/12/94 Administrative Committee Meeting Report, Page 3 Kline said that he believes the LMCD should take stewardship of the environmental aspects of the lake. He suggests that the Board become more educated and be champions of the lake. He suggested getting help from the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association (L~LOA) to do water quality monitoring. The LMCD should take the role as educator or facilitator to make sure the other agencies talk to each other. Rascop said he would like to see Osgood work on educational programs, and start a data base to collect existing information. Johnstone asked for members of the committee to work with the executive director to define the program for Osgood. Kline, Mollet and Rascop volunteered participate in putting together a work plan or a recommendation to reconsider Osgood's entire contract within the next two weeks. Strommen agreed to advise Osgood to hold off further activity, except to attend the EWM Task Force meeting, until his position is further defined. QUARTERLY MAYORS' MEETING AGENDA, 1/28/94. Johnstone reviewed the Report to the Mayors meeting agenda. Mayor Agenda Item 2, EWM program funding 1989-1994. The 1/12/94 letter from LMCD Counsel Charlie LeFevere, regarding the cities funding of the EWM budget, was distributed. Johnstone summarized LeFevere's letter explaining that the payments made in 1989 were outside of the normal budget process, as these supplementary payments were solicited after the budget was adopted. In 1990 through 1993, the costs of the EWM program were treated as part of the total budget which was approved by all the cities. During those years, there was no limit on what the District could budget and charge the cities. However, in 1993, for the 1994 budget, a new law was passed placing a limit on the amount the LMCD can collect from the cities in the District. This limits the levy to .00242% of the total taxable market value within the district, unless 3/4 of the cities agree to allow a budget over the limited amount. The 1994 budget already approved by the cities could constitute a resolution accepting the higher budget amount. In addition, the cities can raise and spend money to control aquatic vegetation at a maximum of $.50 per capita. Even if the LMCD budget is above the limit, the cities have the authority to pay additional for aquatic vegetation control. The LMCD is not obligated to pay back any funds. It was agreed that LeFevere's letter should be distributed immediately with a cover letter to Orono and Spring Park which asked for refunds on the EWM budget payments. Babcock and Johnstone also agreed to call the cities to explain the situation. The rest of the cities, the mayors, city councils and newspapers will be copied before the Board meeting. 1/12/94 Administrative Committee Meeting Report, Page 4 Mayor Agenda Item 6, Save the Lake Recognition Banquet. Strommen advised that the guest speaker will be Robert Dunn, Chair of the MN Environmental Quality Board. The board members are guests of the District, and spouses are paid for by the board members. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION. Johnstone said that efforts to raise money for the Save the Lake fund have not been as aggressive as in the past. He suggests inviting previous board members and citizens to join an Save the Lake advisory committee. Motion: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend to the Board that a Save the Lake advisory committee be formed, to include board members, former board members and citizens, for advice on fund raising activities and expenditures. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW ENVELOPE CONCEPT FOR MULTIPLE DOCKS. Johnstone said he would like to form a subcommittee, with Babcock as chair, which would include multiple dock owner representatives, to look at the "envelope concept". The multiple dock owner representatives should include one commercial, one municipal and one homeowners association representative. It was suggested that a member of the LMLOA be invited. Babcock, Johnstone, Foster and Rascop volunteered to be members of the subcommittee. LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE. Strommen asked if the committee wanted to recommend additional insurance for legal defense of a violation of the open meeting law for a $500 annual premium. Rascop and Babcock recommended against it. No action was taken. PROPOSED LIQUOR LICENSE FEE ADJUSTMENT AFFECT ON BUDGET. The executive director pointed out that the Lake Use committee had recommended a reduction in the liquor license fees. This will result in reduced revenue. Strommen suggested reducing expenses of the Boat Density Study to offset this income loss. The Boat Density Study expense is expected to come in about $8,000 under the $15,000 budgeted. Motion: Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend making an adjustment in the Boat Density Study expenses to offset the Liquor License revenue reduction. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. Re spect fu 1 ly_.s, ubm itted, ,:uge~.R.s.trommen %~ Exechtive Director