1998-04-14AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agendq: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council
aml will be enacted by a roll call vote. lhere will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Councilmember or Citizen so requests, itt which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE
PRESENTATION TO MOUND WESTONKA BOYS HOCKEY TEAM ............ 938
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
CONSENT AGENDA
*A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 1998,
REGULAR MEETING ................................... 939-946
*B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1998,
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD.
........................... 947
*C. CASE//98-17: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA,
HARDCOVER, KEN & KRIS LINQUIST, 2373 CHATEAU LANE,
LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L.P. CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 948-
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#12-117-24 43 0096 ...... 948-958
(THIS CASE WILL BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING ..............
cOMMISSION ON MONDAY EVENING, APRIL12) (HAND OUT TUESDAY)
*D. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES;
AMENDING SECTION 350:00 BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION 350:1300, ENTITLED, "TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWERS AND FACILITIES"
...... . ........................ 959-965
*E. APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION,
LITTLE LEAGUE, BASEBALL AND
SOFTBALL SIGN-UP ADVERTISEMENT.
........................ 966
935
e
o
*F.
10.
*G.
*H.
*I.
*J.
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, 967
WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ECFE FUNDRAISER ................
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
9.~O_t3~.I~i~NO~4TION TO APPOINT CKLAIR HASSE,
6627 BARTLETt BLVD., TO FILL A VAcAIqc¥ Ol',l TI-IE
PLANNING COMMISSION ...............................
SET BID OPENING FOR ANNUAL SEALCOAT PROJECT - 972
SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 30, 1998, 11 A.M .....................
LICENSE RENEWALS:
968-971
GAMES OF SKILL
POOL TABLES
BOWLING
AMUSEMENT DEVICE
RESTAURANT
TREE REMOVAL ......................
973
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM
THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS ............... 974-976
977-997
PAYMENT OF BILLS ...................................
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON
998-1085
BLUFF PDA .............................................
RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND
COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED AT ROANOKE LANE ACCESS .........
RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND
COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING A PROPOSED
FISHING SITE OFF WILSHIRE BLVD ...........................
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
1998 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSEN,
R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES .... ........................
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 277 (WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT) CREATING THE
WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD AND APPOINTING
REPRESENTATIVES TO THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY
CENTER BOARD FROM THE CITY OF MOUND ....................
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT
REGARDING THE USE OF THE cITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON A pERMANENT BASIS ...........
1086-1145
1146-1163
1164-1171
1172-1184
1185-1187
936
11.
12.
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI
OF THE CITY CODE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES, BY ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM
SEWER SYSTEM ........................................
1188-1195
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1998 ................ 1196-1223
B. LMCDMallings ...................................... 1224-1234
C. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of March 19, 1998 .... 1235-1238
Letter from the Mound City Days Committee regarding your
participation in the 1998 Parade. If you are interested,
send in the registration form as soon as possible .................. 1239-1240
Letter from Hennepin County regarding the questions you had
on the study of a possible traffic signal at County Road 15 and
Wilshire Blvd. and at County Road 15 and Cypress Lane ............. 1241-1244
Does Mr. Johnson's letter answer your questions? Should I do anything further?
Packet from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) for
next Wednesday's meeting. Councilmember Hanus is the City's
delegate to the SRA ....................................
1245-1259
Packet from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
regarding the Rule B Task Force. Mayor Polston is the City's
representative to this Task Force ............................
1260-1277
Lake Restoration will be starting the alum treatment of
Lake Langdon next week with an estimate completion date of May 1.
You will begin seeing activity around Veteran's Park by this company
so if you receive any calls, this is the project that is being done.
You can refer those calls to me and I will refer them to the
MCWD or their Engineer.
Caribou Coffee will not be moving to Mound as expected.
Decisions by the Board of Directors regarding the move have been made
and they will be remaining in Minneapolis until at least August, 1999.
They will also be moving, on a short-term basis, to a 15,000 square foot
facility, somewhere in the metro area to accommodate their
Delta Airlines contract. This is unfortunate but there is still a possibility
that they could move their entire operation next year out of Minneapolis
and maybe it could land up in Mound.
REMINDER:
MONTHLY HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY,
APRIL 14, 1998, 7 P.M., CITY HALL.
Ke
RE~ER:
MONTHLY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS
SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
937
0
~g
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 24, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, March 24, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker.
Councilmembers Ahrens and Jensen were absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John
Cameron and Secretary Jodi Rahn and the following interested citizens: Sharon Gehrman-Driscoll,
Robin Scholer, John Gabos, Steve Behnke, Tom Stokes and Matthew Mankey.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited.
PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO OFFICER AI.LEN RINGATE
FROM MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD),
Sgt. John McKinley introduced Sharon Gehrman-Driscoll from MADD.Ms. Gehrman-Driscoll and
President Robin Scholer from MADD presented Officer Allen Ringate with a distinguished service
award for his outstanding service in 1996 and 1997.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered in nomml sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items
can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.1
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
24, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
'1.2
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 1998, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.4
CASE 98-08: VARIANCE EXTENSION, REMOVAL OF THE OLD RESIDENCE,
RESOLUTION 96-24, DAVID HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD, PART OF LOT 1, FIRST
REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, 1= DIVISION, PID 19-11%23 13 0003.
RESOLUTION#98-27 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ONE (1) YEAR
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED
BY RESOLUTION //96-24 FOR 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD.,
PART OF LOT 1, REARRANGEME~ OF PHELPS ISLAND
PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-11%23 13 0003, P & Z CASE
98-27
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
· 1.5 CASE 98-10: VARIANCE FOR LAKESIDE SETBACK TO BUILD A NON-
CONFORMING 12 X 18 THREE SEASON PORCH, CLYDE & DENIS BONNEMA, 5513
BARTLETT BLVD, W 40' OF LOTS 13 & 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-11%24
23 0018.
RESOLUTION g98-28
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE
SETBACK VARIANCE TO BUILD A NON-
CONFORMING THREE SEASON PORCH AT
5513 BARTLETT BLVD, E 40' OF LOT 13 &
W 40 FT OF LOT 14, AND ADJOINING
ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE
BARTLETTE P LACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018,
CLYDE & DENISE BONNEMA, P & Z CASE
#98-10
'1.6
CASE 98-11: VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE, TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW CONFORMING HOME, STEVE MARTIN, 2910 OAKLAWN
LANE, PARTS OF LOTS 37, 38
0008.
RESOLUTION #98-29
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
&39, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-11%24 31
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT
SIZE, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING
NEW HOME, AT 2910 OAKLAWN LANE,
PARTS OF LOTS 37, 38 &39, BLOCK 1, THE
HIGHLANDS, STEVE MARTIN, PID 23-117-24
31 0008, P & Z CASE//98-11
'1.7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
CASE 98-13: MINOR SUBDIVISION, DAVID & ELEANOR WILLETTE, XXXX
LYNWOOD BLVD. LOTS 6-11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PIDS 13-117-24
33 0028 & 13-117-24 33 0029.
RESOLUTION g98-30
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR
SUBDIVISION, XXXX LYNWOOD BLVD.
LOTS 6-11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND, DAVID & ELEANOR WILLETTE,
PIDS 13-117-24 33 0028 & 13-117-24 33 0029, P
& Z CASE//98-13
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.8 CASE 98-14: VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK, PAUL PAINE, 4594
WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 7, 8 & 9, BLOCK 10, AVALON PID 19-117-23 31 0027.
RESOLUTION//98-31
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE, A
NEW SET OF ROOF TRUSSES, AND A NEW
FOUNDATION FOR THE DWELLING AT 4549
WH.SHIRE BLVD., LOTS 7,88,AND 29,
BLOCK 10, AVALON , PID 19-117-23 32 0027,
P & Z CASE//98-14
· 1.9 LICENSE RENEWALS: TRANSIENT MERCHANT, TREE REMOVAL AND SET-UP
LICENSES.
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is April 1, 1998 through March 31,
1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
Transient Merchant
By the Way Snack Shop
Tree Removal License
Aaspen Tre~ Service
Four Season's Tree Service
Precision Landscape
Randy's Tress Service
Shorewood Tree Service
The Tree-Stump Co.
Woodsmen Tree Service
Set-Up License
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.10 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING: TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWERS AND FACILITIES; AMENDING MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 88 BY ADDING
A NEW SECTION.
No action could be taken because it requires a 4/5 vote for approval and only 3 Councilmembers
were present. This will be on the April 14 Agenda.
*1.11
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
1.12
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
ROANOKE ACCESS
John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive, stated that the issue of a multiple slip dock located on
the Roanoke Access has been hanging on since the February 10th City Council Meeting. This
was discussed by the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission last week and he understands that
they are recommending the Council approve a multiple slip dock at this site which will come
before the Council April 14th. Mr. Gabos currently has his home for sale and would like to
know what the situation is with this multiple slip dock on Roanoke Access so he can inform
potential buyers. He asked for assurance that this is a voluntary program and that the guidelines
the Council adopted are not posing an undue hardship on abutting property owners.
The Mayor explained that Roanoke Access multiple slip dock is not on the Agenda tonight but
will be on the April 14th Agenda.
Mr. Gabos again asked what he should tell potential buyers of his property. The Mayor stated
that the Council is not in a position to tell him what he should or should not say.
Councilmember Weycker stated that this multiple slip dock program was set up to be voluntary.
She stated that if this is not a voluntary program, then she was misled.
Mr. Gabos then asked if the City Attorney is in the position to issue a statement letter to him.
The City Attorney answered, absolutely not.
The Mayor stated that the Council is not going to issue a statement to Mr. Gabos telling him
what he can tell potential buyers.
The City Attorney stated that if Mr. Gabos wants a clarification of the guidelines that were
adopted by the Council, he should take this up at the April 14th Meeting.
No action was taken at this time.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
1.13 PUBLIC HEARING:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON BLUFF PDA.
The City Planner reviewed the proposed Final Plat for the Seton Bluff PDA. The preliminary Plat was
approved by Resolution//97-54 in May of 1997. Seton Bluff is a 7 lot single family detached residential
development. It is on about 1.35 aces of land. The PDA ordinance requires 2 acres, and the developer
is seeking a variance to that. Also, there are a number of other variances being requested because of
the topography and some of the lot restrictions. These variances were all spelled out in the staff report,
dated March 24, 1998.
The Planner then reported that in going through the plat there are a number of changes to engineering
related aspects of the plat that have changed from the preliminary plat, i.e. storm water drainage; storm
water retention pond; retaining walls. The improvements that have been slated for this area are now
not entirely within the lots. Some go out into Kildare Road and Kings Lane ( in public right-of-way).
Staff did call this to the developers attention. Staff looked at a several options for what to do as the
plat is proposed tonight.
1. Vacating a portion of both of the roadways to allow the storm water retention pond as
well as the retaining wall to exist as they are shown on the Final Plat. That would mean
that if the final plat approval was given tonight, it would be conditioned on the vacation
being approve;t, OR
2. Putting all the improvements on private property and go forward as any other plat would
in the City, OR
3. Send this Final Plat as it is proposed tonight, back to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendation.
The Planner explained that because of when this plat was submitted, there was no time to follow normal
procedures.
The Planner stated that Staff is looking for direction from the Council on one of the above options.
The Council did not like the idea of approving the final plat before holding the vacation proceedings.
Councilmember Hanus voiced concerns regarding the pond as it is proposed and asked if it has been
approved by the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. This plan tonight has not been before
MCWD.
Councilmember Hanus further stated that because of the differences between the preliminary and final
plat, he would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission for their review and
recommendation.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Behnke, Fine Line Design Group, stated that the preliminary plat approval, approved
the storm water drainage pending MCWD approval. In discussions with MCWD, they indicated
that they were uncomfortable using the sump manhole system that the developer proposed. Fine
Line's engineer prepared a pond that was completely contained in the comer of their property.
It has two four foot retaining walls and was approved by the MCWD in October, 1997. The
goal using the option shown tonight, on public right-of-way, was to shorten the height of the
retaining walls and grade less of the bluff and make use of the fiat area at the bottom of the
slope. They moved the pond into an area with less trees but in the public right-of-way.
Mayor Polston asked who maintains the pond once it is built and established. Behnke explained
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1998
that in the original plan the association had a Maintenance Agreement that would be put in place
regarding the storm sewer system. The MCWD would not approve the concept of a sump
manhole system so the developer proposed a pond on their own property which was approved
by MCWD. The City Engineer stated that he has never seen this plan before. Behnke stated
that the plan was given to the Building Official over three months ago. The City Engineer stated
the only plan that was reviewed was the plan with the pond and retaining walls on City right-of-
way. The Building Official stated that Mr. Behnke provided some fax copies of the preliminary
design but it wasn't ready or suitable for review by the City Engineer.
The Mayor stated that it is his understanding the what the developer is asking for is final plat
approval based on the concept of having the storm water pond on private property, which the
developer is asking the City to handle as a maintenance agreement between the City and the
homeowners association. Mr. Behnke stated, yes.
The City Engineer stated that it is his understanding that the maintenance agreement would be
between the developer, hence the homeowners association and the watershed district. That is
one of the requirements of the watershed district's approval. That the developer furnish them
with the maintenance.agreement. He asked the City Attorney if it is possible that this could be
written in the homeowners documents making them responsible for maintaining the pond and
not the City? The reason being that all the runoff is being generated by this development, not
by any other runoff within the City. The City Attorney agreed as long as none of the pond is
located on City right-of-way.
The Planner and the City Engineer stated they are not comfortable with this approach because
they have not reviewed this plan.
Matthew Mankey, attorney for the developer, stated that time is of the essence in that there
could be serious financial ramifications. He encouraged the Council to do everything they can
to assist his client because the project will benefit the City.
The Council discussed the fact that the storm water plan that was approved in the preliminary
plat has changed.
MOTION nmde by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to continue the Public Hearing for Final
Plat Approval to April 14, 1998, allowing Staff time to review the latest storm water plan.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 CASE 98-09: VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND
SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED
GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0007.
The Planner reviewed the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following
conditions:
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
a. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be removed.
b. The applicant to suitably repair the foundation of the boathouse at a cost not to exceed
50 % of the structure's value.
c. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by
the City Engineer.
d. The lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to current
zoning setbacks.
The applicant has since reconsidered and would like to have item b. removed from the resolution. He
is proposing to make foundation and structural repairs to the boathouse. The Planner stated that any
structural repairs to the boathouse would require a number of separate variances.
The Council asked if the cost of repairs would exceed 50% of the structure's value. The Building
Official did not feel repairs would exceed the 50%.
The Council asked that item lb. be removed from the proposed resolution and the following be added:
"The cost of the repair to the foundation not to exceed 50% of the structure's value."
Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION//98-32 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO
RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE AND
SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE,
DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK
2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 318-11%23 23 0007
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for February 1998.
B. Financial Report for the month of February 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance
Director.
C Information received from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding Rule B Task Force.
Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, 1998, 2:30 - 4:00 p.m., Minnetonka
Community Center. Mayor Polston is a member of this Task Force.
D. Notice from MCWD to all residents of Lake Langdon regarding alum treatment.
E. Interviews for a vacancy on the Planning Commission will be conducted at the next Planning
Commission meeting which is scheduled for Monday., March 23, 1998, 7:30 p.m., City Hall.
Enclosed are applications from persons interested in the vacancy. The City Council is invited
to attend.
F. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 12, 1998.
a. _ The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be removed.
I _ ~ ~ Il__ -- ~ __ " -- II II I
· · .,~~. The applicant shall enter ~nto an agreement to be approvexI~y the City Attorney to ensure)
. ~I01~' ~ the removal of_the~boathouse within 2 ~,ears from the date the resolution is filed. ~
[ ~ C. A gradi-fi-g Plan b~-su~mitted at the tame ot t~mlding permit for approval by -
"" the City Engineer. '
d. The lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to current
zoning setbacks.
The applicant has since reconsidered and would like to have item b. removed from the resolution. He
is proposing to make foundation and structural repairs to the boathouse. The Planner stated that any
structural repairs to the boathouse would require a number of separate variances.
The Council asked if the cost of repairs would exceed 50% of the structure's value. The Building
Official did not feel repairs would exceed the 50 %.
The Council asked that item lb. be removed from the proposed resolution and the following be added:
"b. The applicant to suitably repair the foundation of the boathouse at a cost not to exceed 50% of
the structure's value."
Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION #98-32
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO
RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE AND
SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE,
DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK
2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 318-117-23 23 0007
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for February 1998.
Financial Report for the month of February 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance
Director.
C
Information received from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding Rule B Task Force.
Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, 1998, 2:30 - 4:00 p.m., Minnetonka
Community Center. Mayor Polston is a member of this Task Force.
D. Notice from MCWD to all residents of Lake Langdon regarding alum treatment.
Interviews for a vacancy on the Planning Commission will be conducted at the next Planning
Commission meeting which is scheduled for Monday, March 23, 1998, 7:30 p.m., City Hall.
Enclosed are applications from persons interested in the vacancy. The City Council is invited
to attend.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 12, 1998.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
Information from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the possible extension of levy limits
H. Annual review of the activities of the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) for 1997.
I. LMCD mailings.
Information from WeCan answering the questions raised during the CDBG public hearing on
February 24 related to the cities who consolidate their CDBG allocations.
K. Planning Commission Minutes o March 9, 1998.
L. Letter from a resident who appreciates Caribou Coffee moving into Mound.
M. REMINDER:
Joint Meeting with School Board regarding joint powers agreement on
Westonka Community Center is scheduled for SATURDAY, MARCH 28,
.1998, 8:30 A.M., CITY HALL.
N. Park Tour is scheduled for June 11.
MOTION made by Weycker , seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. The vote
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES-JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND WESTONKA SCHOOL
BOARD
MARCH 28, 1998-MOUND CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. at Mound City Hall. Persons Present:
City: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker; City Manager Ed Shukle.
School: Chair Bill Pinegar; Board Members Bruce Charon and Bob Bittle; Superintendent Dr. Pam
Myers. Others present: Bil Hawks.
The purpose of the meeting was to further discuss the joint powers agreement between the City of
Mound and Westonka Schools.
The latest version of the agreement was reviewed page by page. Following the discussion, it was
the consensus to take the agreement back to the full governing bodies for approval. The School
Board indicated that it would take action on April 13, 1998. The City Council indicated it would
take action on April 14, 1998. Between now and then, staffwill arrange to have the city attorney
prepare the necessary revisions, submit them to the School District's attorney for his approval and
then have the agreement ready for approval at the above meetings. In addition, the attachment to the
agreement, known as "Exhibit A," will be developed for review and consideration at the above
meetings. The document will be drafted based upon the discussion at this meeting which refers to
a 50/50 split of the costs between both parties. The document refers to the square footage
breakdown of useable space by the School District and the City of Mound. This square footage
breakdown will be used to calculate the operating expenses of the renovated building for the School
District and City to share, which at this point, appear to be 50% City and 50% School District.
It was the consensus that it was not necessary for both governing bodies to meet again before the
regular school board and city council meetings. After the joint powers agreement is approved, the
WCCB will begin meeting to begin the project of the renovation.
It was noted that Senator Olson's bill is in the Omnibus Education Bill to be approved around April
7. This bill allows the School District to issue the bonds necessary for the renovation project.
It was noted that the one year anniversary of this effort will be April 15, 1998.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
April 14, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA, AND HARDCOVER
VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FULL SIZE
FOUNDATION UNDER THE EXISTING DWELLING,
AT 2373 CHATEAU LANE,
LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L P CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK
PID 13-117-24 43 0096,
P & Z CASE #98-17
WHEREAS, the applicants, Kenneth & Kristen Linquist, have applied for a
side yard, lot area, and hardcover variances to allow construction of a new full size
basement foundation under the existing dwelling at 2373 Chateau Lane, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single or Two
Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot
area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for
lots of record, and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 4 feet from the side yard
resulting in a side yard setback variance of 2 feet would be required, and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot size is 4800 square feet resulting in a lot size
variance of 1200 square feet, and;
WHEREAS, the existing 40% hardcover is 2380 square feet resulting in a a
460 square foot variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing living space is almost 600 square feet and the
proposed basement would increase the living space to almost 1399 square feet, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
April 14, 1998
£inquist - 2373 Chateau Lane
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 2 foot side yard setback, 1200 square foot lot size,
and 460 square feet variances to construct a full size basement foundation for the
dwelling with the following conditions:
The City Engineer review and approve drainage plans for the new foundation.
The shed encroachment and other storage on the city water tower property
be removed.
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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain
as lawful, nonconforming structures 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 improvements:
Construction of a new full size basement foundation for the existing dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L P CREIVERS SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA.
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.
April 14, 1998
Linquist - 2373 Chateau Lane
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember .
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, .
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Mark
Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark &
Velia Stone, Chuck Downey
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
BOARD OF APPEAI. S:
CASE # 98-17: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA, HARDCOVER, KEN & KRIS
LINQUIST, 2373 CHATEAU LANE, LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L P CREIVERS SUB LOT 36
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 43 0096
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Ken & Kris Linquist, have submitted a request to recognize existing
conditions for non-conforming lot size, side yard setback, and hardcover to replace a crawl
space with a full size basement. The variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 4' 6' 2'
Lot Area 4800 sf 6000 sf 1200 sf
Hardcover 2840 sf 2380 sf 460 sf
The property is located on a 4800 sf lot in an R-2 district that requires a 6000 sf of lot
area. The home is a one bedroom with almost 600 sf of living space with a porch on the
rear. The property is a lot of record and the existing house is set back 4 feet from the side
yard. There is a two-stall detached garage in the rear yard with an adjoining dog kennel.
The driveway is 9 feet wide from the street to the rear of the house where it fans out to
accommodate both garage stalls. As the property exists, hardcover exceeds the 40 percent
maximum by 460 sf.
Adjacent to the property is the city water tower. The property owners appear to be using a
small portion of the property for storage of miscellaneous items.
The proposed basement will create additional living space in the home without increasing
the nonconformity. This appears to be the most feasible solution for gaining living space on
a small lot that has hardcover issues. The applicant is removing sidewalk up to the house
to reduce the hardcover. There does not appear to be other opportunities to make sizeable
reductions without impacting the garage or house function.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
One item that should be addressed along with the request is using a portion of the city
water tower site for storage area. The applicant will gain space in the home where some of
these items can be stored.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
recognize the variances as requested with the following conditions.
1. The City Engineer review and approve drainage plans for the new foundation.
2. The shed encroachment and other storage on the city water tower property be removed.
DISCUSSION:
Voss questioned how many lots the city water tower sits on. It sits on three lots.
Weiland commented that there wouldn't be any way to reduce hardcover unless taking
down the house or garage which is not feasible.
Gordon stated that research was done to see of some of the city property could be
obtained because the water tower will need to replaced and giving up land before any
plans are prepared would not be advisable.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation as
stated. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to City Council On April 14, 1998.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Kenneth and Kristen Linquist - 2373 Chateau Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-17
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5n
LOCATION: 2373 Chateau Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to recognize existing conditions for
non-conforming lot size, side yard setback, and hardcover to replace a crawl space with a full
size basement. The variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 4' 6' 2'
Lot Area 4800 sf 6000 sf 1200 sf
The property is located on a 4800 sf lot in an R-2 district that requires a 6000 sf of lot area. The
home is a one bedroom with almost 600 sf of living space with a porch on the rear. The property
is a lot of record and the existing house is set back 4 feet from the side yard. There is a two-stall
detached garage in the rear yard with an adjoining dog kennel. The driveway is 9 feet wide from
the street to the rear of the house where it fans out to accommodate both garage stalls. As the
property exists, hardcover exceeds the 40 percent maximum by 460 sf.
Adjacent to the property is the city water tower. The property owners appear to be using a small
portion of the property for storage of miscellaneous items.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Lindquist Variance Request
April 13, 1998
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
Bo
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed basement will create additional living space in the home without increasing the
nonconformity. This appears to be the most feasible solution for gaining living space on a small
lot that has hardcover issues. The applicant is removing sidewalk up to the house to reduce the
hardcover. There does not appear to be other opportunities to make sizeable reductions without
impacting the garage or house function.
One item that should be addresses along with the request is using a portion of the city water
tower site for storage area. The applicant will gain space in the home where some of these items
can be stored.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
recognize the variances as requested with the following conditions.
1. The City Engineer review and approve drainage plans for the new foundation.
2. The shed encroachment and other storage on the city water tower property be removed.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
CITY OF ~OU,',JD
Application Fee: ~ 100.OO
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
P, anning¢ommissionDate: .~/~-..0~ ~.52)~ i0/0~) CaseNo. q~)--I q
City Council Date: ~ ~ ~~
Distribution: 3' q8 City Planner ~-~,~ DNR
~q~ City Engineer - O~her
~-~ Public Works
SU.JECT Address~'~ O~~_~ ~~
LEGAL Block ~
-
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-1A R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
OWNER Address ~q 5 OJ~'_~O_~ ~b
.hone 4 &Lgg , qa- q
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
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.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. :2
CaseNo. qL'~-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 j)~'. 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: (N St~)W ) '~0 ft. ~;~d ft. -- ft.
Side Yard: ((~E W) ~ ft. ~ ft. ,%3, ft.
Side Yard: ( N(,~E W,~) .~~ ft. Z.~ ft. '~- ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S Er~/J) ft. .~'~ ft. --- ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ----- ft. T-.._ ft. ---- ft.
: (NSEW) ---- ft.
-----' ft. ----- ft.
Street Frontage: ,L~ ft. Z/~ ft. ~ ft.
Lot Size: ~sq ft ~sq ft ~_~_sq 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:
Please
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 00 existing situation
too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
951
(Rev. 11/14/9 7)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
qs- q
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 If yes, explain:
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?
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.
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. ll/14/97)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA_ _ _ SQ. ~. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH
~a.5 x $5,5
X
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcov_er
OTHER
SQ FT
: 5qs..q6
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
x :
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
2.5' x Oo
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
IO x ~:
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
I6
5/8" S.R. W/ V.B. (R-.56)
'1" A
FINISH FLOOR
UNDERLAYMENT
3/4" SUBFLOOR
12" TGI dSTS. ~ lB" O.C.
GRADE
--III1-=-IIII
3" PRD, CONC. FLOOR
N/ 6 X 6 tO/tO NNF
6" SAND BASE
WALL SECTTON
· C,~..~ ~/,4' -, ~'-0"
I I
Existing
home
and
Lot Area
House
Garage
Chimney
Deck
Dog Kennel
Sidewalk
Slab
Driveway
House
Garage
Dog Kennel
Sidewalk
Driveway
Lot layout
=4800+/- Sqare footage
Existing
22.5x25.5=573.75
22x24=528
1.25xl.25= 1.56
10x22.5=225
6x12=72
2.5x20=50
4x5=20
10x91=910
Total 2380.31
Proposed
22.5x35.5=798.75
22x24=528
6x12=72
4x5=20
10x91=910
Total 2328.75
Existing
Garage
Driveway
Existing chimney
TO be removed
Existin.q
Covered
Deck/Porch
Slab
Stairs
Sidewalk
To be removed
Chateau Lane
Proposed basement will not extend
beyond the limits of the exterior
walls of existing home and deck
Lot Area
=4800+/- Sqare footage
Existing
House 22.5x255=573.75
Garage 22x24=528
Chimney 1.25xl.25= 1.56
Deck 10x22.5=225
Dog Kennel 6x12=72
Sidewalk 2.5x20=50
Slab 4x5=20
Driveway 10x91=910
Total 2380.31
Proposed
House
Garage
Dog Kennel
Sidewalk
Driveway
22.5x35.5=798.75
22x24=528
6x12=72
4x5=20
10x91=910
Total 2328.75
Existing
Garage
Driveway
Egress Window
for
Future Bedroom
Egress Window
for
Future Bedroom
Chateau Lane
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone' 472-0600 Fax 472-062~
The ap01icant is: ~wner ~contractor ~tena~
OWNER Name ~ ~ ~¢,~ btm~ V
Phone (H) ~- ~ (W) &~ ~_ ObO-~ (M)
~ONTRA~TOR Company Name~ ~ License
Contact Person '~
Address
Phone (H), (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H),,, (W), (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
VALUATION
OF WORK
IVALUE APPROVED
BY INSPECTOR
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS
COMMENCED
TIME UMIT$ ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING. AND ALTERATIONS
TiD FHi: 5.,~1CHIUH5 QF ANY i~tJILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL 8E COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (I) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE ~ERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE DR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR ~.~RMANCE OF C~'I~:[UCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME ! ' t~--A'PPL~NATURE' - 7J v DATE
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED APPROVED
I ZONING
BLDG SiZE ISQ FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER
~ UNITS YES / NO I PUBLIC WORKS
RECEIVED BY / DATE: PLANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY 1 DATE: I ASSESSING
!
GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ADDRESS: //'J ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
SURVEY ON FILE? YE I LOT OF RECORD NO / ?
REOUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/VVlDTH: "~JO /
EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~ / EXISTING LOT DEPTH: J~0 '
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BgI~-I~ING/ Hog_sE
FRONT: N ~ E~W .~(-.) !
FRONT:/~S--E W ~ -
SIDE: ~ ~E~ 5~? '
REAR: N S E~ 1
LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: j0'
ACCESSORY BJ~JLDING/GARAG E/SHED
FRONT: N S/E)W .~) ~'
FRONT: N S'"E W ~.v
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50.'.(rg,.easured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: TOP OF BLUFF:
HARD NFORMING? YES / NO IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES / NO ?
T i g Informabon Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
~ h
Cf) J
~.<~
ORDINANCE NO. 96-1998
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES;
AMENDING SECTION 350:00 BY ADDING
A NEW SECTION 350:1300, ENTITLED,
"TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND ORDAINS:
Section 1. City of Mound Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a new section to
read as follows:
Section 350:1300 - Telecommunications Towers and Facilities.
Section 350:1300. Findings. The city council finds:
Subd. 1. The federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the
Telecommunicatk~ns Act of 1996 ("the Act") grants the Federal Communications
Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions from telecommunications facilities and the regulation of radio
signal interference among users of the radio frequency spectrum.
Subd. 2. Consistent with the Act, the regulation of towers and telecommunications
facilities in the city will not have the effect of prohibiting any person from providing
wireless telecommunications services. The general purpose of this section is to regulate
the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunication towers and facilities
in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably
interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications
marketplace in the city. In addition, this section recognizes the contractual control for
the purpose of preserving public health, safety, and welfare that can be exercised over
telecommunications facilities when those facilities are located on property owned or
controlled by governmental entities. Specifically, the purposes of this section are:
1. to regulate the location of telecommunication towers and facilities;
to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of
telecommunication towers and facilities;
to minimize adverse visual impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities
through design, siting, landscaping, and innovative camouflaging techniques;
to promote and encourage shared use and collocation of telecommunication towers
and antenna support structures;
o
to avoid damage to adjacent properties caused by telecommunication towers and
facilities by ensuring that those structures are soundly and carefully designed,
constructed, modified, maintained and promptly removed when no longer used
or when determined to be structurally unsound;
to ensure that telecommunication towers and facilities are compatible with
surrounding land uses; and
to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to the residents
and businesses of the city in an orderly fashion.
Section 350:1305. Definitions. For purposes of this section the following terms have the
meanings given them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Subd. 1. "Antenna support structure" means a building, athletic fieldlighting,
water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of
telecommunications facilities.
Subd. 2. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a permit to develop,
construct, build modify or erect a tower under this section.
Subd. 3. "Application" means the process by which the owner of a plot of land
within the city submits a request to develop, construct, build, modify or erect a tower
upon that land.
Subd. 4. "Engineer" means an engineer licensed by the state of Minnesota.
Subd. 5. "Person" means any natural person, firm, partnership, association,
corporation, company, or other legal entity, private or public, whether for profit or not
for profit.
Subd. 6. "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment;
examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-
mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and
telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles,
power poles, and trees.
Subd. 7. "Telecommunications facilities" means cables, wires, lines, wave guides,
antennas or any other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception
of telecommunications located or installed on or near a tower or antenna support
structure. The term does not include:
a satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less located in an
industrial or commercial district;
satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter, wherever located;
or
3. a tower.
Subd. 8. "Telecommunications tower" or "tower" means a self-supporting lattice,
guyed, or monopole structure constructed from grade that supports telecommunications
facilities; the term does not include amateur radio operations equipment licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission.
Section 350:1310. Development of Towersl Approvals Required.
Subd. 1. General Construction Prohibition. A tower may not be constructed in
any zoning district unless such tower is a conditional or permitted use in the zoning
district in which construction will take place.
Subd. 2. Conditional Use Permits Re~_uired. A tower may not be constructed in
any zoning district unless a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council if
the tower is a conditional use in the zoning district in which construction will take place.
Subd. 3. Building Permit Re~_uired. A tower may not be constructed in any
zoning district unless a building permit has been issued by the building official.
Subd. 4. City Property. The city may authorize the use of city property for towers
in accordance with the procedures of this code. The city has no obligation to allow the
use of city property for this purpose.
Subd. 5. Zoning Districts. A tower is not a permitted use in any zoning district.
A tower is a conditional use in Light Industrial (I-l) and Planned Industrial Area (PIA)
districts. .
Section 350:1315. Application Process.
Subd. 1. A person desiring to construct a tower must submit an application for a
building permit and, if applicable, for a conditional use permit, to the Zoning
Administrator..
Subd. 2. An application to develop a tower must include:
1. name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
name, address, and telephone numbers of the owners of the property on which
the tower is proposed to be located;
3. written consent of the property owner(s) to the application;
written evidence from an engineer that the proposed structure meets the structural
requirements of this code;
written information demonstrating the need for the tower at the proposed site in
light of the existing and proposed wireless telecommunications network(s) to be
operated by persons intending to place telecommunications facilities on the tower;
a copy of relevant portions of a lease signed by the applicant and property
owner(s), requiring the applicant to remove the tower and associated
telecommunications facilities upon cessation of operations on the leased site, or,
if a lease does not yet exist, a written agreement to include such a provision in
the lease to be signed; and
7. an application fee established from time to time by resolution of the city council.
3
Section. 350:1320. Performance Standards.
Subd. 1. Collocation capability. Unless the applicant presents clear and convincing
evidence to the city council that collocation is not feasible, a new tower may not be built,
constructed or erected in the city unless the tower is capable of supporting at/east two
telecommunications facilities comparable in weight, size, and surface area to each other.
Subd. 2. Setback requirements. A tower must comply with the following setback
requirements:
A tower must be located on a single parcel having a dimension equal to the height
of the tower, as measured between the base of the tower located nearest the
property line and the actual property line, unless an engineer specifies in writing
that the collapse of the tower will occur within a lesser distance under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances.
Setback requirements for towers are measured from the base of the tower to the
property line of the parcel on which it is located.
Section 350:1325. Engineer Certification. Towers must be designed and certified by an
engineer to be structurally sound and in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, and any
other standards set forth in this code.
Section 350:1330. Height Restriction. A tower may not exceed the lesser of 125 feet in
height or a height equivalent to 10 feet more than the distance from the base of the tower to the
nearest point of any property line. Measurement of tower height must include the tower
structure itself, the base pad, and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. Tower
height is measured from grade.
Section 350:1335. Lighting. Towers may not be artificially lighted except as required by the
Federal Aviation Administration. At time of construction of a tower, in cases where there are
residential uses located within a distance which is three times the height of the tower from the
tower, dual mode lighting must be requested from the Federal Aviation Administration.
Notwithstanding this provision, the city may approve the placement of an antennae on an existing
or proposed lighting standard, provided that the antennae is integrated with the lighting standard.
Section 350:1340. Exterior F'mish. Towers not requiring Federal Aviation Administration
painting or marking must have an exterior finish as approved in the site plan.
Section 350:1345. Fencing. Fences constructed around or upon parcels containing towers,
antenna support structures, or telecommunications facilities must be constructed in accordance
with the applicable fencing requirements in the zoning district where the tower or antenna
support structure is located, unless more stringent fencing requirements are required by Federal
Communications Commission regulations.
4
Section 350:1350. Landscaping. Landscaping on parcels containing towers, antenna support
structures or telecommunications facilities must be in accordance with landscaping requirements
as approved in the site plan. Utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower must be
architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and to meet such setback
requirements as are compatible with the actual placement of the tower. Ground mounted
equipment must be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non-
vegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Section 350:1355. Accessory_ buildin~ and Fx!uipment. No more than one accessory
building is permitted per tower. Accessory buildings may be no be more than 200 square feet
in size. Telecommunications facilities not located on a tower or in an accessory building must
be of stealth design.
Section 350:1360. Security. Towers must be reasonably posted and secured to protect against
trespass. All signs must comply with applicable sign regulations.
Section 350:1365. DeSign. Towers must be of stealth design.
Section 350:1370.
follows:
Non-tower facilities. Telecommunications facilities are permitted only as
Subd. 1. Telecommunications facilities are a conditional accessory use in the Central
Business District (B-I), General Business (B-2), and Neighborhood Business (B-3)
districts, provided that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written
certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are
submitted for a building permit:
that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae
support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna
support structure by more than 20 feet;
that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with
the Uniform Building Code; and
that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna
support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each
one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities.
This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the
exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not
protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure.
Subd. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this ordinance,
telecommunications facilities are a permitted acce.ssory use on antenna support structures
owned or otherwise under the physical control of the city, a school district, or the state
or federal government provided a conditional use permit has been issued by the city
council and provided further that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by
5
written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time
plans are submitted for a building permit:
that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae
support s~cture does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna
support structure by more than 20 feet;
that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with
the Uniform Building Code; and
that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna
support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each
one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities.
This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the
exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not
protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure.
Section 350:1375. Removal of Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated above-
ground facilities must be removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations of the
telecommunications facil~y at the site unless an extension is approved by the city council. Any
tower and associated telecommunications facilities that are not removed within twelve months
of the cessation of operations at a site are declared to be public nuisances and may be removed
by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property pursuant to state law and the
code.
Section 350:1380. Shoreland Management Ordinance. To the extent that any conflict exists
between any provision of this Section 350:1300 of the code and any provision of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance contained at Section 350:1200 of the city's zoning ordinance, the more
restrictive provision shall apply.
Section 350:1385. Additional requirements.
Subd. 1. Inspections. The city may conduct inspections at any time, upon
reasonable notice to the property owner and the tower owner to inspect the tower for the
purpose of determining if it complies with the Uniform Building Code and other
construction standards provided by the city code, federal and state law. The expense
related to such inspections will be borne by the property owner. Based upon the results
of an inspection, the building official may require repair or removal of a tower.
Subd. 2. Maintenance. Towers must be maintained in accordance with the
following provisions:
Tower owners must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construction and use
commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that
are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public.
Tower owners must install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities,
wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements
of the National Electric Safety Code and all Federal Communications
6
Commission, state, and local regulations, and in such a manner that they will not
interfere with the use of other property.
e
Towers, telecommunications facilities, and antenna support structures must be
kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair.
Maintenance or construction on a tower, telecommunications facilities or antenna
support structure must be performed by qualified maintenance and construction
personnel.
Towers must comply with radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal
Communications Commission.
If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner, the tower owner must
provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinue use and the date when
the use will be discontinued.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
Mayor
ATI~c3T:
City Clerk
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL April 14, 1998
PUBLISH IN THE LAKER NEWSPAPER - April 18, 1998
7
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
QUASI PuBETC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a
governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten
(10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed
on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved
by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is
exempt from all fees.
ar more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper)
NUMBER OF SIGNS:
TYPE OF SIGN: banner
~temporary
SIZE OF SIGN: ~ feet high x
DATESOFOSE: FROM
DESCRIBEREASON/PURPOSEFORREQUEST:
2~ free standing
wall mount
permanent
~ feet wide = /~' square feet
DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc. ): ~a / ~ ~_3,/,~ .)~$ 5
( ;
Applican~/' s Signature
Date
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
QUASI PuBETC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a
governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten
(10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed
on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved
by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is
exempt from all fees.
(If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper)
/
NUMBER OF SIGNS:
TYPE OF SIGN: banner
temporary
SIZE OF SIGN: ~ feet high x
D~TES OV USE: VROM ~' / / ?
DESCRIBE REASON/PURPOSEFORREQUEST:
wall mount
permanent
~ feet wide =
To z>¢//Y / ~
~/free standing
square feet
DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc. ):
Date
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
April 14, 1998
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CKLAIR HASSE
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF
GERALD REIFSCHNEIDER
TERM EXPIRING 12/31/00
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby appoint Cklair Hasse to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of
Gerald Reifschneider. Term expires 12/31/2000.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Michael
Mueller, Council Liaison Mark Hanus'. Staff Present: Building Official Jon Sutherland,
Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, Assistant Planner
Loren Gordon.
Public Present: Cklair Hasse, John Evans
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
INTERVIEWS FOR NEW COMMISSIONER:
CKLAIR HASSE, 6627 BARTLETT BLVD
Cklair has resided in the Mound area for the past 51 years. He was on the Planning and
Park Commissions for ten years previously and on the City Council for one year. The only
reason he had to get of th.e Planning Commission was because his job at the time
prevented him from attending evening meetings. He was in the Construction business for
45 years prior to his retirement.
Questions of the Candidate:
Mueller asked what positive aspect would he bring to the Planning Commission. Hasse
responded common sense.
Hanus asked what years Hasse was on the Planning, Parks, and Council. Hasse responded
approximately between 1968 and 1978, was the Chair of the Park Commission and on the
Council the at the end of that time.
Hanus questioned if Hasse was familiar with the downtown renovation project as far as
what is going on. Hasse responded that he has some knowledge about it. Hanus asked
what areas in the City could use improvement. Hasse responded that variances needs some
revisions.
Glister asked what the greatest improvement you have seen in Mound. Hasse responded
Stop Lights are the biggest improvements. The crosswalks should have lights by them,
they are hard to see at night. Glister asked if there was any negative thing that Mound has
done. Hasse couldn't think of anything. He feels Mound does positive things for the
community.
Weiland stated that Hasse knows the contracting business in Mound and knows an awful
lot about the governmental process in Mound.
Michael asked if Hasse would attend a public hanging. Hasse responded "what?" Michael
repeated the question. Hasse answered yes.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
JOHN EVANS, 2025 ARBOR LANE
John responded that he loves this city. He and his family moved here from Coon Rapids in
September of 1997. What motivated him to apply was that he came in to put on an
addition of a bathroom and found out that he would need to apply for a variance. He's
very pleased with his neighborhood.
Questions of the candidate:
Mueller asked him about his participation in Crooked Lake Civic Association. Evans stated
that it was a Homeowner Lake Association.
Mueller asked what one aspect would you bring positively to the Planning Commission.
Evans stated that he would increase the amount of enthusiasm. Possibly simplify live a
little bit. Make things a little easier for homeowner to obtain easy permits.
Mueller questioned if he ~vould be deterred from applying again if he was not chosen for
the commission. Evans responded that it would not deter him and that he would apply
again.
Hanus asked about the downtown redevelopment project. Evans responded that he is very
pleased with the idea.
Hanus asked if he had a option to improve something in Mound what would you change.
Evans responded that he would keep the dogs off the lake and would like to see the lake
kept cleaner.
Burma asked if this was an elected office what his campaign would be. Evans responded
his slogan would be Full speed ahead.
Weiland questioned about the Community Center project .
favor of it.
Evans responded that he is in
Weiland questioned about his children. Evans said that he has two children and that they
had moved out but have returned to live with he and his wife. He said that in the winter
time when business is slow he is a substitute teacher and likes our school district.
Glister questioned if there is something about Mound Evans doesn't like. Evans stated that
he hasn't seen the fire department in action, seems that the policing in the community is
well covered, don't know how well the storm sewers work.
Glister asked about if there were other communities that interested Evans before settling in
Mound. Evans responded that they really couldn't find a better community.
Evans didn't have any questions of the Commission.
Michael questioned if there was a public hanging in Mound would he attend. Evans
responded "No, under no circumstances"
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
There was further discussion about the candidates after they left.
The candidate with the least number of points is the candidate of choice by the
Commission.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend Cklair Hasse as the new
Planning Commissioner 8 - 10. Motion carried 6-0.
Weiland questioned the Variance Application questions. They can be misleading. It was
discussed and determined that maybe they should be revised.
':/7/
SECTION 00030
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
.CITY OF MOUND
1998 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
Sealed proposals will be received b)' the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. Thursday, April 30th,
1998 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud: for the fun'fishing
of all labor, equipment and materials for the application of approximately 27,200 gallons of bituminous
material and 1,360 tons of seal coat aggregate.
The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, May l'2nd, 1998.
All proposals shall be addressed to:
City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, M~rmesota 55364
and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "PROPOSAL FOR
1998 SEAL COAT PROGRAM" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the
project.
Copies of the Plaras and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with
the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North,
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the
offices of the Engineer upon payment of $20.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON-
REFUNDABLE.
Each bidder shall file wkh his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an mount of
not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be xvithdrawn within sixty (60)
days after the bids are opened.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities
therein.
City of Mound, Minnesota
Robert Polston, Mayor
ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk
END OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
April 8, 1998
TO:
FROM:
SUBEJCT:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-o620
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK' CITY CLERK
LICENSE RENEWALS FOR APRIL 14 COUNCIL MEETING
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is May 1, 1998 through April 30,
1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
GAMES OF SKILL
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post//5113
POOL TABLES
VFW Post #5113
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
BOWLING
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
AMUSEMENT DEVICE
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post//5113
RESTAURANT
Al & Alma's
American Legion Post//398
Domino's Pizza//1974
Happy Garden
Hardee's
House of Moy
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
Scotty B's
Subway Sandwiches
VFW Post//5113
Uncharted Grounds
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE
Amberwood Tree Service
printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION NO. 98
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE
FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS
WHEREAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council either release these
lots for public auction; release for private sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be
improved because of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance; and
WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to obtain certain lots for
various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm sewer drainage, street or park purposes, or topography.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, hereb, y authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make application to the State
of Minnesota for conveyance of the lots listed below for the public purpose listed:
PARCEL
LEGAL DESCRIFrION
PURPOSE
25-117-24 12 0164
25-117-24 12 0169
Lot 3, Block 23, Wetlands
Whipple
Lot 17, Block 23, Wetlands
Whipple
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 10, 1998
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN C~ARK, CITY CLERK
2 TAX FORFEIT PARCELS
Hennepin County has notified us that Lots 3 & 17, Block 23, Whipple are tax forfeit. In
checking these parcels and the surrounding area, I have found that the City of Mound already
has acquired most of the area for wetlands. I have spoken with the City Engineer and he
agrees they are low and should be retained by the City and combined with other parcels as
wetlands.
This proposal was presented to the Park & Open Space Commission on April 9, and they
recommended approval of the Application for Conveyance.
printed on recycled paper
.j
BILLS
March 14, 1998
Batch 8033
Batch 8034
Total bills
$ 74,562.79
254,300.09
$328,862.88
all
Z
z
?~7
,,,,1,
Z
tJJ
~B ~lh
z .,4
z o
I§
Z
,-. .. m r' 0 0 '~, 0 0 O 0 ~ 0 3' 'D ", .' 2.
L~
RESOLUTION #98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, FOR
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND
VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a single
family development called Seton Bluff in the manner required for platting of land under the City of
Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and
all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of
the preliminary plat, the planned development area, and the variances, taking into consideration the
requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street,
their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size
and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 14, 1998, held a public hearing pursuant to Section
330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Seton Bluff
Subdivision located on property described as follows and shown on the attachment:
Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton,
PID's 19-177-23 22 0036 to 0041 and 0054.
WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas
"to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual
building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table,
unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in
relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting
technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and
WHEREAS, the physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate
development of the property. In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in
driveway cuts arid retaining walls for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road, the
developers are proposing the project which facilitates the establishment of a common access drive
serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive allows much more control of storm
water runoff, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned
Development Areas. The net site area of Seton Bluff is 1.35. acres necessitating a variance of .65
acres in order to process the request as a PDA. Because of the physical conditions of the site,
processing this request as a PDA gives the City the ability to add appropriate conditions
to the approval. The proposed density with the applicable bonus is consistent with the maximum
density allowed under the shoreland ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
establish Seton Bluff as a Planned Development Area (PDA), together with a request for street
design variances and variances fi.om the bluff setback and impervious surface provisions of the
Mound City Code, and
WHEREAS, the development is located in the R-lA Zoning District which requires for lots
of record, a minimum of 6000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 40', a fi-ont yard setback of 20',
side yard setbacks of 6' and 6', a 15' rear yard setback and a 50' setback to the lakeshore and a
minimum building floor area requirement of 840 square feet, and
WHEREAS, all lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet as
required in the R-lA zoning district, and
WHEREAS, imporvious cover for the project exceeds the 30 percent allowable hardcover
for non-lots of record. The additional impervious cover is largely due to the expansive common
driveway and guest parking area. Developing the property with traditional driveways would reduce
the amount of impervious cover, however, it would complicate storm water drainage problems in
the area, and
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it
might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing
those considerations, and
WHEREAS, the street variances for the new portion of Kildare Road and the private drive
will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing paved
streets. Traffic resulting from the proposed development will be generated at the same rate as the
existing households in the vicinity since the proposed development and all of the development in the
area consists on detached single family homes, and
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of
development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision
as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to preserve wooded areas and to retain, as far as
practicable, existing tree cover. Seton Bluff contains scattered tree cover. Construction of the access
drive and units will necessitate removal of most of the vegetation in front portion of the site. The
amount of tree loss is, in all likelihood, equal to the amount of tree removal that would be necessary
to construct homes with individual driveways on to Kildare Road, and
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided, and
WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the
practical difficulty created by the topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing
vegetation, and the granting of variances will would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City
of Mound.
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 2 for approval of the plan with 7
units.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
Approves the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Final Plat, establish a Planned Development
Area including the establishment of a private drive and the following variances:
Right-of-Way width
Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius
Improved cul-de-sac radius
Improved street width
Street grade
PDA Site Area
Lots:
Lot 1 -
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Required Proposed Variance
50' 35' 15'
50'r 40'r 10'r
40'r 35'r 5'r
28' 24' 4'r
8% max 13% 5%
2 acres 1.35 acres .65 acres
Required Proposed
30' 19'
10' 6'
Variance
11'
4'
Lot 2 - Bluff Setback 30' 29.9' 0.1'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10' 6' 4'
Lot 3 - Bluff Setback 30' 19.1' 10.9'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10' 6' 4'
Lot 4 - Bluff Setback 30' 12.7'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10' 6'
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Front Yard Setback
Lot 5 -
17.3'
4'
30' 11.7'
10' 6'
20' 15'
18.3'
4'
5'
Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10'
10' 20'
6' 4'
Lot 7 - Bluff Setback
Front yard Setback
30' 10' 20'
20' 15' 5'
Impervious Cover
30% 32.8% 2.8%
The above variances are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements and
those found within the City Engineer's memo dated April 9, 1998:
The final plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all
improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City
Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided on the City's Zoning
regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council; and any inconsistent dwelling
location in the final plat shall be ignored.
The Homeowner's Association documents will be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat and
incorporated into final plat resolution.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract with
the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items covered by said
contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part of the
development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond or an
irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount
of 125% of estimated construction costs as per plans approved by the City Engineer.
o
The buildable area for each lot include all structure encompassing the house, attached garage,
decks and porches to meet the setbacks as requested.
Hardcover calculations reflect any plan modifications.
6. Engineer's certified design shall be provided for the retaining walls be furnished to the City for
review and approval.
7. The ponding area receive approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
8. Existing water service for the property at 2620 Kerry Lane shall be reconnected to the new water
main.
The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities shall not
be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the grade elevations
are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities shall be located underground.
10.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street
construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at
Hennepin County.
11. The approval would not be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to expend
/OOl
funds to provide a location fo~off-sit~v'at~rr storage.
12. The Conservation Easement will be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval.
13. The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
14. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required and
reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction. The Building
Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured.
15. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the city
showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall provide the City
Attorney a cun'ent abstract or register of property abstract for Seton Bluff.
16. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City
Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall become
null and void.
17. The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Kildare Road and in any other portion of the
plat shall be borne by the developer, including all required utilities on which the design shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
18. A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and provided
prior to the Final Plat Approval. All of these documents shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
19. Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the Building
Official will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the
homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and Building Official.
20. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent
management of the property.
21. Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $3,500 is to be paid prior to the City
releasing the final plat.
22. The City Engineer review and approve concrete curb along the south side of the private
driveway.
23. The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section 320.
e 1' ' ' .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such executic~n of the certificate upon said plat by the
Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code
of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
and seconded
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
3NV 9 o
S O Ni~ ~
\
..... 1 o~ I -~
I
0
E~-
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
i ln
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 14, 1998
SUBJECT: Seton BluffPDA Final Plat Approval - revised plat
OWNER: Thomas Stokes
LOCATION: Kildare Road and Kerry Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: Since the last Council meeting on the 24th of March, revisions have been
made to the final plat to reflect comments from the meeting. To summarize the revisions are as
follows:
· The storm water ponding area previously located in the right-of-way is located entirely
within lot 7.
· Portions of the retaining walls that encroached into the right-of-way have are also located
entirely within lot 7.
· The driveway entrance now has a width of 18 feet.
· The setbacks on lot 7 have been modified to eliminate front yard variances.
· Minor adjustments in the yard setbacks to reflect changes in the driveway width.
The applicant has submitted this revised final plat for the Seton Bluff PDA. The preliminary plat
was approved by Resolution #97-54 in May of 1997. Council approval of the final plat is being
sought at this time which would allow the development to proceed. Along with the approval of
the plat is a conditional use permit which regulates the plan.
The development is a 7 lot planned development area on 1.35 acres of land located at the comer
of Kildare Road and Kerry Lane. All lot areas and widths are meet the minimum requirements
for the R-lA district. The steep topography on the south and lakeside limits the locations for
building on the site. Due to these constraints the applicant is requesting a number of variances
which are listed as follows:
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Seton Bluff ?inal Plat
April 14, 1998
Required
Right-of-way width 50'
Cul-de-sac ROW radius 50'
Improved cul-de-sac radius 40'
Improved Street width 28'
Street grade 8% max
PDA Site Area 2 acres
Proposed Variance
35' 15'
40' 10'
35' 5'
24' 4'
13% 5%
1.35 acres .65 acres
Lots:
Lot 1 - Bluff Setback 30' 19' 11'
Side Yard Setback 10' 6' 4'
Lot 2 - Side Yard Setback 10'
Bluff Setback 30'
0s 4~
29.9' 0.1'
Lot 3 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback 10'
19.1' 10.9'
6' 4'
Lot 4 - Bluff Setback 30' 12.7' 17.3'
Side Yard Setback 10' 6' 4'
Lot 5 - Bluff Setback 30' 11.7' 18.3'
Side Yard Setback 10' 6' 4'
Front Yard Setback 20' 15' 5'
Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
Side Yard Setback 10' 6' 4'
Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (rear) 30'
Front Yard Setback 20'
10' 20'
15' 5'
Impervious cover 30% 32.8% 2.8%
Some of the requested variances have changed from those approved on the preliminary plat and
the final plat at last Council meeting. These changes reflect adjustments to the driveway,
stormwater ponding area, and comments from Staff and Council.
COMMENTS: Staff had a meeting with the applicant and developer prior to these revisions
being made to clarify any discrepancies that may have existed. The revisions to the final plat
reflect the comments discussed during this meeting.
The final plat indicates Outlot A along the eastern edge of Lot 1. Although the name was not
noted on the previous final plat the area, the area was plhtted as such. The reason the outlot is
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Iool,
p. 3
Seton Bluff Final Plat
April 14, 1998
platted is to provide additional area for surveying discrepancies between this plat and the
adjacent plat. The owner has stated his intentions of giving the outlot to the adjacent property
owner. The ownership of the outlot has little effect on this plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council approval of the Seton Bluff PDA final
plat as requested with the following conditions:
1. The buildable area for each lot include all structure encompassing the house, attached garage,
decks and porches to meet the setbacks as requested.
2. Hardcover calculations reflect any plan modifications.
3. Engineer's certified design shall be provided for the retaining walls be furnished to the City
for review and approval.
4. The ponding area receive approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
5. Existing water servico for the property at 2620 Kerry Lane shall be reconnected to the new
water main.
6. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities shall
not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the grade
elevations are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities shall be located underground.
7. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street
construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at
Hennepin County.
8. The Conservation Easement will be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval.
9. The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
10. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required
and reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction.
The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured.
11. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the
city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall provide
the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Seton Bluff.
12. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the
City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall
become null and void.
13. The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Kildare Road and in any other portion of the
plat shall be borne by the developer, including all required utilities on which the design shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
14. A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and
provided prior to the Final Plat Approval. All of these documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
15. Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the
Building Official will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access
servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 4
Seton £h~Final Plat
April 14, 1998
Building Official.
16. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
17. Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $3,500 is to be paid prior to the City
releasing the final plat.
1 $. The City Engineer review and approve concrete curb along the south side of the private
driveway.
19. The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section 320.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
UcCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
April 9, 1998
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
RECEIVED
APR 1 0 1998
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Final Plat - Seton Bluff
Case #96-64
MFRA # 11542
Dear Jon:
Enclosed is a revised engineering report for the final plat of Seton Bluff. It reflects the revisions
made to the final plans and final plat that were discussed at the City Council meeting on March
24, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
City Engineer
JRC:pry
Enclosure
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group
John Dean, Kennedy, & Graven
e:h'nain:\ 11542\suth3-18
An Equal Opportunity Employer
I0o?
mb 8,,
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER'S MEMO
TO
THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
CASE NO:
PETITIONER:
FINAL PLAT:
LOCATION:
April 9, 1998 (Revised)
96-64
Brenshell Homes
Seton Bluff
Kildare Road
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
X
2. X
3. X
4. X
5. X
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be
that in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Area assessments.
Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS:
6. x
7. X
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
(10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. SEE SPECIAL
CONDITIONS.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been
reviewed with the final construction plans and the following
changes are necessary:
SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS
N/A Yes .,No
X
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lines below the established
100-year high water elevation and conformance with the
City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
X
All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have
been vacated. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-
way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the
Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
10.
11.
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application - If it is subsequently
determined that the subject property is abstract property, then
this requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in
order that he may file the required easements referred to
above.
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the Developer:
x DNR
__ Hennepin County
x MPCA
x State Health Department
x Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Other
X
X
12.
X
The Developer must comply with the conditions within any
permit. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City grid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary:
-2-
N/A Yes No
13. X
14. X
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the
City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
15.
X
All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
VARIANCE REQUESTED AS PART OF FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL.
Additional right-of-way will be required on
UTILITIES:
16. X
17. X
Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City
requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
well as the proposed street system (public and private).
-3-
N/A Yes No
18. X
19. X
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is
paying 100% of the cost.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
20. X
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X
It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public
Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any
proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for
contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
22. X
Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the
following lots:
23. X
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been
submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if
it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be
incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan
shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: SEE
SPECAL CONDITIONS.
-4-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
24.
What is the purpose and future ownership of Outlot A? It did not appear on the approved
preliminary plat.
25.
The relocation of the lot line between Lots 6 and 7 from the approved preliminary plat
will not adversely affect the engineering plans.
26.
The final plat does not have an easement sufficient in width to cover the proposed storm
sewer across Lots 1 through 4; however this portion of the storm sewer is private and will
be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
27.
The Final Grading Plan has been revised to remove all proposed improvements from the
adjacent City right-of-way, except for the rip rap at the end of the outlet pipe from the
storage pond. I requested that the developer extend the pipe to the right-of-way line to
lower the discharge elevation as low as possible and still keep the pipe within their
property. This puts the rip rap in the City right-of-way which I do not see a problem.
28.
The City has not be~n fumished any information on the retaining wall proposed along the
south side of Kildare Road. Prior to commencing construction, sufficient design
information must be submitted and approved by the City.
29.
The approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requires a pond
maintenance agreement. This will be the responsibility of the developer and ultimately
the homeowners; thus this agreement should be included in the homeowners association
covenents.
30.
The driveway and parking stall dimensions as required by the Preliminary Plat approval
have been met with submission of revised plans dated 4/6/98.
31.
The existing water service for the Steve Grand property at the southwest comer of
Kildare Road and Kerry Lane must be reconnected to the new watermain.
32.
Specifications and construction details must be submitted for approval, including the
proposed retaining walls.
33.
The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as
telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed
until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be
installed underground.
34.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street
construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and
recorded at Hennepin County.
-5-
35.
Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be necessary
to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said certification
and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed work be accepted, the City
Council will be requested to accept the completed public improvements. Acceptance will
be by formal Resolution of the City Council.
36.
The following items shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be covered by
an escrow guarantee (survey bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of
credit), as specified:
Grading $ 43,000
Sanitary Sewer $ 15,600
Watermain $ 12,400
Storm Sewer $ 11,850
Street Construction $ 27,650
Landscaping and Retaining Walls $ 25,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL $ 135,500
Amount of Escrow Guarantee:
Estimated total ($135,500) x 125% = $169,375
Submitted by:
John Cameron, City Engineer
e:\main:\ 11542\bren3 - 16
-6-
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated
municipal corporation ("the City"), and
Developer").
, 199__, between the City of Mound, a Minnesota
("the
WHEREAS, the Developer has asked the City to approve a plat of land owned by it to be
known as (also referred to in this Agreement as the
"plat"). The land is legally described as follows:
See attached Exhibit "A"
AND WHEREAS, the City has approved the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this
Development Contract and comply with its terms.
Representation by Developer. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed
plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and
regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances
and Environmental Regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply,
the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in
the plat until there is compliance. The Developer further ~epresents to the City that the
plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental assessment
worksheet, environmental impact statement or the like is not required. If the City or
another governmental entity or agency determines, however, that such a review is
needed, the Developer shall prepare it and reimburse the City for all expenses, including
staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the-'
review.
- 1 -
..
Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in phase(s) in accordance
with the attached Exhib. it. Phases not being final platted at this time shall be
designated as outlots on the final plat for Phase I. The City may refuse to approve final
plats of subsequent phases until development of all prior phases has been satisfactorily
completed.
Completion of Work. The Developer shall complete the work req0ired by Paragraph 4
of this Agreement in accordance with City specifications within months from
the date of this Agreement. All work shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer
and, when and if necessary, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota
Department of Health, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and any other
governmental agency having jurisdiction.
..
Public Improvements. The required improvements and estimated costs are set out in
the letter of the City Engineer dated ,199_, attached hereto
as Exhibit "B". Within ninety (90) days after completion of the improvements, the
Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "Record Plans". The Developer
shall retain a competent professional engineer to prepare the appropriate plans,
specifications, and other instructions to accomplish these activities. The Developer
shall specifically instruct his engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to
assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer
will be able to certify that the construction work meets'the approved City standards
as a condition of City acceptance. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a
preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties
concerned including the City Staff to review the program for the construction work.
- 2 -
Bond Requirements. The Developer shall deposit with the City a performance, materials
and labor bond satisfacto, ry to the City to guarantee completion of the work required
by the Developer pursuant to Paragraph four (4) of this Agreement and also
guaranteeing the payment for all materials and labor costs incurred in conjunction with
the work. The amount of the bond shall be for 125% of the estimated cost of the
work as set forth in Exhibit "B".
Other Costs and Contributions. Before the City signs the final plat the Developer shall
pay or make arrangements satisfactory to the City for payment of the costs and
contributions as set for in the attached Exhibit "C".
Ownership of 'Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction
required to be done by this Agreement, the improvements lying within public easements
shall become City property without further notice or action.
Warranty.. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor
material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year, after is completion and
acceptance by the City. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other security
acceptable to the City to secure the warranties.
Erosion Control. Developer shall, at its expense, provide grading, drainage and erosion
control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City. ~uch plans must comply with
any erosion control method requested by the City for the prevention of damage to
adjacent property and the control of surface water runoff. Such plans shall also, to the
extent deemed necessary by the City, provide for temporary dams, earthwork or such
other devices and practices including seeding of graded areas as necessary to prevent
the v~ashing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and
outside the plat during all phases of construction. Developer shall keep all streets
within and outside the plat free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein
by Developer, its agents, employees and assignees.
- 3 -
Prior to issuing building permits within the plat, the City shall require escrow deposits
of 8500 for each lot to ensure that erosion control barriers and all other steps required
to be taken to control erosion have been taken and remain continuously in place. If
Developer fails to maintain such measures, or if dirt, sediments, sand, silt or debris is
washed onto streets or other property, either within or outside the plat, the City shall,
without further notice to Developer, have the right to restore the erosion control
measures and remove the dirt, sand, silt, sedimentation or debris-and to draw on the
escrow deposit an amount equal to 150% of the cost of such work. The escrows
made under this paragraph on each of the lots will be pooled into a common account
and will be available generally for activities contemplated under this paragraph. Unused
amounts will be returned to Developer upon completion of construction on the last lot.
10.
Easement. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors an easement and license to enter the plat to perform all work and/or
inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the development of the plat.
11.
Responsibility for Costs.
Ao
The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with
the development of the plat. The City shall have no obligation to pay such
costs whether or not the City has approved the work.
The Developer shall hold the City harmless from claims by third parties,
including but not limited to other property owners, contractors, subcontractors
and material men, for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City for all costs,
damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney's fees, which the City
may pay or incur in consequence of such claims by third parties.
- 4 -
The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of
this contract, inclu, ding engineering and attorney's fees.
The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within (30)
days. If the bills are not paid in time the City may halt all plat development
work until the bills are paid in full.
Eo
The Developer agrees that the City, at its option only, can install and construct
any work on improvements required herein to be made by the Developer. If the
City makes any such improvements under its power to make local
improvements, or if the City makes improvements due to the Developer's
default'as outlined in Section 13 the City may in addition to its other remedies
assess its cost in whole or in part. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the
Developer shall pay the entire assessment in a single installment in the year
after adoption of the assessment.
The Developer hereby waives any and all substantive and procedural objections
to the City doing the work and assessing the cost.
13.
Developer's Default. If the Developer does not satisfactorily complete the work this
Development Contract requires of it, the City may at its option perform the work and
the Developer or the bonding company shall reimburse th~ City for all expenses incurred
by the City. The City shall give the Developer and the bonding company at least 48
hours notice of the City's intention to perform any such work. However, in the event
of an emergency as determined by the City, 48 hours notice is not required and the
Developer or the bonding company shall reimburse the City for any expenses incurred
by the City in the same manner as if notice had been given.
14.
Miscellaneous.
This Agreement shall be binding upor~ the parties, their heirs, successors and
- 5 -
assigns, as the case may be.
Breach of any term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for
denial of building permits.
If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this
Development Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement except that the
City may elect to rescind its approval of the plat.
Do
No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a
temporary or permanent basis until:
sanitary sewer and water lines have been installed, hooked up, tested
and approved by the City, and
the streets needed for access to the residence have been paved with a
bituminous surface and concrete curb and gutter have been installed.
Eo
The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment
to the provision of this Development Contract. To be binding, amendments or
waivers shall be in writing, signed by the part~es and approved by written
resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action
to enforce this development contract shall not be a waiver or release. The
security in the form of a performance bond or an approved letter of credit shall
not expire or be released until all work and improvements have been
satisfactorily completed and accepted by the City.
F0
This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
property on the plat.
- 6
15.
Required notices 1:o the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered
to the Developer, its emp. loyees or agents or mailed to the Developer by certified or
registered mail at the following address:
· Notices to the City
shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager or mailed to
the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following
address: City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. Attention: City
Manager.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seal:
CITY OF MOUND
By:
(Mayor)
By:
(Manager)
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
- ? -
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this ~ day of ,199__, before me a notary public within and for
said County, personally appeared
and to me personally known,
who being each by me duly sworn, each did say to me that they are respectively the mayor and
manager of the City of Mound, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that
said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council
and said and acknowledged
said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Notary Public
On this~day of
said County, personally appeared
,199__, before me a notary public within and for
and to me personally known,
who being each by me duly sworn, each did say to me that they are respectively the
and of the corporation
named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said
corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
Notary Public
- 8 -
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of
said County, personally appeared
the foregoing instrument and
,199__, before me a notary public within and for
to me known to be the person described in and who executed
acknowledged that __he executed the same as
free act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of ,199__, before me a notary public within and for
said County, personally appeared
to me known to be one of the partners of the partnership that
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the
same.
Notary Public
- 9 -
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS,
RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR
SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
THIS DECLARATION made this day of. March, 1998, by Thomas
Stokes and Jack Schuster, hereinafter collectively called "Declarant";
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant Thomas Stokes is the owner of the following described
real estate
Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, Block 1, all in SETON BLUFFS, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
estate:
WHEREAS, Declarant Jack Schuster is the owner of the following described real
Lots 14 and 33, Block 11, SETON, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
all of which above-described land together constitutes and is hereinafter referred to as the
"Property"; and
and
WHEREAS, the Property is the subject of a proposed residential development;
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject the Property to this Declaration at this
time; and
WHEREAS, the Common Areas subjected hereby and the improvements
constructed thereon, will require continuing care and maintenance for the benefit and
enjoyment of persons residing in the Property; and
WHEREAS, SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Association"), is the successor
in interest to Black Lake Homeowners Association II, Inc. and has been formed as an
agency to receive the power to attend to and effectuate policies and programs set forth
herein, to hold title to, maintain and administer the Common Area, to administer and enforce
the covenants and restrictions, and to collect and disburse the assessments and charges
hereinafter created;
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the property described in Article II
hereof, is and shall be held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, occupied and developed, subject
to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth,
which are for the purpose of protecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property,
and which shall nm with the Property and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or
interest in the Property, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of
each Owner thereof, and the heirs, successors and assigns of each Owner. This Declaration
hereby establishes a general plan for the individual ownership of real property estates consisting
of residential lots, and the ownership by the Association of all of the Common Area as
hereinafter defined. Every conveyance of any of such lots or Common Area, or any part thereof,
or any interest therein, shall be and is subject to these easements, covenants, conditions and
restrictions, as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1. The following words when used in this Declaration (unless the context
shall prohibit) shall have the following meanings:
A. "Owner" shall mean the record owner, whether one or more persons or
entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Property, including contract sellers,
but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation.
B. "Property" shall mean and refer to that certain real property described and
defined in Article II hereinbelow and such additions thereto as hereafter may be expressly
brought within the jurisdiction of the Association, but shall not include any lots or outlots within
said subdivision not so expressly named.
C. "Association" shall mean Seton Bluffs Homeowners Association, Inc., a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation.
D. "Common Area" shall mean Lots 1-7 inclusive, Block 1, SETON BLUFFS
and Lots 14 and 33, Block 11, Seton, including all improvements and structures constructed or to
be constructed thereon, and such additions thereto (by way of easement or other grant from
Declarant or others) as have been or may be granted to the Association for the common use and
enjoyment of the Owners. Said Common Area will be conveyed to the Association prior to the
first conveyance of a Lot to an Owner other than Declarant.
E. "Lot" shall mean and refer to Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, Block 1, SETON
BLUFFS and Lot 11 and 33, Block 11 SETON.
F. "Member" shall mean any person or entity holding membership in the
Association as provided in Article III hereof.
G. "Declarant" shall mean the above named Declarants, their successors and
assigns if such successors and assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from the
Declarant for the purpose of development.
H. "Mortgage" shall mean any mortgage or other security instrument by which
a Lot or any part thereof of any structure thereon is encumbered.
I. "Mortgagee" shall mean any person or entity named as the Mortgagee under
any such Mortgage or any successors or assigns to the interest of such person or entity under
such Mortgage.
ARTICLE II
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION
Section 1. The real property which is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed
and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, and is more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1-7, Block 1, SETON BLUFFS and Lot , Block
according t.o the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota
, SETON,
ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS IN ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Membership. Every Owner of a Lot subject to assessment, except as
herein provided to the contrary, shall be entitled and required to be a member of the Association.
If title to a Lot is held by more than one person, such persons shall collectively be a member. An
Owner of more than one Lot shall be entitled to one membership for each such Lot. Each such
membership shall be appurtenant to the Lot upon which it is based and shall transfer
automatically by voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the title of that Lot. No person or
entity other than an Owner or Declarant may be a member of the Association, and a membership
in the Association may not be transferred except in connection with the transfer of title to that
Lot. Membership shall be further restricted to those persons who meet the eligibility
requirements set forth in the Bylaws of the Association.
Section 2. Transfer. A membership in the Association shall not be transferred,
pledged or alienated in any way, except upon the transfer of the record title of a Lot and then
only to such transferee by assignment, intestate succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosure
of mortgage of record, or other legal process. It shall be the responsibility of each Owner, upon
becoming entitled to membership, so to notify the Association in writing, and until so notified,
the Association may continue to carry the name of the former Owner. as a member, in its sole
discretion. In the event the Owner of any Lot should fail or refuse to transfer the membership
registered in his name to the transferee of title of such Lot, the Association shall have the right to
record the transfer upon the books of the Association and issue a new membership to the
transferee, and thereupon the old membership outstanding in the name of the transferor shall be
null and void as though the same had been surrendered.
Section 3. Voting and Quorums.
A. Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote in the affairs of the
corporation for each Lot (as defined by this Declaration) owned by such member and for which
Lot such member has paid the required assessments. When more than one person owns an
interest in any Lot, the vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine,
but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Lot.
B. At all meetings of the membership each member may vote either in person
or by a representative appointed by a written proxy filed with the Secretary. A majority of
members represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business.
Section 4. Suspension of Voting Rights. In the event any Owner shall be in arrears
in the payment of any amount due under any of the provisions of this Declaration for a period of
thirty (30) days or such period as shall be prescribed by the Association's Board of Directors, or
shall be in default in the performance of any of the terms of this Declaration for a period of thirty
(30) days, such Owner's ri.'ght to vote as a member of the Association shall be suspended and
shall remain suspended until all payments are brought current and all defaults remedied.
ARTICLE IV
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Section 1. Easements. Covenants: Amendments. All easements described in this
Declaration are permanent easements appurtenant, running with the land. They shall at all times
inure to the benefit of and be binding on the Owner and the Mortgagee, from time to time, of any
Lots and on the owner and mortgagee, if any, from time to time, of the Common Area, and their
respective heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns.
A. Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are
shown on the recorded plat. Within these easements, no structure, planting, or
other material shall be placed or permitted to remain that may damage oar
interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities, or that may damage,
interfere with, or change the direction of flow of drainage facilities in the
easements. The easement areas of each lot and all improvements on such lot shall
be continuously maintained by the owner or owner of such lot, except for
improvements for maintenance of which public authority or utility company is
responsible.
B. No Dwelling unit or other structure of any kind shall be built, erected, or
maintained on any such easement, reservation, or the right of way, and such
easement, reservations, and rights of way shall at all times be open and accessible
to public and quasi-public utility corporations, their employees and contractors,
and shall also be open and accessible to declarent, and declarent's successors and
assigns, all of whom shall have the right and privilege of doing whatever may be
necessary in, on, under, and above such loOcations to carry out any purposes for
which such easements, reservations, and rights of way are reserved.
C. The easements, reservations and rights of way referred to herein shall specifically
include though are not limited to the following:
(i)
An easement for conservation, utility and travel purposes over, under and
across the drainage easement as dedicated in the plat of SETON BLUFFS.
This easement is designated as a "no-mow, no-cut zone".
(ii)
An easement for travel, drainage and utilities over, under and across the
southerly 40 feet of Lot 2, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 3, the southerly 33 feet
of Lot 4 and that part of Lot 5 lying southerly of the northerly 140 feet of Lot
5; all in Block 1, SETON BLUFFS.
Section 2. Right of En_io_vment. Every Owner shall have a non-exclusive right and
easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area. Such right and easement shall be
appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the following provisions:
A. The right of the Association to pass reasonable rules, with respect to the
Common Area, for the health, safety and welfare of persons using same which may include (by
way of example and not limitation): restrictions on swimming, boating, picnicking, guest use and
other similar activities.
B. The right of the Association to suspend the voting rights (but not rights of
access to Lots) by an Owner for any period during which any assessment against his Lot remains
unpaid, and for infraction of its published rules and regulations as set forth in the Bylaws;
Co
Declaration;
The right of the Association to levy assessments as provided in this
D. The rights of the Association and Declarant reserved under Article IV,
Sections 4 and 5 hereinbelow.
Section 3. Delegation of Enjo_vment. Any Owner may delegate, in accordance
with the by-law's of the Association, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area to residents of
his Lot, including the members of his family, his tenants, or contract purchasers, and the invitees
thereof.
Section 4. Association's Rights.
A. The Association shall have the right to manage, build, reconstruct, repair,
maintain and improve the Common Area.
Bo
Common Area.
The Association shall have no fight to mortgage all or any portion of the
C. The Association shall have the right t6 dedicate or transfer all or any part of
the Common Area to any governmental subdivision or public agency or utility, and to grant
perm/ts, licenses, and easements over the Common Area for utilities, roads, and other purposes
necessary or useful for the proper maintenance or operation of the Property, subject to any prior
written approval of Owners of a majority of Lots.
D. The Property shall be subject to easements of record on the date hereof and
any easements in the Common Area which may hereafter be granted by the Association (subject
to the approval referred to in the preceding paragraph) to any public or private utilities or
governmental bodies for the installation and maintenance of electrical, telephone, cable
television and data conduit and lines, gas pipes, sewers or water pipes, coaxial cable, or any other
utility services serving any Lots or the Common Area.
E. Except as provided in the preceding two paragraphs, no abandonment,
partition, subdivision, encumbrance, sale or transfer of the Common Area or other common
property or any part thereof shall be effective unless it shall have received the prior written
approval of all Owners.
Section 5. D~clarant's Rights. Declarant shall have the same rights as any other
Owners so long as Declarant owns a Lot. In addition, until the last Lot is conveyed to an Owner
other than Declarant, Declarant shall have the right and easement over the Common Area for the
construction and completion of improvements and making repairs to improvements (whether on
the Common Area or upon Lots) and the right to maintain and use parking and signs upon the
Common Area for the purpose of marketing Lots, and to invite and escort the public thereon for
such purpose. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Declarant shall have the right
(until the last lot is so conveyed) to construct, relocate, remove and alter improvements on the
Common Area, including paths, driveways, docks, parking areas, utilities, lighting, walls, fences,
and landscaping.
Section 6. Non-Dedication to Public Uses. Nothing contained in this Declaration
shall be construed or be deemed to constitute a dedication, express or implied, of any part of the
Common Area to or for any public use or purpose whatsoever.
ARTICLE V.
USE RESTRICTIONS
The Lots and Common area of the subdivision shall be subject to the following
restrictions:
Section 1. Each lot shall be used as a residence for a single family and for no other
purpose.
Section 2. No business of any kind shall be conducted on any residence with the
exception of the business of declarant and the transferees of declarant in developing all of the
lots as provided in Section 11 of this article.
Section 3. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carded on in or on any lot with
the exception of the business of declarant and the transferees of declarant in developing all of the
lots as provided in Section 11 of this article.
Section 4. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to public view on a lot or the
common area without the prior written consent of the association, except customary name and
address signs and lawn signs of not more than five square feet in size advertising a property for
sale or rent.
Section 5. Nothing shall be done or kept on a lot or on the common area that would
increase the rate of insurance relating to a lot or the common area without the prior written
consent of the association, and no owner or owners shall permit anything to be done or kept on a
lot or the common area that would result in the cancellation of insurance on any residence or on
any part of the common area, or that would be in violation of any law.
Section 6. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept
on any lot or on the commgn area. However, dogs, cats, and other household pets may be kept on
lots subject to such rules and regulations as may be adopted by the association, so long as they
are not kept, bred, or maintained for commercial purposes.
Section 7. No rubbish, trash, or garbage, or other waste material shall be kept or
permitted on any lot or on the common area except in sanitary containers located in appropriate
areas concealed from public view.
Section 8. No Fish houses, recreational vehicles or similar vehicles of this type shall
be stored or parked on the guest parking lot located on the south portion of the Common Area
adjacent to Kildare Road. Guest parking on this lot shall be limited to Seven (7) days unless
extended by approval by the board of directors of the Association.
Section 9. No outbuilding, basement, tent, shack, garage, trailer, shed, or temporary
building of any kind shall be used as a residence, either temporarily or permanently.
Section 10. Nothing shall be altered in, constructed on, or removed from the
common area except on the written consent of the association.
Section 11. Declarant or the transferees of declarant shall undertake the work of
developing all lots included within the subdivision. The completion of that work, and the sale,
rental, or other disposal of residential units is essential to the establishment and welfare of the
subdivision as an ongoing residential community. In order that such work may be completed and
the subdivision be established as a fully-occupied residential community as soon as possible,
nothing in this declaration shall be understood or construed to:
(a) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors
of declarant or declarant's transferees from doing on any part or parts of the subdivision
owned or controlled by declarant or declarant's transferees or their representatives,
whatever they determine may be reasonably necess~a-y or advisable in connection with the
completion of such work;
(b) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or
subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from constructing and maintaining on
any part or parts of the subdivision property owned or controlled by declarant, declarant's
transferees, or their representatives, such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the
completion of such work, the establishment of the subdivision as a residential community,
and the disposition of lots by sale lease, or otherwise;
(c) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or
subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from conducting on any part or parts of
the subdivision property owned or controlled by declarant or declarant's transferees or their
representatives, the business of completing such work, of establishing the subdivision as a
residential community, and of disposing of lots by sale, lease, or otherwise; or
(d) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or
subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from maintaining such sign or signs on
any of the lots owned br controlled by any of them as may be necessary in connection with
the sale, lease, or otherwise of subdivision lots.
As used in this section, the words "declarant's transferees" specifically exclude purchasers
of lots improved with completed residences.
ARTICLE VI
ASSESSMENTS
Section 1. Personal Obligation. Declarant, for each Lot owned by it within the
Property, hereby covenants, and each Owner of a Lot by acceptance of a deed, or other
conveyance therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed therein, shall be and is deemed to
covenant and hereby agrees to pay to the Association: (a) annual assessments or charges, which
shall be payable, in regular installments and shall include, but not be limited to, real estate taxes,
insurance and maintenance, repair and replacement of those improvements and elements of the
common property that must be replaced on a periodic basis, and (b) special assessments, such
assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. Any assessments authorized
herein, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a continuing lien from
the first day of January (for annual assessments) and from the date the first installment is payable
(for special assessments) against the Lot assessed. Such annual assessments shall be due and
payable in mon~thly, quarterly or annual installments, as determined by the Board. Each
assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, also shall be the personal
obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot on the date said assessment became due
and payable. Said personal obligation of an Owner shall not pass to his successors in
title or interest unless expressly assumed by them or unless, prior to such transfer, a statement of
lien for such assessments shall have been filed in writing with the County Recorder or Registrar
of Titles (as applicable) for Hennepin County, Minnesota. No Owner shall escape liability for
the assessments which fell due while he was the Owner by reason of non-use of the Common
Area or non-use, transfer or abandonment of his Lot.
Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall
be used exclusively to promote the safety and welfare of the Owners and residents of the
.Property, and to construct, manage, improve, maintain, repair and administer the Common Area
and all roads, pathways, docks, beaches, utilities and equipment located upon the Common Area,
except to the extent such repairs are the responsibility of a public or private utility. An adequate
reserve fund shall be maintained for working capital and for the periodic maintenance, repair and
replacement of those improvements and elements of the common property that must be replaced
on a periodic basis. Such fund shall be maintained out of the regular assessments.
Section 3. Annual Assessments. The maximum annual assessment shall be at the
rate fixed by the Board of Directors, but not to exceed $ per Lot per year. The Hoard
of Directors may fix said annual assessment to cover any and all expenses and projected
expenses.
Section 4. S_t~ecial Assessment~. In addition to the annual assessments authorized
above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that
year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any unforeseen or
unbudgeted common expense, including without limitation the unexpected construction,
reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement and including fixtures and
personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of
not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the votes of each eclass of Members who are voting in person
or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose.
Section 5. Notice and Quorum. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose
of taking any action authorized under Sections 3 or 4 of this Article shall be sent to all Members
not less than thirty (30) days in the case of annual meetings and not less than 15 days in the case
of special meetings in advance of the meeting. At the opening of such meeting, the presence in
person or by proxy of Members entitled to cast a majority of the votes of the membership shall
constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called
subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall
be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting
shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting.
Section 6. Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assessments must be fixed
at a uniform rate for all Lots except that boating facilities expense may be assessed against Lots
whose owners have the right to make use of the available and projected boating facilities for the
season.
Section 7. Commencement of Initial Annual Assessmentn. The annual assessments
provided for herein shall commence as to all Lots at such time as the Board of Directors shall
determine.
Section 8. Commencement of Annual Assessments. By April 15 of each year the
Board shall fix the amount of annual assessments against each Lot for the following fiscal year
and shall send wr/tten notice thereof to each Owner. The due date for payment of annual
assessments shall be as set by the Board. At the time the Board fixes the amount of annual
assessments it shall adopt a budget for the following fiscal year and cause a copy of such budget
in reasonable detail to be furnished to each Owner.
Section 9. Proof of Payrnent. Upon written demand of an Owner or Mortgagee, at
any time and for a reasonable charge, the Association shall furnish a written certificate signed by
an officer of the Association setting forth whether there are any then-unpaid annual or special
assessments levied against such Owner's or Mortgagee's Lot. Such certificate shall be conclusive
evidence of payment of any annual or special assessments not stated therein as unpaid.
Section 10. Nonpa.vrnent of Assessments. Any assessments which are not paid
when due shall be deemed delinquent. In the event of a default of more than thirty (30) days in
payment of any assessment or installment thereof, the Board of Directors may accelerate the
remaining installments of the assessment due in the current assessment year upon notice thereof
to the Owner, and thereup.on the entire unpaid balance of the assessment with all accrued interest
and penalties shall become due and payable upon the date stated in the notice. If an assessment
is not paid within thirty (30) days after the delinquency date, it shall bear interest from the
delinquency date at the rate of eight percent (9%) per annum and shall become a continuing lien
in favor of the Association on the Lot against which assessed and the improvement thereon, and
the Association (or any Owner acting in the name and for the benefit of the Association) may
bring an action at law or in equity against the person personally obligated to pay the same,
including interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for any such action, which shall be added
to the amount of such assessment and included in any judgment rendered in such action, and the
Association may also enforce and foreclose any lien it has or which may exist for its benefit.
There shall be no right of set-off against the Association based upon a failure to provide services
or for money owed by the Association to the Owners.
Section 11. Recording and Enforcement of Liens. To evidence a lien for sums
assessed pursuant to this Article, the Association may prepare a written notice of lien setting
forth the amount of the assessment, the date due, the amount remaining unpaid, the name of the
Owner of the Lot, the name of the person personally obligated to pay the same, and a description
of the Lot. Such a notice shall be signed by an officer of the Association, and it or a notice of lien
or adverse claim thereof may be recorded in the office of the County Recorder or Registrar of
Titles (as applicable) for Hennepin County, Minnesota. No notice of lien shall be recorded
until there is a delinquency in payment of the assessment for thirty (30) days. Upon such a
delinquency for thirty (30) days, the Association shall proceed promptly to enforce the lien or, in
its discretion, to-sue the person personally liable to pay the lien for the delinquency. Such lien
shall be enforced by action (or by power of sale, which is hereby deemed granted by each
Owner, at the option of foreclosing party) in the same manner in which mortgages on real
property may be foreclosed in Minnesota. In any such foreclosure, the person personally
obligated to pay the lien shall be required to pay all costs of foreclosure including interest, costs,
and reasonable attorneys' fees. All such interests, costs, and expenses shall be secured by the
lien being foreclosed. The person personally obligated to pay the lien also shall be required to
pay to the Association any assessments against the Lot which shall become due during the period
of foreclosure. The Association shall have the right and power to bid at the foreclosure sale or
other legal sale and to acquire, hold, convey, lease, rent, encumber, use and otherwise deal with
the foreclosed interest in the Lot as the Owner thereof.
The Association shall upon written request report to any encumbrancer of a Lot any
'assessments remaining unpaid for longer than thirty (30) days after the same shall have become
due, provided, however, that such encumbrancer first shall have furnished to the Association
written notice of such encumbrance.
Section 12. Subordination of Lien. The line of the assessments provided for herein
shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage and to tax liens and liens for special
assessments in favor of any taxing and assessing unit of government. Sale or transfer of any Lot
shall not affect the assessment line. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to
mortgage foreclosure or remedies provided in the mortgage, or any proceeding in lieu thereof,
shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to charges which accrued prior to acquisition of
title pursuant to such sale or transfer. No such sale or transfer shall relieve a Lot from liability
for any assessments therea, fter becoming due or from the lien thereof or shall relieve the person
personally obligated to pay the lien of personal liability for assessments due prior to such sale or
transfer or acquisition of premises. Any delinquent assessments the lien for which is
extinguished by reason of this provision may be reallocated and assessed to all Lots as a common
expense.
ARTICLE VI
OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATIQN
Section 1. The Common Area.. The Association, subject to the rights of the Owners
as set forth in this Declaration, shall be responsible for, and be vested with, the exclusive
management and control of the Common Area and all improvements thereon (including
equipment related thereto), and shall keep the same in good condition, order and repair. Such
responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the following: the maintenance and repair of
the Common Area improvements~ such as docks, beaches, picnic and playground facilities,
walkways, exterior ornamental lights, and all other improvements or material located within or
used in connection with the Common Area. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair
is caused through the willful or negligent act of an Owner, his family, guests or invitees, the cost
of such maintenance or repair shall be added to and become a part of the assessment to which
such Lot is subject.
Section 2. Hazard and Liabili _ty Insurance for Common Property_. The Association
shall procure fire and extended coverage on insurable common property (if any) on a current
replacement cost basis in an amount not less than 100% of the insurable value (based on current
replacement only), and shall use the proceeds of such hazard insurance solely for the repair,
replacement or reconstruction of such insurable common property including insured
improvements. The cost of such insurance shall be assessed as provided in Article V above.
First mortgagees of Lots, jointly or singly, may pay overdue premiums on hazard insurance
policies, or may secure new hazard insurance coverage on' the lapse of a policy, for the common
property, and first mortgagees making such payments shall be owed immediate reimbursement
therefor from the Association. The Association is authorized to enter into an agreement in favor
of all first mortgagees of Lots establishing entitlement to such reimbursement.
ARTICLE VII
GENERAL RESTRICTIONS. OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF OWNERS
Section 1. Common Area Restrictions. There shall be no obstruction of the
Common Area, nor shall anything except construction materials and equipment be kept or stored
on any part of the Common Area during the construction period without the prior written consent
of the Association or except as specifically provided herein. Nothing shall be altered on,
constructed in, or removed from the Common Area except upon the prior written consent of the
Association.
Section 2. Rules and Reeulations. The Board from time to time shall adopt such
other rules, regulations and Bylaws governing the use and enjoyment of the Common Area as the
Board in its sole discretioff deems appropriate or necessary.
ARTICLE IX
Section 1. Maintenance of Insurance. The Association shall maintain, to the extent
reasonably available:
Comprehensive public liability insurance in such amounts and with such coverage as
the Board of Directors shall from time to time determine, but at least:
(i)
covering events occurring anywhere on the Common Area (and
public ways, if any, and any other areas that are under its
supervision) or arising out of or in connection with the use,
ownership or maintenance of the Common Area;
(ii)
covering, without limitation, legal liability of the insureds for
property damage, bodily injuries and deaths of persons in
connection with the operation, maintenance or use of the Common
Area, and legal liability arising out of lawsuits related to
employment contracts of the Association, and such other coverage's
as are customarily covered with respect to projects similar in
construction, location, and use;
(iii)
insuring each officer and member of the Board of Directors, the
managing agent and each Owner and with cross liability
endorsement to cover liabilities of the Owners as a group to an
Owner and with a "Severability of Interest Endorsement" which
would preclude the insurer from denying the claim of an Owner for
the negligent act of another Owner, occupant or the Association; and
(iv)
in amounts generally required by private institutional mortgage
investors for projects similar in construction, location and use.
All such policies must provide that they may not be cancelled or substantially modified by any
party without at least 10 days' prior written notice to the Association and to each holder of a first
mortgage which is listed as a scheduled holder of a first mortgage in the insurance policy.
ARTICLE X
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions and of the
provisions contained in the Articles of Incorporation and by-law's of the Association (and of
decisions made by the Association pursuant thereto) may be by any proceeding at law or in
equity instituted by the Association or by any Owner against any person (including the
Association) violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain
violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, and against the land, to enforce any lien
created by these covenants; and failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any
covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do
so thereafter. Attorneys' fees and costs of any such actions to restrain violation or to recover
damages as determined by the Court shall be assessable against and payable by any persons
violating the terms contained herein.
Section 2. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by
legislation, judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. Duration and Amendment. The covenants and restrictions of this
Declaration shall mn with and bind the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable
by the Association or the Owner of any Lot subject to this Declaration, their respective personal
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a tern of thirty (30) years from the date this
Declaration is recorded, after which time the covenants and restrictions shall be automatically
renewed for successive periods often (10) years.
Except as elsewhere herein provided~ this Declaration may be amended during the
first thirty-year period by an instrument signed by not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
Owners. Any amendment must be recorded.
Section 4. Notices. Any notice required' to be sent to any Member of the
Association (or Owner) under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been
properly sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such Member
appearing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing. In the case of multiple
Owners of a Lot, notice to any one of such Owners shall be deemed notice to all.
Section 5. Captions. The Article and Section headings are intended for convenience
only and shall not be given any substantive effect.
Section 6. Construction. In the event of an apparent conflict between this
Declaration and the by-law's, the provisions of this Declaration shall govern. The use of
pronouns such as "his", "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable
the plural and female forms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Declarants have executed this document as of
the day and year first above written.
Thomas Stokes
Jack Schuster
SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
By.
Thomas Stokes, its president
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1998,by Thomas Stokes and Jack Schuster, individually, and by Thomas Stokes on behalf of
Seton Bluffs Homeowner's Association I, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
This instrument was drafted by:
Stephen A. Can'
Carr and Mankey PA
5100 Eden Avenue//306
Notary public
appearing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing. In the case of multiple
Owners of a Lot, notice to any one of such Owners shall be deemed notice to all.
Section 5. Cautions. The Article and Section headings are intended for convenience
only and shall not be given any substantive effect.
Section 6. Construction, In the event of an apparent conflict between this
Declaration and the by-law's, the provisions of this Declaration shall govern. The use of
pronouns such as "his", "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable
the plural and female forms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Declarants have executed this document as of
the day and year first above written.
Thomas Stokes
Jack Schuster
SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS-'
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
By
Thomas Stokes, its president
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1998,by Thomas Stokes and Jack Schuster, individually, and by Thomas Stokes on behalf of
Seton Bluffs Homeowner's Association I, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
This instrument was drafted by:
Stephen A. Carr
Carr and Mankey PA
5100 Eden Avenue #306
Edina, Minnesota 55436
Notary public
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
March 26, 1998
Thomas Stokes/Steve Benke
Brenshell Homes
4839 Cumberland Road
Mound, MN 55364
RECEIVED
APR- 1 1998
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
RE: Seton Bluff Final Plat Revisions
Dear Mr. Benke:
As a follow up to our phone conversation, I would like to go over the items discussed at the
Council meeting for revision of the final plat. Pending your submittal of the revised plat,
adequate staff review time, and a meeting prior to Council heating, we are tentatively scheduling
the hearing for April 14th. We are at a point in the process where staff has to be comfortable with
the revisions before the Council heating. The following list should clarify those elements to be
addressed on the final plat.
· All storm water ponding facilities and associated retaining walls need to be within the plat
boundary.
Ensure the width of the common private driveway meets the City Engineer's specification of
18 feet.
· The building pad on lot 7 should meet 20 feet front yard setbacks along both improved and
unimproved portions of Kildare Road.
· I have also included the engineering report for your review.
In order to avoid a situation where the final plat does not receive approval before May 14th, I
would suggest that an application for an extension be made for insurance purposes. This would
prevent the project returning to the preliminary platting stage. The application must be reviewed
by the Planning Commission and Council for approvals and we would wait until after the
Council meeting on the 14t~ to begin that process if needed.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me or Jon Sutherland at the City
Offices.
Loren Gordon, AICP
Assistant City Planner
cc: Jon Sutherland, City of Mound
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. MARCH 24, 1998
1.13 PUBLIC HEARING:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON BLUFF PDA.
The City Planner reviewed the proposed Final Plat for the Seton Bluff PDA. The preliminary Plat was
approved by Resolution//97-54 in May of 1997. Seton Bluff is a 7 lot single family detached residential
development. It is on about 1.35 aces of. land. The PDA ordinance requires 2 acres, and the developer
is seeking a variance to that. Also, there are a number of other variances being requested because of
the topography and some of the lot restrictions. These variances were all spelled out in the staff report,
dated March 24, 1998.
The Planner then reported that in going through the plat there are a number of changes to engineering
related aspects of the plat that have changed from the preliminary plat, i.e. storm water drainage; storm
water retention pond; retaining walls. The improvements that have been slated for this area are now
not entirely within the lots. Some go out into Kildare Road and Kings Lane ( in public right-of-way).
Staff did call this to the developers attention. Staff looked at a several options for what to do as the
plat is proposed tonight.
1. Vacating a portion of both of the roadways to allow the storm water retention pond as
well as the retaining wall to exist as they are shown on the Final Plat. That would mean
that if the final plat approval was given tonight, it would be conditioned on the vacation
being approved, OR
2. Putting all the improvements on private property and go forward as any other plat would
in the City, OR
3. Send this Final Plat as it is proposed tonight, back to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendation.
The Planner explained that because of when this plat was submitted, there was no time to follow normal
procedures.
The Planner stated that Staff is looking for direction from the Council on one of the above options.
The Council did not like the idea of approving the final plat before holding the vacation proceedings.
Councilmember Hanus voiced concerns regarding the pond as it is proposed and asked if it has been
approved by the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. This plan tonight has not been before
MCWD.
Councilmember Hanus further stated that because of the differences between the preliminary and final
plat, he would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission for their review and
recommendation.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Behnke, Fine Line Design Group, stated that the preliminary plat approval, approved
the storm water drainage pending MCWD approval. In discussions with MCWD, they indicated
that they were uncomfortable using the sump manhole system that the developer proposed. Fine
Line's engineer prepared a pond that was completely contained in the comer of their property.
It has two four foot retaining walls and was approved by the MCWD in October, 1997. The
goal using the option shown tonight, on public right,of-way, was to shorten the height of the
retaining walls and grade less of the bluff and make use of the flat area at the bottom of the
slope. They moved the pond into an area with less trees but in the public right-of-way.
Mayor Polston asked who maintains the pond once it is built and established. Behnke explained
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
that in the original plan the association had a Maintenance Agreement that would be put in place
regarding the storm sewer system. The MCWI) would not approve the concept of a sump
manhole system so the developer proposed a pond on their own property which was approved
by MCWD. The City Engineer stated that he has never seen this plan before. Behnke stated
that the plan was given to the Building Official over three months ago. The City Engineer stated
the only plan that was reviewed was the plan with the pond and retaining walls on City fight-of-
way. The Building Official stated that Mr. Behnke provided some fax copies of the preliminary
design but it wasn't ready or suitable for review by the City Engineer.
The Mayor stated that it is his understanding the what the developer is asking for is final plat
approval based on the concept of having the storm water pond on private_ property, which the
developer is asking the City to handle as a maintenance agreement between the City and the
homeowners association. Mr. Behnke stated, yes.
The City Engineer stated that it is his understanding that the maintenance agreement would be
between the developer, hence the homeowners association and the watershed district. That is
one of the requirements of the watershed district's approval. That the developer furnish them
with the maintenance agreement. He asked the City Attorney if it is possible that this could be
written in the homeowners documents making them responsible for maintaining the pond and
not the City? The reason being that all the runoff is being generated by this development, not
by any other runoff within the City. The City Attorney agreed as long as none of the pond is
located on City right-of-way.
The Planner and the City Engineer stated they are not comfortable with this approach because
they have not reviewed this plan.
Matthew Mankey, attorney for the developer, stated that time is of the essence in that there
could be serious financial ramifications. He encouraged the Council to do everything they can
to assist his client because the project will benefit the City.
The Council discussed the fact that the storm water plan that was approved in the preliminary
plat has changed.
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to continue the Public Hearing for Final
Plat Approval to April 14, 1998, allowing Staff time to review the latest storm water plan.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: March 24, 1998
SUBJECT: Seton Bluff PDA Final Plat Approval
OWNER: Thomas Stokes
LOCATION: Kildare Road and Kerry Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-IA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a final plat for the Seton Bluff PDA. The
preliminary plat was approved by Resolution #97-54 in May of 1997. Council approval of the
final plat is being sought at this time which would allow the development to proceed. Along with
the approval of the plat is a conditional use permit which regulates the plan.
The development is a 7 lot Planned Development Area on 1.35 acres of land located at the comer
of Kildare Road and Kerry Lane. All lot areas and widths meet the minimum requirements for
the R-IA district. The steep topography on the south and lakeside limits the locations for
building on the site. Due to these constraints the applicant is requesting a number of variances
which are listed as follows:
Required Proposed Variance
Right-of-way width 50' 35' 15'
Cul-de-sac ROW radius 50' 40' I0'
Improved cul-de-sac radius 40' 35' 5'
Improved Street width 28' 24' 4'
Street grade 8% max 13% 5%
PDA Site Area 2 acres 1.35 acres .65 acres
Lots:
Lot 1 - Bluff Setback 30' 14' I 1'
Side Yard Setback i0' 6' 4'
Lot 2 - Side Yard Setback 10'
6' 4-'
123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
86, BI ~WW 2Od 2P£ ~BgDBOM NO±BNISIOH 8EBgB£E-219
Lot 3 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback 10'
22' 8'
6' 4'
Lot 4 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback 10'
15' 15'
6' 4'
Lot 5 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback 10'
Front Yard Setback 20'
i2' 18'
6' 4'
15' 5'
Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
Side Yard Setback 10' 6' 4'
Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (rear) 30' 12' 18'
Bluff Setback (side) 30' I0' 20'
Front Yard Setback 20' 15 and 7' 5'and 13'
Impervious cover 30% 32.8% 2.8%
Some of the requested variances have changed from those approved on the preliminary plat.
Bluff setbacks on lots 1, 3, 4, and 7 are increased from the preliminary plat. Lots 5 and 6 are now
closer to the bluff setback. Also the front yard variance for lot 6 has been alleviated as well as the
bluff setback variance for lot 2.
COMMENTS: The City Engineer's memo discusses adding 2 feet of width to the driveway
entrance. This could have an impact on the setbacks of lots 3 and 4 by potentially decreasing the
bluff setback 2 feet.
The proposed building pad for lot 7 shows the building pad has changed substantially from the
preliminary plan. In discussing this with the architect, the actual building pad will meet the
setback requirements.
Thc storm water drainage facilities shown on the final plat differ from those approved as part of
the preliminary plat. In the preliminary plat, storm water was collected and diverted to the north.
On the final plat, a storm water drainage pond is shown in the southwest corner of the site
surrounded by a retaining wall. Additional retaining wails are shown along the south side of Lot
7. The plans depict the retaining walls, pond and pond outlet structure projecting into the right-
of-way for both Kildare Road and Kings Lane. It is the opinion of the planning, engineering and
legal staff that these private improvements should not be located within public right-of-way and
need to be accommodated within private property. Two alternatives exist to satisfy this concern.
The first is to vacate all or a portion of both Kildare Road and Kings Lane. This action would
place the storm drainage and retaining wails on private property. The second alternative is to
modify the Grading, Drainage and Road Plan to relocate the pond and any required walls on
private property, somewhere else within the current ownerskip boundaries. Unless Kildare Road
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
~39~30N NO±~NISIOH
is vacated as part of this request, an additional t¥ont yard setback variance will be needed for Lot
7 which shows a 7 foot setback from Kildare Road (unimproved) in lieu of the required 20 foot
front yard setback.
RECOMMENDATION: At this time, it is difficult to provide a definitive staff recommendation
on the Seton Bluff PDA Final Plat because of issues surrounding the storm water pond and
retaining walls. Two principal courses of action are possible:
go
The City Council could consider the option of vacating, at a minimum, one-half of the right-
of-way for Kings Lane and one-half of the right-of-way for Kildare Road. This would place
the proposed improvements on private property. A street vacation can only be preliminarily
discussed at the City Council meeting on March 24m and any such action would require an
application and review under the applicable ordinance procedures. If the Council sees some
preliminary merit in the street vacation concept, approval of the Final Plat could take place
conditioned on the occurrence of the street vacation and other applicable conditions; or the
Council could elect to withhold action on the Final Plat until such time as the street vacation
OCCURS.
Bo
The second alternative available to the Council is to find that the proposed drainage
improvements need to be located within private property and table action on the Final Plat
until such time as the applicant can bring back plans that are consistent with this finding.
This would mean that the final Grading, Drainage and Road Plan would need to be consistent
with the approved preliminary plans or some other alternative acceptable to the City Engineer
and Watershed District.
Regardless of which course of action is taken by the City Council, an approval motion for the
Seton Bluff PDA Final Plat needs to address the following modifications and conditions:
1. The front yard setback and bluff setbacks for lots 3 and 4 be modified to reflect comments the
City Engineer has in regards to adding 2 feet to the driveway.
2. The buildable area for each lot shall include all structures encompassing the house, attached
garage, decks and porches to meet the setbacks as requested.
3. Hardcover calculations reflect any plan modifications.
4. The City Engineer and City Attorney approve any modifications to the ponding and retaining
walls.
5. Approval is conditioned on approval by the City engineer.
6. Absent the vacation of Kildare Road, a 13 foot front setback variance is granted for Lot 7 as
noted within this report,
86,
8I ~W
POd a~£
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
~B]BBO~ NOIBNISIOH 8£898££-~I9
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447
Telephone
612./476-6010
612/475-~532 FAX
Engineers
Piannem
Surveyors
March 1~, 199g
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Final Plat .- Seton Bluff
Case #96-64
MFRA #11542
Dear Jon:
Enclosed is thc engineering report for the f'mal plat of Seton Bluff. Our major concem is the
proposed improvements shown within the existing city right-of-way that were not approved at
the preliminary plat stage.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
City Engineer
JRC:pry
Enclosure
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Croup
John Dean, Kennedy, & Craven
e:hnain:\l 1 ~42~sulh3-18
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Io /,
~39'o~ $00~ ~¥~g S8~033~ ~6~'~ 966I
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER'S MEMO
TO
THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
CASE NO:
PETITIONER:
FINAL PLAT:
LOCATION:
March 1 $, 1998
96-64
Brenshell Homes
Seton Bluff
Kildare Road
ASSE. SSMENT RECOP,.DS:
N/A Ye_s N.._9.o
x
2. X
3. X
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued.
4. X
5. X
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be
that in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Area assessments,
Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS:
6. X
7. X
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
(10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. SEE SPECIAL
CONDITIONS.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed, utilities along the lot lines were these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been
reviewed with the final construction plans and the following
changes are necessary:
N/A Yes No
SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS
X
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lines below the established
100-year high water elevation and conformance with the
City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
X
All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have
been vacated. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-
way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the
Owner's responsibility 'to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
10.
11.
X
X
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City, with this application - If it is subsequently
determined that the subiect property is abstract property, then
this requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in
order that he may file the required easements referred to
above.
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the Developer:
DNR
~ Hennepin County
x__ MPCA '
x__ State Health Deparu~ent
~ Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
__ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Other
12.
X
The Developer must cgmply with the conditions within any
permit. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
Io lg
865I '8l ~
N/A Yes N~o
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City grid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary:
13.
14, X
X
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions ~ust be made to conform with thc
City's adopted ThorougMare Guide Plan.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
15.
X
All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
VARIANCE REQUESTED AS PART OF FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL.
Additional right-of-way will be required on
UTILITIES:
16.
17.
X
X
Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water., storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City
requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
well as the proposed street system (public and private).
N/A Yes_ No
19. X
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvement Pro,am, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
1st of the yea~ precedin~ construction, if the Developer is
paying 100% of the cost.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
20. X
The construction plans conform to
Comprehensive Sanitary.' Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
the City's adopted
21. X
It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public
Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any
proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for
contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City ri~ht-of-way.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
22. X
Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the
following lots:
23. X
Comphes with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been
submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if
it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be
incorporated in a revised plan. The Orading and Drainage Plan
shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: SEE
SPECAL CONDITIONS.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
24.
What is the purpose and future ownership of Outlot A? It did not appear on the approved
preliminary plat.
25.
The relocation of the lot line between Lots 6 and 7 from the approved preliminary plat
will not adversely affect the engineering plans.
26.
The final plat does not have an easement sufficient in.width to cover the proposed storm
sewer. The easement adjacent to Kildare Road across Lots 1 through 4 and Lot 7 will
need to be increased to 1 O-feet wide.
27.
The Final Crrading Plan shows a portion of the stormwater pond located within the platted
right-of-way of King's Lane and returning walls in both K/ng's Lane and Kildare Road
right-of-way. If this is the intention, it appears the best solution would be to vacate the
east one-half of King's Lane right-of-way and north one-half of Kildare Road fight-of-
v-ay and include it as pan of Lot 7. This would also help solve the setback problem at the
south side of the garage on Lot 7.
28.
The City has not been furnished any drainage calculations. Copies of information
submitted to the MCWD will be sufficient.
29.
The approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requires a pond
maintenance agreement. This will be the responsibility of the developer and ultimately
the homeowners; thus this agreement should be included in the homeowners association
covenents.
30.
Driveway width needs to be expanded from the 16' wide shown (scaled dimension) to 18'
as required in preliminary approval. This requires moving the proposed houses on Lots 2,
3 and 4 north 2 feet, which allows 20-feet in front of the garage for parking, or a
minimum of 54-feet from the north right-of-way of Kildare Road to the front of the
garages.
31.
The east/west length for the 5 parallel parking spaces must be increased to 113' face of
curb to face of curb as approved with the preliminary plat.
32.
The existing water service for the Steve Grand property at the southwest comer of
Kildare Road arid Kerry, Lane must be reconnected to the new watermain.
33.
Specifications and construction details must be submitted for approval, including the
proposed retaining walls. '
34.
The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as
telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed
until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be
installed underground.
866I '8I 'a,~
35.
36.
37.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street
con$~'ucdon and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and
recorded at Hennepin County.
Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be necessary,
to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said certi£cafion
and recommendation by the City Eneneer that the completed work be accepted, the City
Council will be requested to accept the completed pu61ic improvements. Acceptance will
be by formal Kesolution oft_he City Council.
The followin$ items shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be covered by
an escrow guarantee (survey bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of
credit), as specified:
Crrading $ 43,000
Sanitary Sewer $ 15,600
Waterrnain $ 12,400
Storm Sewer $ 11,850
Street Construction $ 27,650
Landscaping and Retaining Walls $ 25,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL $ 135,500
Amoum of £scro~r Ouarautcc:
Estimated total ($135,500) x 125% = $169,375
Submitted by:/?~-~o~ Carr/eron, Cit~' Engineer
e:~in:\11542\brrn3-16
~66I 'St ~m
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FINAL PLAT
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR "SETON BLUFF"
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF KILDARE ROAD AND KERRY LANE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, March 24, 1998 to consider the approval of Final Plat for "Seton
Bluff" Residential Development.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting ..... -~
~r~':~, ~ ~ f - ': /
K ri§' Li'nq u ist,'/Pl:~ij r~g Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on or before March 13, 1998
Published in the Laker, March 14, 1998
printed on recycled paper
~TEPH£N A, C, ABR
ww~0carr-m~nk,?.com
E.Mail:l, awv. ec,~carr..mankc?'.com
February 24, 1998
ATTORN£Y$
$OVT~ OFI~¢E
5100 EDEN A¥£NI!F., St:$'['E 306
Evlnn, MN 5543~2337
612-927-4333
F~x 612-92~-7~9
AT
LAw
OF
ELIZAIH';Tll L,
ERIC G, Nn.~s'rl~tn~
John Dehn
Mound City Attorney
470 Pillsbury Center
Mpls, MN 55402
My Client: Bren~hell Homes
Seton Bluffs Plat A15plication
Dc~Mr. Dchn:
As a follow up to our telephone conversation of February 24, 1998, I am writing to
clari~ certain matters pertaining to the above-referenced Plat Application and matters regarding
the recording of Amended Declarations involving c~ain conservation easements and restrictions
that the city of Mound is apparently requiring in conjunction with the new plat.
The land in question as originally platted included the recording of declarations of
covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements for Black Lake Homeowners II. This
homeowners association was apparently established under Chapters 515 and 515A and
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under and pursuant to Chapter 317A Minnesota Statutes.
This association was established prior to the enactment of the Common Interest Ownership Act,
MS 515B. As I indicat~:l during our tel~hone conversation it is my desire to simplify the
process of including the additional restrictions and easements requir~ by the city of Mound by
retaining the original association as incorporated, amending the name of the association to Seton
Bluffs Homownera Association and thereafter submitting to you for your review the amended
declarations and proposed By-laws for the Seton Bluffs Homeowners Association.
MS 515B.1-102(3)(c),provides that the common interest ownership act shall not
invalidate any amendment to the declaration by-laws or condominium plat of any condominium
created under chapter 515 or 515A if the amendment wa~ recorded before June 1, 1994. Further,
any amendment recorded after that date is required to be adopted in conformity with the
procedures and requirements of chapter 515B. Accordingly, the amendment of declarations
which I intend to submit on behalf of my client will be in accordance with section 515B.2-118.
I will appreciate your advice as to whether the city of Mound has any specific objection
to the intended means of effecting the amendment to the dedlarations. In light of' the fact that the
City of Mound as of Friday this week will have all of the necessary documents for final plat
6PO/.£~GEX9 8E:P~ 866I/BO/EO
submittal and given the fa/r weather to commence co~struc~on I appreciate your earlicst
response.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Can'
CC: Thomas Stokes
John Sutherland
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
SURVEYING. ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING
48Z-A TAMARACK AYENUE
LONG LAKE, MINN.
473-4141
Proposed Easement Descrip. tions
for SETON BLUFF
February 6, 1998
An easement for conservation, utility and travel purposes over, under and across the
drainage easement as dedicated in the plat of SETON BLUFF.
An easement for travel, drainage and utilities over, under and across the southerly 40
feet of Lot 2, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 3, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 4 and that part
of Lot 5 lying southerly of the northerly 140 feet of Lot 5; all in Block 1, SETON BLUFF.
his'is' to certify that
2~7
Trans£er [rom No. 7207.558 originally registered the 2Or_h d~y of October
^. D. 1906 Volume 2 /'age 646
REGISTRATION
~orman T. ~erglund, [905 Concordia Street, City o[ ~ayzata~ County o[ ~lenneptn, State o[ HtnnesoCa
~.s now the owner(s) of afl estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and
late of Minnesota, to wit:
Lots ti, [2, [6, [5, 32, 33, 3.5 and 36, Block 1l, '$eton', accocdtns to the plat ~:hereo£ on £tie or of record in ti~e off:Lce of
the Regiscrar of Titles in and for said County.
Subject to minerals and mineral rights reserved by the State of Hinnelota as to all lot~ except Lot 35;
Subiect to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the
.AIowing rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided in tire twenty-fourth section of "An act concerning the registration of land
the title thereto" of Ihe General laws of the State of Mim~esota for the year 1905. and the amendments thereof, namely:
7. Any oulllendlng mechanics llen rights which may exist under sections 514.01 lo 514.17.
That Cite said Norman T. Berglund la of Cite age of 61. years, is married to Carol il. )tergluIId sod iR uiIder 11o disability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office
~~?,, ,hi, 't .... y-f ifc,, d.y of
~ z~ In and fm the County of Hennepin and State of ~innesota.
~,'~ d. ~' I t ." / ,
............. .....................
SEE OVER
~b
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN RECEIVED
STATE OF MINNESOTA
THIS IS A CONDII'ION OF THE FEB - 6 1998
RE~STEI1 AS TO TilE WITHIN
CEI'~TIFIC:ATE OF TITLE ON MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
FILE l?,I 'rdE OFFi~JE OF THE
REG~$T.R~R OF TITLESJ~S ~F
F, EC;:5'~'RAR OF TII LES
BY ,/'1 ~,~'c~t-~-'~--
~[J~PUTY -
750108
2515
Berglund
Owner.(~.}
E o! MINNESOTA,
TY of HENNEPIN.
193~
MEMORIAL
DOCUMENT KIND OF i'
NUMBER ] INSTRUMENT IN~OPnT~MOr,~r'~? lI DATE OF REGISTRATION
DEPUTY REGIS1
~,o3, ..... N? 748576
COUNn ~ HD~LPUt
This is to certify that
C:ERTIFICATE OF' TITLE
No. 748~576
DISTRICT COUR'; NO,(I) 247
Transfer from Ho. 52504& Originally registered the 20ch day of October
A. D. 1904 Volume 2 Page 444
REGISTRATION
Norman T. Berglund, 1905 Concordia Street, CLt~y of Wayzata., County of Hennepin, State ~f Minnesota
ts now the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and
State of Minnesota, to wit:
Lots 16, [7, 18, l.,, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, Block Il, "[eton", according to the plat thereof on lile or of record in the
office of the Regiscrar of Titles in and for said County.
Subject Co mineral'~ and mineral rights reserved by the Scac~ of M~ne~cal,as Co:a~l 10cs except Lots 18 and 29, Block 11;
S~bject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and ,ubject to the
and the title thereto" of the General laws of the State of Minnesota for th( year 1905, and the amendments thereat, namely:
1. L~ens. claims or righls arising under the lows or Ihe' conslil~lion of the United ~,at~.. which the statutes of this state cannot require lo appear of reco~.
2. The I&en of any' real prope~y tcx or special assessment for which the land has not bee~ sold at the date of ~~H~ Decembe~ 5, 1975.
3. Any lease for a period nol exceeding three years, when there is oclual occupation of the premiss under the
4. AIl ~igh~s in pubJi- highways u~on the land.
Such right of appeal or right ~o appear and contest the application as is allowed i~y Jaw.
The r~ghts of any person in put,session under deed or contract for deed f~om the own,~ of the certificate of title.
7 Any outstond,ng mechanics lie, rights which may exist under sections 514.01 lo 514.1".
Thai :ne sa~a Norman T. Ber~und Ss o~ ~he a~e o~ 6~ years, .~ mar~ed to Caro~ fi. Ge~und and ~s un,~e~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office
this T~enC~-second day of Ju:~e 1990
K. ])an Carlson
MEMOI~AL
Registrar of Tides,
In and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota.
CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCR;~BED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACH;O.
DOCUMENT KIND OF / INSTR%JMENT AMOUNT RUNNING IN FAVOR OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR
NUMBER INSTRUMENT[ ~onth JO.,Jy[ YlJr MontH OayJ Year Hour
RFC
MOUND PLAI
IVED
1998
JNG & INSP.[
sb
gEE OVER
loJ, O
0l, I
~ INFORMATION ON BUYER
Number of d~pendents ~ _ Ages
Employer _
Position
Employer _
Position
Other income
Dale of Birth
Date of Birlh
Phone (day) ~
(eve.) ~
Business Phone
For__....___ years
Base gross pay $ ~ __ per month
Business Phone
For ------- years
Base gross pay $ _
Business Phone ~ per month
For~ years
Base gross pay $ ------------_ per monlh
Savings accounl balance .......... ~.". .... './~--~,..,,7~.,.,~. ~/.~z). r ..................
Value °f "°cks or bonds ,include savings bonds). ~.~"~//~,~.. ~,~ ....
Value o! real estale owned (estimaled sale price) '7--"~ . ~ ...
Value of autom;;;:esU:°°s (turn,lure, etc.) ............. V,,,?.~.., .,~..z?.2::::::: ......
Other assels, list ............................................................
Auto loan, $~ per month
.................................... Balance $._______~
Furnilurs loan, $~ _ per month .................................
Personal loan, $______________ per month ................................. Balance $_
Real estate, $._.___________ per month Balance $________.____
Other loans, $~
~ per month ................................... Balance $~._.______
Is il necessary Io sell your home before closing? ( ) Yes ( ) No Balance $~_~___
If you do not have all the cash required for the down payment and closing costs, will you receive a gill?
( ) Yes ( ) No From whom?
Relalionship __
I hereby consent Io Ihs disclosure of this data to the properly owner(s). Amount o! gift $
Buys
te ~ Buyer
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP DI~SCLOSURE ~ Date
~ui'nel Real
~ ty nc. may refer you Io Oi.~-,,
,lc which Owns FIrll Seeurlly Tl~e. --,-,~,uur m~rl. OreelL,skel Morl~,..~ ~..;.'..,~,L~. ?_e_o¢ uumal Realty Inc. may refer
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO USE A
OBTAIN SETTLEMENT IER1/ ..... ~..N.Y..P_A.._RTICULAR PROVIDER OF RTGAGE LO - -..r,g.~
'! you Should choo ....... ; ......"SURANCE FROM ANYONE ~',/MH~ IS ACCEP~ANB~-?-E-TTLEMEN, SERVICES
,~al [-al~es Mortgage or First SecurJly Title for O modn~ ...... o~=/u YOUR LENDER. --- 'r'~uHANCE. YOU MAY
shown on Ihs reverse side ol Ibis lotto.
oo ~B u-u* u, sememenl services, an eslimale ol lite COals lot Ihese services
WARRANTY PLAN OPTION
acknOwledge Ihel I have been explained the banelill o! a Home Owners Werranly Plan which has been Dilated el I coil ol$ ------------- and I:
~ Agree Io pUmhese the plan end pay for II at closing.
~ Decline IQ purchase a plan.
:REDIT AUTHORIZATION
authoi'ize Gfeal lakes Moifgam, ils ·
to~'lgage end land or -~ .... -'~.' ~genls or assigns Io order a
.... - PhOtOCopy of Ibis lot . ~-~;_,..~__~rl,y olh.e.r c~'ed~l inlormalion incl pall
~ay also be ob a ned in i ~,~g ...... ginnie.or ass,gna, oblains is o be u '
~ ~ vo ,- coonecfion wilh my applicalion '~'; ;gmen~ 'n/ormalion regarding my income, Cred~ , as .
Mo.gag. ,o d,,cu,, w, .......... o.gage 'o.n. se,, ..d
- ~.-m Lea. es Modgage in connec,;~- .-.-? m.~ ..0, ~a,.a,e aganl any tnlor--atl-- P
· ,~. w,~r~ my applicelton lot a morlgag;;'ioa~n regarding my inCOme, credit, easels and Iiebililtes
;uyer
'lvaey A¢I Noflce: The in orma On Io be obtained wdl be u ~ ~
t)u~chas,ng Ihs rnor gage Io de e~min Dale __ sad by he ende~uyer Date
,e.ll¢)~i. nabon w~ nol be d~ ..... ~ . e whether you qualily as a ~r ...... ,.ils agenls or ass gna and' an- -~
obtain ts eulho~zod by "~,tla ~- ".".~.~[o~'mahon bul il you do nol ~, .~,~rence as needed Io vetil - ~,,,i.,,any ye ,lying Ihs mtormallon
....... ~, u~.~. Chapte~ 37 {,I VA). and t'?',°~m°~ngage loan appl,ca on ma y Dibs, c,ed,I ,nlQ,ma on and as PI,re,It
....... ~.~. ;bec ion I?01 · se 'y he delayed or re/acted. 1he nlot ed
q. (d HUD/FHA) mahon we
ecotds, il ia in compliance wiih lbo .,~.,~,~m;.,.e,.wfm Ihs r~ghl Io Financial Pr 'va
v,o j Dobarlolomeis -P.v,,~uu.f provisions O! said Acl. cy Acl o11918, Ihal in Conneclion wilh Ibis
nepal Dopuly Assislant Sec,rotary
J~N-02-96 TUE 04:04 PX BURNET LAKE MINNETONKA FAX NO. 6124717044 P. 02
~ ~PE~L ~6~M~ ~i ~ ~id ~ ~:
4L BUY~ ....... ' f
~ M ~ ~ ~dlr~ ~ p~ wi~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ We ~ ~ c~ng.
~ BUYER ~HA~ A~U~,~., .. .. ~ ~ of e~g ~ ~r ~al ~me~ Iw~ ~ ~ ~e ~e~ M ~*
a7. BUYER SHA~
~ ~ ~yment ~ ~h ~ ~ui~ ~ e r~uR OI the ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~er ~ ~ re~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pay~. In the
49. W~ ~ng '
~:. ~
61, M*i,~t I~
T~ ~d
?' ': '~;FIASE :3,C~REEM~-:NT
I:'t ]l".l...rt ..~ FX,n.~gll.t...,.T;~.);1. ~'"'*" '*h"ll. t'~lhi.q n ¢.;.:~. "t ti! tim]; :~f~r:r ~'~"..;,In,~r,, ~r ih:.: -~ ..........;."";*h ...* :'*. ,..i ..! ;.;*.,. r,- ;]
(~. liiit~ Oi~L~;IJuHs Io ~K:hly Bt~ye[ of ~¥JIiOr'S ~lell[~ Io.m~e lille mar~e within '
~ is g~n, pa~en~ I~munde~ 1~ da~ I~an ~':1,., 's lecoil,t o[ :~L~h w~illen abj~ion. If ~ico
¢~.]uired shall ~ ~ed ~ndi~ ~i~ d lil~, bul.u~ ~n,.-;l~m~ t~lb a~J wilhin 10 ~ al~r wri~
Cq noise Io Burr Ihe padies shall I~'do~ Ihis Purc~e ~r~enl a~i~ Io its lorms. If ~ ~h na~ is gimn or il ~ is gi~n
~ lille i~ n~ ~o~ wilhin Iho lime p~ Ior, ~b Purch~ ~r~menl shall ~ I)uII anl w~i(I n~ l~iar~ ¢,f Burr; Milher pa~y shall ~ li~le
71. f~ damages homu~le~ Io tho olhor a~l earne~ m~ shall ~ ~efo~ fo Burr; Burr a~l S'~fler a(~r~ I~ ~ign ca~ollalion of Purchase
~. ~greo ~onL I{UYER A~;ll[;E~; ]{) ACCEPt AN ~NER'S TIr[.E POLI~ IN 'II-IE Flll.I. AM('~ ~ Ir (~' I, 'J I,I ~HCH~.SE PRICE IN I
DJ. -- .... u,. vr~ WI~/~IUI.. II ~u~r is JO r~i~ ~k ~,;~.,,, .~ ....... ' ' "' ' ' ' -, - -
75 lille Insumnc~ ~mihnenl a~ (2) ~r shall pay ~e enlire ~emium ~.s~h ~ il no ~Jor's l~lk~ is ogling, a~ mdy the
~ ~l ~ ob~ini~ a simul~n~us~ ~u~ ~'s ~iw ila lear's ~ ~ o~ (Burr shall pay the ~omium f~ the lender's ~licy).
SUBDIVISIOr. I OF I_^HD: tt Ihis sale conslilules or requi~es a suITJivision of land owned by Sc-.llor, .~l~er shall pay all subdivision expenses
m~l of)lain all n(,(:,,;sq~y .(JoVemmenlai approvals. Seller warrants Ihe legal description of lite re:al properly Ii] t)e conveyed has been or will
be approved for lecordi~lg ~ of Ihe dale of closing.
SELLER WARRAfl I 'J~: SELLER WARRANTS THAT BUILDINGS, ARE OR WILL BE, CONSTi3UCrED EN I lllELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY
· LlhlES OF THE PR[,)ER FY. SELLER WARRANTS THAT THERE IS A RIGHT OF ACCESS '1'O 1lIE PROPERTY FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT
112. OF WAY. TtlESE WARRANTIES SHALL SURVIVE THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED OR CONIRACT FOR DEED.
;~..SELLER WAI1R/~.II3S il;.Rl' PRIOR TO THE CLOSING, PAYMENT IN FULL WILl. HAVE I'?,EE'~ ~'.IADE FOr; At.L I.,'.noR, [~IATERIALS.
Jr,1. ,','~,".r:HltiElly, FIY/I UHE~ OR 1BOLS FURNISHED WITHIN TIlE 120 DAYS JMMEOI/~TELY PI1F(.:,EDIr~(,' 'I I{E CLOSING IN CONNECI'IO;J
H',. WI~'II COH.STRU¢:I IOH, AL'rEFIArlON OR REPAIR OF ANY STRUCTURE ON or1 IMPROVr "ffI.-'.tlT "10 '1 lie PfIOf~EflTy.
~'.~[ '.;I~I.LER WA {flAil I'~ TIt,~r SELl ER
.. rl.-~ HUE FIECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM ANY GOVE i ,r :~. , .
n! OF ANY LAW, Ol,rlll, i/~ f~l.F. OR REGtlI..^TION. IF TIlE PROPE v m .-, ........ I. ti I^L/.U I'HORIi Y AS fO VIOL~IlOI..~
RI'. ,~ ouuu=~! /u HES'IRI¢.IIVE Covr NANIS, SELLER WARRANI~
,~0. ~ I IAI SELLER 11,~S N(~r RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY AS T,J A BnEAcI I OF 'I lie COVENANTS. ANY
hg. rIO[ICES RECEIVED DY SELLER WILL BE PROVIDED TO BUYER IMMEDIATELY. '' '
~'~. RISK OF LOSS: II Ihere i.s any loss or damage Io (he properly betwe~l Ihe dale hereof and Iht, d~fe of clc~in(.i, for nny m,"~son inchJdin{i
91. file, vnedaiism, Ikxxl, earthquake or act ol God, Ihe risk of loss shall be on Seller. If Ihe properly i.,; deshoyed or substantially damaged
92. the closing dale, Ihis Purchase /:vjreemenI shall become null and ~old, al Buyer's Bpi]on, and e~mesl money st~ll be refunded lo Buyer'
93 Buyer and Seller ag[ce Io sign cancellation of Purchase ,4~raement' .
94. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the. essence in this Purchase Agreement.
95. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Purchase Agreement, any allacbed exhibits and any addenda (x amendments signed by the p,'~lies, shall conslilule
96. the entire agreement between Seller and Buyer, and supercedes any olher written or oral agreements between Seller and Buyer. This Purchase
g7. Agreemenl can be modified only in wi]ling signed by Seller and Buyer.
~ ACCEPTANCE: Buyer un(lemlands and agrees Ihat this Purchase'Agreement is ~ubject Io ncceptnnce by Sollor in writing. 3'11o deln/ep/of
99. ail papers and monies shall be made al '!he listing bmkor's dfice. ·
IO1,,,3,
leX.). DEFAULT: II Buyer defaults in any of the agreements heroin, Seller may lerminale this Purcha.~3 Agreemenl, and payments made hereunder
10I. may be retained by Seller as liquidated damages. II Ihis Purchase Agreemenl is rl(:X so tenninaled. Buyer or Seller may seek acl~ral damages
102 f~)r I~mnc. h (31 Ihi~ /~:lr¢~mc, nl ~- ,m~c. irm pe. dorrnafx::e r'J this/k'jree, monl; and, n.s fo s[',~c.i~ic l>-,rf~rmnnc~. -.u,ch nr'fi,-.n rml~f I'~ r~*mm~,nce(I
I¢):[ wilhin SlX IIio/llhs ;iller such f~llt Of aclio~ eases.
J~N-02-96 TUE 04:05 PH DURNET LAKE HINNETONKR FRX NO, 8124717044 P, 03
PUNCH&BE AQREEMEN'r.
111. ~lJm ~ ~ ~y Burr
11~ ~ION~ ~r ~1 d~l~r ~on ~ ~ ~pe~ n~ ~e ~ ~)~ ~r oiling,
I~R ~ INdUeD HEREIN ~
121. SPECIAL WARRANTIE.8:
lg2, SELLER WARRANT~ THAT TIlE PROPEl:WY 19 DIRECTLY OONNECTED '10: CITY SEWERCIYEIIJ~II~O CITY WATERI~YE8,~O
123, ~___ ~EI.~ ~UY..__~ AI~qEES 10 PROVIDE WATER QI.IAIJTY TI~T RF.~ULT~ AND/OR BEPTIC BYSTEM CEI~IF1CiATION tF REQUIRED ~Y
124. GOVERNING AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER. SELLER WARF~NT~ THAT ALL APPLIANOEB, HE. AT1NQ, AIR CONDITIONING, WIRING
1~5. AND PLUMBING 8Y~I'EM$ USED AND LOCATED ON ,SAID PROPERI'Y WILL BE IN WORKING ORDER ON THB DAT~ OF CLOSING,
12e, ~ AI~ NOTED ON ,ATTACHED ADDENDUM, IIUY~R HAl THI RIGHT TO II~Pr~"r PROPGFITY PRIOR TO C~DGING.
128.
IL'~. II~UYER ,aCXNOWLEEX3E8 THAT NO ORAL REPR~ENT~O~ HAVE BEEN ~E
13r. I ACKNOWLIO01 THAT I HAVE RECIF.~VED AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY 'TO REVIEW THE ARIITRATION DIII43.O~URE AND J
I1. R.10ENTIAL REAL PROPERTY AI~ieq'RATION AGREEMENT. ' , ~ _
[~40. ~EU.F..R(1). BUYER(~ ·
THIS la A LEGALLY BINBIN0 ~NT~ IITWEIN DUYERI ANo IILLERi.
IF YOU DEf~IRI L,IQAL OR 'TA.X ADVI~I, CO~IIULT AN /d~R~I~MAT~ I~=I~PI~IIONAL-
Io ,¥
JAN-02~96 TUE 04:06 PM BURNET LAKE
F~ NO. ~124717044
P, 04
VACANT I. AND ADDENDUM
REALTORBe, a4'~h dttetalme any liability
SPECIAL CONTINGENCIES: This Pu~/l~e Agreemenl i. the Io/Iowf Ingen ' ~nd if Ih; IM ·
the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d
O ~) ~ER:
mu~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~flO b~ ~ ~fl~ ~: ~p ~ ~ ch~,
"~f,& T/FR /
JAN-02-96 TUE 04:07 PM BURNET LAKE
FAX NO. 6124717044 P. OB
ADDENDUM TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
11.
18. [
18.
19.
31,
32.
L I
23~
25.
26,
30. ~
;)1.
~' - . . ,..~ Ld.Y. . ~ :7//~,/ ¢~, -
r~
· ' ' P,~J ~ebw,1
THIS IS A LEGALLY BIN ..... T BETWEEN 8UYEllS AND $ELL~RS '
JaN-o2-gB TUE 04:08
BURNET LaKE HINNETONKa
FRX NO, 6124717044 P, 07
4. hereby mutually agree Io amend ~ald Purchase Agreement ~; foll~:
11
27. _ : ..-- J . _ . ,
2~, All olher ljrm~ end ~ndllions ~ the Pu~cha6e ~memem Io remein th~ ~me ......
· ,~~ -~ , , ' (o~ ~ i/ ~ / ~
33. TUIS Is A LE~LLY BJNDIHO ~HTRA~ BF~EEN BUYEn5 AND
~. MN-AMD I~l IF YOU DESIRE LEaL OR 1AX A~E. e~u' iN APPM~IATE pROFESSIONAL,
qflqr, qr P l PR RI :RZ qR¢,I/FR/I~
J/~N-02-(t6 TU[ 04:0g PM BURHET LhKE MINNETONKR F~X N0. 8~24717044 P. 08
ARBItrON
You Imve the Hoht to c~se whether to ~ve any dilp~ a~ the phy8~l ~lon ~ the pro~ l~t you are
~nO or 8elll~ d~ by bl~ing a~ratJon or by · ~ud ~ law. ~y ag~l~ to bi.lng mb~mtlon you give up you¢ rlghl
1o 9o to eoud, ~y slgnbtg tim RESIDENTIAL R~L PROPER~ ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ~BIT~TION AGREEMENT')
~ ~ n~.,v,. ~ncc~cm ~ ~ en~orc~me only ~ R la elg~ ~ ~1 buyers, ae~em, Ilalno a~ ~lll.g brokers/agent~. Th~
ARSIT~ON AGREEME~ le n~ ~ of the p~se agme~nt. Yom p~ agreement ~11 IIIII bi valid wlmlhe
not you ~n Ih~ ARII~TION AGREEMENT.
The Ar~mtlon Syst~ la a prate diane ~e~ ~y~em offer~ a~ an alter~t~e to the court sy~em, k la nm
go~m~nt ~nso~. The ~ a~ the MAR Jointly adopt t~ rdoe t~l ~ the Arbamtlon System. The ~ a~
MAR am not afflllel~. U~et Ihe ARBITRATION AQREEME~ yeu m~ u~ Ihe mb~mt~ ~e~¢~ d Ihe ~
NI dle~e~ a~ or r~atlng to t~ phy~l~ c~a~n ~ Ihe Fo~ are ~u~e Io a~mllon u~er Ihe ARBITRATION
AGREEME~, Thll InclMe~ ~1~ ~ h~, mlam~eNt~n, ~ a~ ~llgen~. An agr~mem to arb~e O~s
pr~l a ~ ~om oo~lng the Min~s~ De~dme~ ~ ~m~, Ihs ~aa age~ U~ ~a[es the ~1
The ~mln~lmt~e f~ for the A~mlion ~ystem ~rl~ de~ing on t~ a~t of the ~aim, b~ ~ il mo~e I~n
cog~ filing leas. I~ ~ ~s. eo~flon eou~ Is eh~r ~n arb~mt~ The ~lmum ~alm allow~ In ~ll~ eou~
la ~,~ ae of July t, 1~ a~ w~l ~cr~e to $7,~ ~ J~y 1, 1~. T~ amounts am subJ~l to ~ure change. In
~. ~ b q~c~ a~ le~ ex~ns~ ~ arb~mte d~p~ ~n I0 O0 lo c~d, b~ the time to ~e ~ claim a~ pre~dng
dl~ve~ ~ are Ilm~, Tha~ght to ap~l an arbRmt~s ~ la ~ IIm~ c~ ~ the r~ht ~ ap~ a ~u~
d~lon.
A r~uesl f~ a~Rmllon must ~ ~ within sE (6) month~ of Um dale on which rell~nl lac~ abo~ the
~m, ~ reasonably cou~ ~ve ~en, dlscover~ ~ el~ the ~alm ~nnol ~ pursued.
A ~ w~ ~ml ~ arbkrate a disp~e ~ee.a De~, al~g w~h the appropr~te admlnl~e fee. w~h the ~.
Tim ~ ~t~ea l~ ~r ~y, who may tile a retina. T~ ~ works ~lh the ~lea lo ~1~ e~ apple an a~ralor
to h~r e~ d~e t~ dlsp~e. A thr~rb~m~r ~ ~1 ~ ap~nt~ i~md of · single a~mtor at the re~e~ of any
~. The ~ ~uesllng a ~n~ mu~ ~y an ~d~l f~, A~ilr~ors ~e ~grou~s In law, ~1 ~e, arc~ture.
~mtlon healings are ~lly tm~ at t~ home are. Pa~lel am n~lf~ I~ the head~ al I~sl 14 days In
a~ance. A ~ ~y ~ m~esent~ by a ~er at the h~ng ~ he or e~ gNes 5 days ad~nce n~i~ to t~ ~r ~y
a~ Io 1~ ~ Ea~ ~ ~y preien~ ~en~. InCl~lng d~ume~I ~ teIUmony by wRnes~[ The I~bRrator mu~ ~ke
a.y a~ ~ptly. The a~ must ~ in wrying a~ ~y r~uI~ any rem~y t~ arb~ator c~a~ers Just a~ ~u~Ue that
ts w~hln the ~ ~ the ~diea' agre~ent The a~mt~ does not ~ve to ~ke fl~lngs ~ tact ~l ~aln the r~n lot
granting ~ den~ng an ~a~. The a~ral~ ~y ~ulm the ~ who d~ n~ ~ag to ~y the admlnl~rat~e fee.
T~, ~b~tl~ Dlloloiure pro~el only I genital del~J~Mn of Ihl Arb~etlon System and I glneml oVe~lW
of the kb~Uon Sy~em mice. If ~ ~e any qu~lonl a~ albRmt~n. ~1 the ~ al (6t2) ~ ~ c~s~t a
I~er. ~ ~ Ihe ~t~ System ~es am a~laUe f~ ~e ~ ~ your R~LTOR~.
~lS }S AN ~ONA~ VO~NTARY AGREEMENT. R~D ~E ARBIT~ON DISCLOSURE ABOVE IN FULL BEFORE
SlQNINQ,
RE~IDE~AL R~L PROP~ ~RBI~ON AGREEMENT
.
State of
Any dls~e ~lw~n the u~erdgn~ ~les, or aqy d them, ~ or rearing to ~e phy~l co~alon ~ the ro
g~m lie pr~l~(a). ~ls agr~m~t slmll sure the del~e~ d tim d~ or ~lm~ for de~ In the purctm~
agr~m~. Thl~ agr~me~ I~ o~gy e~om~e ~ ~1 ~ ~ the purc~se agreemem e~ hr~em/ege~a ~e agr~ to
THE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY ARBITRATION ,~gIllEEMENT le A LF-GALLY IlINOING CONTRACT
MN:ADRAA {$/g;)) BE'T~EN BU'IfER~, aEU.,,I[R$ AND IROKIR$/AaI~T1. IF YOU DESIRE t eGA~. ADVICE CONSULT A LA1R~'ER.
This fo~m approved by the Minnesota AssOC~t~n of
REALTORS'. which disclaims any liability ansing out
of use or misuse ol this form.
,.Date .¢,/~' '/~
2. Page 1 o! ........ Pages
4. . - ..-~:- ~_
/'~ .... ..~,.t ~ ~"~'/r~"~'~:"~.~t money to be d~13osited upon acceptance of Purchase Agreement by all parties, on or
7. before the n~x~t~t~us~'~s~'~ after acceptance, ~ ,.~;.c t;'-'-~! _~':cc'-'.-.. c; !!~-'-..';~ ........................... ~- ............
8. Agreement is not accel~t~d by Seller. Said earnest money is part payment for the purchase of the property located at:
9. Street Address: ~['~ ~'_ ~ ~/'~ ~ t~,
10. City of ~ai./' ,,L.,,~ ........... ,.~,~ _, County of ZJ~ _..J-~_'_~'~ ..~--, Stat.~ to, f.,.~innesot~,
11. Legally described as: .~0C'¢ 7'J ¢. ~--'~ - -2 ~-.~ ~'¢"-'~'~"/z ..'~._ 3,-j 't.~ I ~"~,~_'-~-G":~-'~ -- J'~,C,.~--,//-- ~ ~"'~-~'~'- -
1231 includinn the following property, it any owned by Seller and used and located on said property: garden bulbs, plants, shrubs, and
14. trees; st"orm sash, sto~ , ens and awnings; window shades, blinds, traverse and curtain and drapery ro~ighting
15 fixtures and ~xtures,~ p!ants (with any burners, tanks, st~r..e_q~ip,~n! used in
connection ht, Tdi'ier
18. and wiring; ~V __o.v_en__ s_, h~o~o.d tans,
1~ intercom's' ~~ors,~l~ doors and
22. _ - ....... ' ~'-' -
23 all of which property Seller ha_~s th s day agreed to sell to Buyer for s, um of: ($ ._ ~:)0 _,0~ ~__-~_ ....... )
~ ,*iX..~cf.~ '~/-J~)'~/.~,~O //~)~(./-~JJ.¢' ~ tI~7/~ ~' ~ ~:. Dollars,
24, ~hir'h RuveCa~r;es t~'~av in the following manner: Earnest money of $.,,. ~ ~'¢0 -- ,..._...~ ~.. .....
25.
26, ;'n'~S _-_~. _ ~ ~'~ L/~ ~1 ~-~_~ ..... cas h on ¢ ,¢'/,. ,~¢/?~ ?-¢- - J¢)¢//~/.-¢ - / -'~': - -///~' ¢' the aate Or clOs'ng' ana
27. the balance of S mpt'~ion . by financing in accordance with the attached addendum:
28. Conventional FHA VA Assu Contract for Deed Purchase Money Mortgage Other: ~_~
29. This Purchase Agreement 1_.9;~_ ubject to a Contingency Addendum. (if answer is IS, see attached addendum.)
30. This Purchase Agreement I~ubject to cancellation of a previously written Purchase Agreement dated
31. Buyer has been made aware of the availability of property inspections, Buyer elec!~ have a property inspection pedormed
32. at Buyer's expense.
33. This Purchase Agreement .......... ub ect to an inspection Addendum. (If answer is IS, see attached addendum.)
34. Attached are other addenda which are made a part of this Purchase Agreement. (Enter page or pages on line 2)
3~..EED~MA..ETABLE T,TLE: Upon pe,ormance by Buyer, Se,er sba,, de,vet a O"'~"~ L- Wa,ranty ~eed
36. joined in by spouse, if any, conveying marketable title, subject to:
37. (A) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; (B) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the property
38. without effective Jodeiture provisions; (C) Reservation o! any mineral rights by the State ol Minnesota; (D) Utility and drainage easements which
39. do not intedere with existing improvements; (E) Rights of tenants as follows (unless specified, not subject to tenancies):
40.
41. (F) Others (Must be specified in writing):
42. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS shall be paid as follows:
43. BUYER AND SELLER SHALL PRORATE AS OF THE DA~, CLOSING / SELLER SHALL PAY ON DATE OF CLOSING all installments
44. of special assessments certified Jor payment with the real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing.
45. BUYER SHALL ASSU,~,E,,~n date of closing all other special assessments levied as of the date ct this Agreement
46. BUYER SHALL ASSUMEi/~ROVlD~-FOR pAY~ecial assessments pending as of the date of this Agreement
47. for improvements that have been ordered by the City Council or other assessing authorities. (Seller's provision tor payment shall be by
48. payment into escrow of !wo (2) times the estimated amount o! the assessments, or less as required by Buyer's lender.)
~e. BUYER S.A'" ASSUME .~*~L~ da,e of c,osing any de,erred real e,,a,e ,axes (i.e. Gree. Acres. e,c.) or spec,al
assessments payment ol which is required as a result of the closing of this sale. 'Buyer shall pay real estate taxes due and payable in
51. the year following closing and thereafter and ,~Yr u~ SsPe~;Ir:St;t;~tse;Sat r
52. not othenNise provided. As of the date of this gee , P ~% ~
53. new public improvement project trom any governmental asseSSa3CJ authority, tbe costs of wh~h profBc[ may be assessed againsl the property. If a
,54. notice of pending sp.~c~,,~_ssessment is issued afler the date of this Agreement and on or betore the date of closing, Buyer shall assume
55. payment of ALI,~OTHER: of any such special assessments, and Seller shall provide for
o, asse..m n' ."
¢'7 rm .... rnr, pU' .......... ,3 .... nfs for~,.21d S0,'~assessments as rer~lred.hv Buv4'r's lender~ shall exc.eP~t-S
PURCHASE. AGRE,EMEN]'
1°6' Address ~~Z~/~ J.~ RJr)
107. Page 3 Date.___-~ - ,/ ~ '-_- <~ °7 --
108. REAL ESTATE TAXES shall be paid as follows:
109. Buyer shall pa~R~'TED FROM DAY OF CLOS_~NG,~12THS, ALL, NONE real estate taxes due and payable n the year 19~.~.~/~
110. Seller shall Pa'~RORATED TO DAY OF CLOS NG ~.12THS ALL NONE real estate taxes due and
Ic~rcle one_-., ' ' payable m the year 19 . If the
111. ~l;;~)?ed, ant~hi; ~,;;~~taxcei ,s' P,a~As~h~rated' be a. djusted to the new closing date. Seller warrants taxes due a
112. Seller a rea ....... ~ ....... ' VL(circ,ec'c'c~u_.,_~°m,~slea° class'hcat'°n' If part °r non'homeslead classification iscircle;d
113.
114. g S tO pay Buyer at closing $~ax~s. - /~J~'J~ · . --~. ~
toward the non-homestead real estate taxes Buyer agrees to pay any remalmng balance of non-homestead taxes when they become
115. due and payable. No representations are made concerning the amounl of subsequenl real estate taxes.
116. POSSESSION: Seller shall deliver possession o the property not later than j~, __.~___C__.~_) ~_~.iLL,~t~ . alter closing.
117. All interest, homeowner association dues, ranis, fuel oil. liquid petroleum gas and-a~-c -- '
118. ~r
gee for city water, city sewer,gas electricity, and natural
shall be prorated between the parties as ot date ot closing. Seller agrees to remove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY
119. NOT INCLUDED HEREIN Irom the property by possession date.
120. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: To the best of the Seller's knowledge there are no hazardous substances, or underground storage tanks, except
121. herein noted:
122.
123. SEL~Ts THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO: C TY SEWER [] YES [] NO C TY WATERr']YES [] N~--
124. SELLER/BUYER A~I"I'E-.~.,~O PROV DE WATER QUALtTYTEST RESULTS IF R
~ (c~rcle onel-- EQUIRED BY GOV 'AN
125 SELLER/BUYER AGREESTO PROVIDE SEP M CER
E'EL ~ ND/OR LENDER.
126 SA~~VV-I-RI-N-G SYSTEMS USED AND LOCATED ON
,27.
128.
129. PROPERTY IS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CONDITION AS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASEAGRE ABLISH THAT THE
131' IN BASEMENT,~GE CAUSED BY WATER OR iCE BUiLD.UP ON ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND BUYER RELtES
132. ~AT REGARD~G STATEMENT By SELLER:
133. SELLER HAS~oT HAD A WET BASEM~ HAS NOT HAD R
~ ............. ~ ~ ._L ~ CF--.~L,~L~ DAMAGE CAUSED RY W~.T~
3 . OR ICE BUILD-UP. BUYE~i~'~A~ECEIVED A SELLER'S PRO-'P-'P-'P-'P-"~ DISCLOSURE STATEM T
~ --(c~rc~e one~-- -~--- EN .
~EIVED THE INSPECTION REPORTS, IF REQUIRED BY MUNIClPALITY.~I'I'I'I'I~
~EIVED THE WELL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT "~a
,...,r~ .o. b )Al I::MENT THAT NO WELLnE][3S.T~ ON THE PROPERTY,
,3~. AND A SEPTIC SYSTEM O,SC'OSURE STATE,~ENT OR A STATE~~,~-~i; ~;{;~ THE
138. P R O P E RTY.._____.__~, ~ STATUTE S____._____~
EDGE TH HAVE REOEIVED .AD THE O' PORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE ARBITRATION DISCLOSURE AND
SELLER(S) ·
143. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION
144. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIO~(~'~"~OES NOT APPLY IN THIS TRANSACTION.
'~,~__...~cle one)--
145. Broker represents both the Seller(s) and the Buyer(si ot the property involved in fhis transaction, which creates a dual agency. This
146. means that Broker and its salespersons owe flduc~a~ duties to bolh Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Because the parlies may have conflicting
147. Imerests, Broker and its salespersons are prohlbiled from aOvocating exclusively for eilher party. Broker cannot act as a dual agenl In this
148. transaction wilhout the consent of both Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Seller(s) and Buyer(s) acknowledge that:
149 (1) conhdential inJormahon commumcated to Broker which regards price, terms, Or molivalion Io buy or sell will remain confidential
150. unless S,e, Jjer(s) or Buyer(s) instructs Broker in wrmng to disclose h s nformalion Other information will be shared;
151. (2) Broker../~/F~ its salespersons w,II not represent the ,merest of eilher party o the der menl o! the other; and
152. (3) wil~'f./l,He hmits ol dual agency, Broker and its salespersons will work diligently lo facilitate the mechanics o the sate
153 W,tlo ahctlha~ ~al aegdegnesl a~nn td ~ln~anc:dl:~ng of the explanallo.~above, Seller(s)and Buyer(s)aulhorize and instrucl Broker and ils salespersons
154~
Buyer ........
Seller Buyer
167. ____~ -/(~ _ ~--)
Date ..............................................
Dale
Io?1
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
158. Address
159. Page 4 Date
160. OTHER:
161.
162. I, the owner of the property, accept this Agreement and authonze
163. the listing broker to withdraw said property from the market,
164. un~ess instructe,/~herwise in writing and I have reviewed all all pages of this Purchase Agreement.
165. pages ~chase Agreement.
· tSellers Signature} ,~/ / ....... (Buyers S,gnature)
167. X ,~ (-,/~' ~J~J ~-~-~ .... ~~
(Seller's Pnnted Name) ' (Buyer's Pnnled Name)
I agree to purchase the property for the price and in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth above and I have reviewed
(Date)
(Soc=al Secunty Number)
(Social Secunty Number)
(Mantal Slalus)
X
169. ~Seller's Signature) (D=_.[el (Buyers Signature)
(Date)
X
170.
(Seller's Printed Name)
(Buyer's Pr~nled Name)
171. ~(Social Securit y N umbe,') (Mantal Sta:us) (Social Secunty Number)
172. FINAL ACCEPTANCE DATE ~~'j~ '/'~'' ¢ ?
173. MN:PA-3 {B/96) THIS IS A LEGALLY RINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS ANO SELLERS'
IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL.
(Mantal Status)
107 ;z,
AMENDMENT TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This form approved by the Minnesota Association of
REALTORSe: Minnesota Association of REALTORS®
disclaims any liability arising out of use or misuse of this form.
3, purchase and saleof the property at .~ /('~'L~.~..~ .~
4, hereby mutually agree to amend said Purchase Agreement as follows:
pertaining to
~.~=___~ .... ,-,_~. ,__ x ' ~'~- ~ V,~ ' ' /
I
18.
t
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
28.
10'/3
conditions of the Purchase Agreement to remain the same,
_
31.
32.
(DAM)
(Oma)
PRECISION CLOSERS INC. Fa×:612472418! Oct ~
County Auditor
by l~uty
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: _ $102.00 .....
Date: _October 1 _,_l.!~U.._~ -
7:4a P. 02
MilW~.Dav~ Co., St Paul
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Business and ~-
, a _CoL. lxlrail~ under the laws of
..~ .~_ inneSOtn Granwr, hereby conveys and warrants w ~.u~gl~J..Jiri~s --.
......... Gran~ee(s),
real property in .... Henn~pln County, Mkmesola, described as follows:
Lots 7 and 9, Block 2, Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, Block 11, "Seam", acco~ing to the recorded plat thereof
on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Mirme$ota.
The ~ller ccmfies that the s~llur do~s not know of any wells on the abo','~ descril~d r~al prol~rVy.
TORRENS PROPERTY
(if mur~ ~ is na~d~n~ ~,muuu¢ on {:n~k)
together with all hcrcditamcnts and appurtenances bclouging thereto, subject to the following except}OhS:
Affix Deed Tax Starap Eere
By
STATE OF MINNESOTA } Its ]~e. lJllK--~till~Ulr~*iden!
". By
COUNTY OF ....... ILs
The foregoing was acknowledged bcfor~ me this day of
by __ Katherine_Amnr and
the __ president 811d
October , , 19
of Ruslness and Resl~ Sale~. InK, _, a ,._ Cn .moration
under thc laws of Minne~nm , On b~half of the _Co .r?r~fiem
Precision Closers, Inc.
4315 North Shor~ Drive
Mound. MN 55364
(612) 472-3219
Tsx Sl~eme~ for ~,- r~l i.q~,~.~ly ~ in ~ ~ ~huuk{
I~ ~ m 0no. de mm~ ~md ~ of G~):
GRANTEE IS TAXPAYER:
Stephen L. Briggs
5931 I. akc¢¢w Drive
Minn~uSsv2, MN 55364
May 27, 1997
RESOLUTION//9%54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND
VARIANCES FOR SETON BEUFF
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a
single family development called Seton Bluff in the manner required for platting of land under
the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability
of the preliminary plat, .the planned development area, and the variances, taking into
consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and
location of the street, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage
disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining
lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 13, 1997, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Seton
Bluff Subdivision located on property described as follows and shown on the attachment:
Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton,
PID's 19-177-23 22 0036 to 0041 and 0054.
WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development
Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having
unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of
water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or
location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and
controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and
WHEREAS, the physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate
development of the property. In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in
driveway cuts and retaining walls for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road,
the developers are proposing the project which facilitates the establishment of a common access
drive serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive allows much more control
of storm water runoff, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned
Development Areas. The net site area of Seton Bluff is 1..35 acres necessitating a variance of
· 65 acres in order to process the request as a PDA. Because of the physical conditions of the
site, processing this request as a PDA gives the City the ability to add appropriate conditions
May 27, 1997
to the approva/. The proposed density with the applicable bonus is consistent with the maximum
density allowed under the shoreland ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
establish Seton Bluff as a Planned Development Area (PDA), together with a request for street
design variances and variances from the bluff setback and impervious surface provisions of the
Mound City Code, and
WHEREAS, the development is located in the R-lA Zoning District which requires for
lots of record, a minimum of 6000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 40', a front yard
setback of 20', side yard setbacks of 6' and 6', a 15' rear yard setback and a 50' setback to the
lakeshore and a minimum building floor area requirement of 840 square feet, and
WHEREAS, all lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet as
required in the R-iA zoning district, and
WHEREAS, impervious cover for the project totals 32.8 %. The additional impervious
cover is largely due to the expansive common driveway and guest parking area. Developing the
property with traditional driveways would reduce the amount of impervious cover, however, it
would complicate storm water drainage problems in the area, and
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project
as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations, and
WHEREAS, the street variances for the new portion of Kildare Road and the private
drive will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing
paved streets. Traffic resulting from the proposed development will be generated at the same
rate as the existing households in the vicinity since the proposed development and all of the
development in the area consists on detached single family homes, and
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density
of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed
subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use
in the area, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to preserve wooded areas and to retain, as far
as practicable, existing tree cover. Seton Bluff contains scattered tree cover. Construction of
the access drive and units will necessitate removal of most of the vegetation in front portion of
the site. The amount of tree loss is, in all likelihood, equal to the amount of tree removal that
would be necessary to construct homes with individual driveways on to Kildare Road, and
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being prpvided, and
May 27, 1997
WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate
the practical difficulty created by the topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of
existing vegetation, and the granting of variances will would not be detrimental to the purposes
of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations
and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Mound.
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 2 for approval of the plan with
7 units.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
Approves the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Preliminary Plat, establish a Planned
Development Area including the establishment of a private drive and the following variances:
Right-of-Way width
Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius
Improved cul-de-sac radius
Improved street width
Street grade
PDA Site Area
Lots:
Lot 1 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 2 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 3 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 4 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 5 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Front Yard Setback
Proposed Variance
50' 35' 15'
50'r 40'r 10'r
40'r 35'r 5'r
28' 24' 4'r
8% max 13% 5%
2 acres 1.35 acres
.65 acres
Required ~ Yariance
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 20' 10'
10' 6' 4'
20' 15' 5'
)o77
May 27, 1997
Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10'
Front Yard Setback 20'
Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (rear)
Bluff Setback (side)
Impervious Cover
20' 10'
6' 4'
15' 5'
30' 10' 20'
30' 10' 20'
30% 32.8% 2.8%
The above variances are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements
and those found within the City Engineer's memo dated April 1, 1997:
o
The preliminary plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this
Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the
approval of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided
on the City's Zonir~g regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council;
and anyt inconsistent references to dwelling locations in the preliminary plat shall be
ignored.
The Homeowner's Association documents will be prepared and submitted with the Final
Plat and incorporated into final plat resolution.
The Conservation Easement will be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval.
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit
from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all
required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning
construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are
secured.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items
covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the
final plat.- As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with
a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved
by the City Attorney in the amount of 125 % of estimated construction costs as per plans
approved by the City Engineer.
The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to
the City showing the ownership status of the proper, ty prior to filing. The applicant shall
provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Seton
Bluff.
May 27, 1997
o
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period,
it shall become null and void.
o
The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Kildare Road and in any other portion
of the plat shall be borne by the developer, including all required utilities on which the
design shall be approved by the City Engineer.
10.
The approval would not be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to
expend funds to provide a location for off-site water storage.
11.
Street, Grading, Site and Utility plans prepared by the developer shall be submitted to
the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the City releasing the final plat.
12.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and
provided prior to the Final Plat Approval. All these documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
13.
Building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the
subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City
Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Official.
14.
The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
15.
Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $3,500 is to be paid prior to the
City releasing the final plat.
16.
Any outstanding cash balance in the escrow account plus an additional $2,500 necessary
to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative fees shall be deposited with the
City prior to the City releasing the final plat.
17.
The developer shall modify the landscaping plan to provide additional overstory trees
along Kildare Road frontage. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by
City Staff.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound
Code of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by
Councilmember Weycker.
Hanus, Jensen, and Weycker.
May 27, 1997
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Polston.
Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excus~xl.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
NOV-10-lgg? 11:49 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
MCWD PERMIT APPLICATION: 96-180
REPORT
6124710682 P.02/05
DATE: .! 1-0t5-97
Applicant:
Location:
PID:
Applicable Rules:
Brenshell Homes
:4839 Cumberland Road
-Mound, MN 55364
Kildare Road_and. Kerry Linde, Mound
19-l 17-23-22
Rule B, Stormwater management
Representative: Fine Linc Dcsien
P.O. Box 1611
Burnsville, MN 55337-0611
Subwatershed:
SubSubwatershed:
Exhibits Received: Site plans RunoffcalculatJons
Drainage narrative
Noticing Requirements: Mailed to residents w/in 600' of project on
Wetland Conservation Act Notice mailed
J 1.-6-97
Reviewed by: Mike Panzer, Steve Schmunk, Andrew Syverson, Jim Hafner
Project Review Status by Other Governmental Units:
DNR General Permit:
Recommendations: Approval. Issuance of pen'nit upon receipt of signed pond maintenance
agreement.
Rev'iew & Summary: This project involves the development of 7 residential housing sites on a 135
acre site in Mound. The site is located on a bluffwhich, along with the small size of the site. makes
it difficult to provide water quality treatment on site. The applicant is proposing to construct a (dry)
detention pond to provide rate control and to provide some pretreatment for the stormwater runoff
before it leaves the site. The applicant is requesting to make a contribution to a regional stormwatcr
treatment project to meet the water requirements of Rule B. The contribution wa.q calculated to be
$2860.
Rule JTime*: Staff $50.00
Engrs_$544,0~
Legal.
Mailing costs ~
Total to date: ~
Rule J f¢c$ liste~[ in this rcvort may not be the final total incurred for the application
February 5, 1997
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
Mr. Jon Sutherland ( (~ M./~ ~ 'lC ~D-L.C~ ~---7 "~"~
5341 Maywood Road.
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Seton Bluff Planned Development Area, Preliminary Plat, Lake ~Vdnnetonka - Black Lake
(27-133-12), City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
We have reviewed the site plans and supporting materials for the above-referenced proposal
(received January 28, 1997) located in NWl/4, Section 19, TI 17N-R23W) and have the
following comments to offer:
Lake Minnetonka - Black Lake (27-133-12), is on the proposed site. Any activity below
the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section
of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of DNR and may require a DNR
protected waters permit. The OHW for the lake is 929.4' (1929 NGVD). All plans
should be labeled with the OHW noted.
I have concerns regarding the BluffLine identified on the plans. Apparently there is some
confusion regarding interpretation of the city's shoreland ordinance regarding the
definition of a bluff. The city should consider amending its shoreland ordinance to avoid
any future misinterpretation of the definition. At this point in time, the DNR will not
object to the city's interpretation. However, regardless of the interpretation, the existing
bluff lines appear to be located below the top of the bluff.
Impervious surface should be looked at closely. It appears that impervious surface limits
are exceeded on several lots. We object to maximum impervious surface being exceeded,
especi~ly in an area with such steep topography.
Apparently the building density was calculated using the underlying density requirement of
6,000 square feet per unit. The City of Mound shoreland overlay district requires a
density not to exceed 10,000 square feet per unit. The DNR would object to granting of a
building density based on the use of the less restrictive underlying density requirements.
DNR Informalion: 612-2q6-6157, I ~80(I-766-6000 * TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929
/\n Eqt al Opl:OImlfitx F. mph:}cr ~ Prinlcd on Recycled Paper Containing a
~Vho VaJut'q JJivCllSil) Minimum oJ J()g~ poM-CollSUllle[ Waste
Mr. Jon Sutherland
February 5, 1997
Page 2
It is unclear how many' slips will be requested by the homeowners' association for the
docking facility. The docking facility will require a permit from the DNR and/or from the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). The LMCD is the agent for DNR
General Permit #97-6098 for permanent and/or multiple docks on Lake Minnetonka.
Please contact Greg Nybeck at 471-9588 for guidelines and additional permit information.
It appears that the stormwater is proposed to be routed directly to Black Lake (27-133-
12). Stormwater sedimentation/treatment ponds, or other appropriate stormwater
treatment features, should be included in the plan. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
should be contacted to discuss stormwater management and any permitting requirements.
There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the
properties adjacent to the bluff and/or wetland areas. This would help to ensure that
property owners are aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of
Mound, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District may have jurisdiction over the areas and that bluffs and or wetlands may not be
altered without appropriate permits.
There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for
activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the
city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
bo
Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction
period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and
Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be
followed.
If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or one
million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised
that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
If construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more, contractors are
required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (Scott Thompson ~ 296-7203).
Mr. Jon Sutherland
February 5, 1997
Page 3
The comments in this letter address DNR - I}ivision of Waters jurisdictional
matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support
or lack thereof for a particular project.
Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have questions.
Peter I;e~t caT"----~---.~~
Acting Area Hydrologist
PAML/cds
C~
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Cn'eg Nybeck
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafiaer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta
Hennepin Conservation District
Fine Line Design Group, Steve Behnke, P.O. Box 1611, Bumsville 55337
84
__ 153
85 t ,
, . \
\
// 68 / 69
/ /
, I I
'x
4¢-~-, 40~i 40 ~ ,50 50--
tl
~0
4O
1i i 10
RD
204.9
40 ~o i 180.55 (35)
LB*~ ,o, (56)
156.2
~o s
15!. 88
4
I07.5
Bob Sehmidt
4708 Island view dr
Mound, MN 55364
'roi
Jim Fackler, Park Director
cc:
Tom Mc Caffery, Dock Inspector
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd
Mound, MN 55364
Jkn,
Although the DCAC has changed the plan for the Roanoke Ln commons multiple slip dock to
accommodate some of my i. ssues with the previous plan, I am still opposed to the new plan. The reasons I
am opposed to the new plan are:
It would eliminate one non-abutting site from the commons program without notification to all of the
homes in the neighborhood.
I would be restricted to having only one boat.
Placing all of the non-abutting boats next to two abutting properties would create more congestion than
there is now.
I am opposed to the inequity of some abutting property owners getting virtually private lake shore while
two other properties have to absorb all of the non abutting boats.
I believe the commons program should not pay for a multiple slip dock that will only eliminate one dock.
The one year trial feature, of this plan would require me to remove my dock and store it for a year.
For these reasons, I want to retain my dock site and continue to install my dock at that site.
TO: MR. MAYOR AND ALL CITY COUNCILPEOPLE
WHY ARE WE HERE?
In the 3 meetings we have attended it has been clearly stated by the 2 active
dock holders of the 3 non-abutting available docks, as well as numerous abutting
lakeshore owners who are most directly involved that we DO NOT want to
participate in the multiple dock system. If this is truly a voluntary program, which
has been stated many times, the issue should have been tabled long ago. But,
since this is a self serving issue to Councilperson Ahrens and dock committee
member Frank Ahrens it goes on and on, meeting after meeting - they keep
pushing it upon their neighbors at any cost.
We are totally opposed to any motion that has been made by the dock committee
to date. If the issue is congestion and accessibility, why not move the Stead
dock site to the unrented site while leaving Barb Casey and Bob Schmidt's docks
where they are currently located. This will ensure the rights all are entitled to.
Putting all non-abutting dock holders onto 1 dock will definitely create more
congestion and make it virtually impossible to move our boats around under any
adverse weather conditions.
Why condense so many docks in such a small area when there is plenty of
lakeshore to spread them out, easing the congestion while maintaining the
integrity of the neighborhood.
This is simple and why you can not hear what the people involved are saying is
beyond us. Why you can't see what is going on is beyond us. Why you can't say
"NO" to Councilperson Andrea Ahrens and dock committee'member Frank
Ahrens is beyond us. But, if you are truly here to represent the public, you will
vote "NO" to any motion to implement any public dock system at the Roanoke
access.
Sincerely,
"'
~.~~n/utson
Mound, MN 55364
Rebecca A. Cherne
Please make this letter available to all interested p~rties at the April 14th city
council meeting.
We the undersigned are opposed to placing a multiple dock site at the Roanoke access. We are opposed to
any multiple dock even for a trial period. We hereby, petition the city council to vote against any motion
for a multiple dock site at the end of the Roanoke access.
]Name
Address
RECEIVEO 2 1998
Katherine and Thomas Latcham
4711 Islandview Drive
Mound, MN. 55364
TO: ED Shukle
We are Opposed to putting in a multiple dock site at the Roanoke access.
We are opposed to any multiple dock even for a trial period at the Roanoke access.
We were not even notified and the proposed dock would be less than 150 Feet from our dock.
Speaking with neighbors, we were told this was suppose to be a voluntary program and all
people involved are against it. How voluntary is that? We have already had problems with theft
and vandals,and increasing traffic in this area would increase the risk. We like the program the
way it is. We have great people with common's dock's near by, and they are opposed.
So why fix it, if it's not broken,? especially using our dock fee's. We also feel it is not right to
use public fund's to buy some peoples dock's, If you start doing that you'll have to by everybody's
dock's or be in trouble for discr/mination. It sounds like your trying to bribe them by offering to
buy them fancy new free dock's.
We believe it is a conflict of interest to let Andrea Aherens vote on this, because she stands to
"substantially gain financially," by pushing the inlanders common dock off her property.
It is a common fact that commons property w/th out a commons dock on it, is more
valuable and much more marketable.
Apr-14-98 03:ZOpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN
61Z3379310
..
RESOLUTION NO. 98~
RESOLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF
DOCK LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE
OF CONSIDEP,-a, TION OF MULTIPLE DOCK AT
ON DEVON COMMON AT THE ROANOKE
LANE ACCESS
wHEREAs; the City of Mound administers and regulates activities within and upon the
various public commons of the City; and
WHEREAS; the regulatory activities include the provision of dock locations upon the
commons for the recreational use and enjoyment of the participants in the dock program; and
WHEREAS; in furtherance of the City's regulatory activity, the City Council has
established the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission CDCAC") and has charged it with
making recommendations to the City Council regarding the City's dock program; and
WHEREAS; at its March 19, 1998 meeting, the DCAC adopted and forwarded to the City
Council the following resolution:
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg to recommend installation of the
multiple dock, 75' in length, straight dock to accommodate two boats.
Dock sites 41477 and 41866 will be eliminated and site holder 41477 will
be placed on the city multiple dock. Dock site 42043 will become the site
of the multiple dock with the dock site holder placed on the multiple dock.
Dock site holder Scbanidz would have the first choice of dock slips on the
multiple dock. Dock site 41956 (Casey) will remain in its current location.
and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has had the opportunity to review the DCAC
recommendation and has received input from the suaff and interested members of the public and
has considered the recommendation in light of the City Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
1. Dock site locations 41477 and 41866 are hereby eliminated and the City is directed
establish two permanent sites on the Pembrooke multiple dock as replacement locations.
Apr-14-98 O3:ZOpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN 61Z33?g310 T-Z35 P.03/03 F-g54
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site ar Roanoke Lane is
hereby discontinued and thc park director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this manet in r. he future only if requested to do
so by all parries who would be relocated to the dock and all parries whose property abuts
Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to
determine whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
~.' With the exception of dock locations 41477 and 41866, all existing dock localions
on De¥on Common will remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
The following Councilmcmbcrs voted in the affirmative:
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Apr-14-98 03:ZOpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN
612337~310 T-H5 P,03/03 ;-g54
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Romoke Lane is
hereby discontinued and the park ~lirector is hereby directed to notify all interesIed persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this marker ia r. he future only if requested ;o do
so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parries whose property abuts
Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to
de~ennin¢ whether thc policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
,~-~. With thc exception of dock locations 41477 and 41S66 .~Xexisting dock locations
on Devon Common will remain unchanged and unaffected by ~is action)
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ~'~ ~r- and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
L
..TBDI-t ~. $ 3 3
Apr-14-g8
O3:2Opm
From-KENNEDY & ~RAVEN
61Z33~g31D
RESOLUTION NO. 98
RESOLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF
DOCK LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE
OF CONSIDERATION OF MULTIPLE DOCK AT
ON DEVON COMMON AT THE ROANOKE
LANE ACCESS
T-Z3~
P. aZ/a3 F-g54
WHEREAS; the City of Mound administers and regulates activities within and upon the
various public commons of' the City; and
WHEREAS; the regulatory activities include the provision of dock locations upon the
commons for the recreational use and enjoyment of the participants in the dock program; and
WHEREAS; in furtherance of the City's regulatory activity, the City Council has
established the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission CDCAC") and has charged it with
making recommendations to the City Council regarding the City's dock program; and
WHEREAS; at its March 19, 1998 meeting, the DCAC adopted and forwarded to the City
Council the following resolution:
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg to recommend inst~llation of the
multiple dock, 75' in length, straight dock to accommodate two boats.
Dock sites 41477 and 41866 will be eliminated and site holder 41477 will
be placed on the city multiple dock. Dock site 42043 will become the site
of the multiple dock with the dock site holder placed on the multiple dock.
Dock site holder Schrnidt would have the first choice of dock slips on the
multiple dock. Dock site 41956 (Casey) will remain in its current location.
WHEREAS, the City Council has had the opportunity to review the DCAC
recommendation and has received input from the staff and interested members of the public and
has considered the recommendation in light of the City Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
I. Dock site locations 41477 and 41866 are hereby eliminated and the City is directed
to establish two permanent sites on the Pembrooke multiple dock as replacement locations.
tvXr..12 0 0 - 1
April
City Council Members,
I will be out of town for the April 14 city council meeting; however, I would like my views known
to the council and made a part of the minutes. Before you are recommendations from the Dock &
Common's Advisor)' Commission to make some significant changes to the Devon
CommonsXaRoanoke Access dock program.
Having abutted the Devon Commons in this area since August, 1976, I -know all too well of the
problems associated with this commons area. This area was opened by the city council in the
Summer of 1977 for dockage for non-abutters over the objection of the abutters in this area. This
area ~vas not suitable for docks in 1977 and is NOT suitable now. The commons in this area is a
narrow strip of land that is approximately five to twelve feet wide and is as narrow' as two feet in
some places, which is not adequate for traversing. Many homes in the area are on flat lots on the
lake side. Many of the homes are within 50 to 75 feet of the lake.
Current non-abutting dock sites are not easily accessible. Non-abutting dock site holders have
trespassed on private property in the past carr)ting dock sections to the sites and installing the
docks. Privacy and trespassing on private property was a big issue in 1977 and is still a big
concern today'. The winter storage of dock sectiopdpipe and boat lifts on the commons in plain
view of abutters homes was not acceptable in 1977 and is not acceptable today. The fire lane (the
only access point) is inadequate to accommodate hea'~-y foot traffic due to the steepness of the
bank. Additional foot traffic definitely causes the land to erode.
We have personally experienced numerous counts of trespassing, some unintentional and some
intentional, persons urinating on our lawn and bushes, dogs being allowed to mn loose to defecate
on our lawn and urinate on our bushes, illegal boats moored at docks, dock sites not being
cleaned up and maintained and docks being le~ in the lake over the winter months. Docks le~ in
the lake during the winter months have been a significant hazard to snowmobilers and are ver)'
unsightly to the abutting home owners. This is totally unacceptable to this neighborhood.
The recommendation before you provides a solution to only a portion of the overall problem in
this area. I believe there is a more acceptable solution that would be favored by some that are in
opposition to the current proposal. I would recommend the following:
a. two of the four non-abutting sites be relocated to an area that is more appropriate for this
type of activity.
b. a plan be negotiated between dock site holders Casey and Schmidt, along with the city for
the two dock site holders to share a dock at the dock site located at the fire lane.
c. should an acceptable plan not be reached by the three parties, the city should locate a dock
site in another area for one of the site holders.
I believe this proposal is fair and a good compromise to a problem that some of us have been
forced to live with for over twenty years. I would ask that you give this new proposal
consideration. Your cooperation in finding a fair and equitable solution to this problem is greatly
appreciated.
cc: D&CAC Chair
ran 3~. Ahrens
4673 Island View Drive
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
As you knov¢, there is currently a recommendation before you to consider a
city-owned multiple dock for the Roanoke Access Area of Devon
Commons. Over the past months, there have been numerous meetings
regarding this issue, at both the Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission (DCAC) and City Council levels. The discussions generated
at these meetings have incIuded both support and opposition to this
proposal. The viewpoints expressed have been equally strong at opposite
ends of the spectrum on this issue and therefore, the obvious dilemma is
finding a solution that is acceptable to the majority.
It is our understanding .that this particular section of Devon Commons has
not always been used as part of the dock program for non-abutting
residents. When the City was considering it for this purpose in the late
1970% a whole host of objections were raised; including 'the very ones
being raised today. The commons is.an extremely, narrow one, .at some
places being only two feet wide. The abutting lots are fiat and therefore the
homes are in very close proximity to this narrow strip of land, resulting in
a serious loss of privacy and a high level of 'congestion for these'residents.
It is this very issue that came to light in the original Task Force's survey
(with a 75% dissatisfaction level) and was one of the primary findings they
established for use in recommending high priority areas for multiple docks.
Another of the original concerns raised and still holds true today is the
traversability. There are many other sections of commons in the city that
have been designated as non-traversable because accesSing them
compromises private property rights and would actually encourage
trespassing.
Hindsight is almost always 20/20, as the saying goes, and perhaps what '~
the City Council should really be considering is returning';,his section of
the Devon Commons to its original designation of non-traversable, rather
than attempting even a trial multiple dock This solution seems to address
~e multitude of concerns~raised by both sides.- ....
When the City Council established the Task Force, the predecessor of the
DCAC, it did so with the focus being the assessment of the dock program,
the identification of problems, and the formulation of solutions. After
those things were done, the City Council established the permanent
Commission. This would surely indicate a seriousness on the part of the
Council to make the program better by solving the identified problems.
We urge each of you to carefully consider this proposal, as it appears to be
the most logical and equitable solution in this particular case. Not only
would this follow in .line with the City Council's original intentions, we
believe it serves the greater good of the City's entire program and the City
itself.
Respectfully,
CITY
Janua~ 6, 1977
TO~
The Honorable l~or and City Council
The City ~zager
Ik~ks - Lcca:ions and Permits
The Pax~ Oca~ission at their Decez~er 16th meeting made ~hree reco~-
1. I~ was recc~en~e~ tha~ the Roanoke Access ~e opene~
for acck construction.
2. That the Council authorize %he issuance of 420 dock
pe,--.'.ts rather than 350 aa ~n pas~ y~rs.
If the lake level remains low, a~out 66 dock si~es
a2 6 locations will Be ~ble. The l~=k Comaission
recommended in 1977 citizens be au%horize~ to maintain
dock lcca%ions for a small fee as certain ~ock locations
may be unusable.
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 38
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COI~bilSSION
AND ALLOW DOCK LOCATIONS IN THE ROANOKE ACCESS
AREA BUT NOT ON THE POINT
WHEREAS, Roanoke access area has previously been restricted ~o
dock locations until full development indicated this was
practical, and
WHEREAS, the Koanoke access area has now been der. eloped to the
point where dock locations can now be maintained, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the point of this access not
be included for dock locations
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
lv[OUND, 1ViOUND, M/NNESOTA:
That dock locations be allowed in the RS'anoke access
area, excluding the point, on the recommendation of
the Park Commission.
Adopted by Council this 1 lth day of Jan. 1977.
77 - 38
1-11-77
n '-,',./
ROANOKE ACCESS FOR DOCK PERMITS
Gary Glasgow outlined his l'equest for docks on the Roanoke Access .~,. ~ r,
Swenson moved aa'] W[thhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-38
The vote was unanimously in favor
INCREASE NUMBER OF DOCKS ON COMMONS TO 420
Withhart moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-39
Ro['~ CaX! Vote
Fenstad .Nay
Swenson Aye
Wlthha rt Aye
Lovaasen Aye
So resolved
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK
COMMISSION AND ALLOW DOCK LOCATIONS
IN THE ROANOKE. ACCESS AREA BUT NOT
ON THE POINT
1977
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK
COMMISSION AND INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF DOCK LOCATION PERMITS TO 420
Mi~rUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PAEK COMMISSION MEETING
January 20, 1977 Mound City Hall 7:30 P.M.
Present were: Chairman Alan Greene; Commissioners Diane Arneson, Cathy Bailey, Ed Buhr,
~t Shay, Hal Larson and Joy Flemingl Dock Inspector Gary Glasgow; Council Advisor Ben
~hhart; City Manager Leonard Kopp. Aiso Present was Councilman Gordon Swenson.
Roanoke Con~_ons:
The fol!ow~g ~esidsnts were present to question the recent, opening of Roanoke Access:
Tom & Linda Morrison, 4649 Island View Drive
Judy Janicke, 4645 Island View Drive
Bernard G. Berm, 4701 Island View Drive
Frank Ubrens, 4673 Island View Drive
Steve Erickson, 4705 Island View Drive
Dale Johnson, 4687 Island View Drive
Glasgow explaLned that the original mpproval of the Dock Location Map included the stipula-
tion that Roanoke Access would be opened up ~s soon as developr~nt (surveys and marking)
was co~9. !eted.
Bernard Benz expressed concern that the City was adding new dock sites. He ~s assured
that the dock sites on Roanok6 Access were included in the original Dock Location Msp.
Steve Erickson expressed concern that the City and PC are using time and money on docking
that could other~_se be used for sorely needed "green space" and facilities for children in
in Island Park. Greene responded that many PC hours and much money has been spent on
planning and deve!opmmnt in Island Park but because the residents present at the meeting
bare only lived in the area for a short tLm~ they are unaware of this.
'"tion was made and seconded by Greene and Buhr to recommend that Council postpone tbs
.ting of dock permits along the Roanoke Co~.ons ~til such time as al! matters of safe
access have been resolved and appropriate safeguards have been taken where necessary.
Discussion. Motion carried.
Motion was made and seconded by Greene and Arneson to form a comm~ittee of up to seven
members to stud~ the safety factors of Ro~noke Access. Suggested ~mbers would be 2
abutting property o~mers, present access dock-site owners, up to three off-shore dock-
site applicants living iu the area and i PC mmmher se~-~ing as chairmau. The committee
would evaluate the access and make suggestions as to safety of such access. Motion
carried. Two of the citizens present offered to serve on the ccmmittee - Dale Johnson
and Bernard Benz.
Ci'I~ ~ ~
l~ound ~ ~imn~o'~
¢01Z~.ZZ, ~ZE~tO~..~UM ~0. 77-}~
The No=ca-able ~ayo~ an~ City Council
Pa~k Oommiszio~ .Minutee
A~;~,ch~d is .m ccBY of the .~a~k Commission minutes° Action by the Council
is needed on some cf Hhei_~ recom-~ndatiomm.
Re.smoke Aocees - The ¢ounci! h~s authoz~.zed the Roanoke
aocs~s, a.-ea be opended far ~ock pe.-~mits, iv___~ Park Commis-
sion ~eccmms~ds that the Council postpone the letting of
~ock permits on Rcanoke aocess ~til fu~he.- :~commend~tionz
am-e made rs~diz~ s~fe~y and safe acoees a~-~ made.
Bike, Hike Trails - The I~z.k Commission recom,-~nde~ thmt ~he
Council _~squezt :he Ooun~'y Wig~ay Deps~--t~ment to mamk up-
graded 0cunty Roa~ 15 ,ith Bike Ei~ pm~hs and %ha~. the
Council reque,~ Orono and Spr'&ng Park ~o Join in the x-equee~o
~o Vac~mcie~ - ~ne Park Commission z~queeted ~he ¢ounci! to con-
side= the fo!!~ names to fill Ps~k Oo~--,ission vagrancies:
Tomy gase
John L~nott
Eevin Oimon
Jim Reg~n
~an:b,F Smite
~r~ll ~-en~on
The subJeot of Commizsion vacancies will appear on anothe=
RESOLUTION NO. 77-67
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO ROANOKE
ACCESS
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77-38
WEEREAS, the Council did adopt Resolution No. 77-38 on January ll, 1977
allowing dock locations at the Roanoke Access, and
WRmmW, AS, the Park Commission has recommended that the Council postpone
the letting of dock ps=mits on Roanoke Access until further
recommendations are made regarding safety and safe access,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
The implementation of Resolution No. 77-38 shall be deferred
until the Park Commission has reported on safety and safe
access. Application fo= dock permits may be submitted, but
no permits shall be issued until said report is submitted to
this Council.
Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of February, 1977.
77-67
2-~-77
MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. at
the MOUND COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROANOKE ACCESS
Dale $ohnson was spokesman 'of the signers of a petition against allowing Roanoke
Access to be used ~or anyone other than abutting property owners. Also spearing
were Steve Ertckson, TomMorrtson. Some of the abuting property owners had
as many of 4 boats and all o~ned at least 2. Council~n Swenaon
should be treated as all other co~on~. Council~n Withhart requested t~t this
be sent back to the Park Commissiou for further study'as a new use of the co~ons.
Couocilman ~enstad said that the council should consider density and the over-~se
of the lake.
Fen'sisal moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-67
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 77-38
AND NOT ALLOWING ANY ASSIGNMENT OF
DOCKS ON THE ROANOKE ACCESS AT THIS
TIME.
The vote was unanimousty in favor
lVLinutes of 3-14-77 Roamoke Access Committee Meeting page Z "~
The following areas were particularly observed:
1. Reoccuring small areas of soil erosion already existing on
the access lane.
2. Stairway at re~aining %vall.
3. Pine tree in Commons lane in front of Ahren's property,
blocking passage.
4. Steepness of shoreline and non-traversable area (appx. 75'
shoreline length) at northeast end of Class "B" Commons served
by Roanoke Access.
1VIotion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose t~at dock permits on
Commons served by Roanoke Access be limited to residents served by the
area bounded by Aberdeen on the north and Devon on the ~vest. A map was
sho%vn illustrating that this included approximately an area extencling from
near Devon l~oad s.nd Commons Access in one direction to Pe~-~broke Park
and Commons access in tlxe other direction and reaching inla~d to l%omes
near Tuxedo Boulevard. Passed unanimously.
Motion made by Jonnson and seconded by Benz that increased traffic im-
posed by opening 1{o .anoke Access would create access erosion problems and,
therefore, the Park and Trees Coordinator should periodically inspect access
and take immediate action to improve access to prevent erosion, should it
occur. Passed unanimously.
Motion made by Benz and seconded by Bunt that the City of Mound be reminded
of their responsibility to police Roanoke Access and Commons area. Concern
was expressed relative to personal h~jury or property damage that may be
caused due to potential lack of immediate response by patrolman on duty.
Pas s e d unanimously.
]Ed Buhr stated that he would present minutes of meeting to the Park Commis-
sion at the March 17, 1977 meeting.
Motion made by Johnson a~d seconded by Benz to adjourn meeting. Passed
%u%animously. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Note: these-minutes have incorporated the deletions and changes as amended
by Park Commission and are entered into their minutes for 3-17-77.
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1977 - ROANOKE ACCESS COMMITTEE MEETING
Loc ation:
Time: 7:30 P. M.
Committee Chairman:
Committee Members:
Dick Ambrose
Para Anderson
Bernard Benz
Gary Ingle
Dale Johnson
Bob Sv~anberg (absent)
Dale Jonnson residence
Ed Buh. r
4704 Island View Drive
4746 Island View Drive
4707 Island View Drive
4708 Island View Drise
4687 Island Vie~w Drive
4686 Island View Drive
.47 2 - 4640
472-543z
472-2252
472-3391
472-1726
472-5331
Mound citizens present in audience:
Tim Lovaasen, Mayor, Bob Polston, Council person, Maggie Ingle, Linde
Johnson, Jean Ambrose, T~om and Linde Morrison, Mary and Judy Janicke,
Frank Akrens and Steve Erickson.
General discussions %vere held regarding Roanoke Access and Commons
s~ety and maintenance requirements. It was felt that safety and mainten-
ance were closely ]{~ked to dock density and, therefore, the number of
families using the commons. In addition, the follov~ng points'were con-
siclered during many discussions held when motions were made:
1. No parking available
2. Steep access
3. Five foot retaining wall at lake end of access
4. Majority of usable commons being 15-30 feet deep
5. Close proximity of access lane and commons to ab'u/ting
ov~er' s homes.
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that the nurnbe, r of docks
be limited to seven, over and above abutt~-ng property ovrners, and that dock
center spacing be a minimum of 40 feet, and that special consideration be
given to the point area due to the sandbar and that, therefore, dock center
spacing be increased in excess of 40 feet in that area. Benz abstained from
voting, and passed unanimously.
l%4ction made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that all docks, boatlifts
and boats be removed from the Roanoke Commons and access lane by Decem- ~
bet 15. Passed unanimously.
Ingle addressed hLrnself to safety aspects of wooden stairway descending five
foot retaLning wall. at lake end of access. He expressed his concern regarding
the need to settle the issue quickly a_nd thus prevent delays in obtaining dock
permits. Therefore, he offered to apply for a ma{ntenance permit and con-
struct a less steep stairway than the existing stairway and %vhich %vould also
incorporate a handraLl. It was his hope that donstruction woul. d be completed
before the boating season began. Committee members agreed that this %vottlcl
satisfy their safety concerns relative to the existing stairway.
A brief adjournment was made to tour the Roanoke Access and Commons area.
e:~m~g ~~ay, going ~ou~
~o~ond=d by Jo~o~ ~ ~, C, zeccm~e~d to Co~c~ th~ ~.e Ci~/bund ~e ~epo for
Glasgow asked for clarilica~cn of ~-he objectivee ~ ~he Roanoke
~or~-i~ by Sep~_~:be.v 30, 19770
//3L
l~.~r ch I7,
7:30
Co~nc~, P~ep. Wi"J~h..,~-:0 Yo~ Cor~--n: limp, Fl~ming0 Dock Insp, Gtasgow:
4705 laird View De!ve
4649 "
4645 "
4704 "
4703 " -
4720 "
4701 "
46~7 . "
1566 F~gle ~
S! - ~ge 2 - l~t i~a~h: B~,~v made
~~ts by ci~:~s:
Round, l~mesota
COVBCIL ~ ~0. 77-~8
The :Rono~ble ~,?'or and City Counc:ll
Pa~k Commies/ca ~mutee of ~a.-ch 17, 1977
Attaoheel is a copy. of '~he Pam'k Ccz~isaion mima~es.
Tte~m requi~/ng Council acticn ares
Lots 3, 4 and 5, ~lcck 2, Wc~land Point - Bac~s to
do vc~k on WauxtMa
~he Pazk Cc~mission x~c~mmands apprmml of the la~d~~.
~ and x~ccem~a approval.
Roanok~ Access
Attached is a revised copy of the C~_...ittee Bmpox~ on
Roanoke Access. This report ~eo~mmends,
A. Dock spa~ing he 40 feet with incxeaM~ spacing at the sand-
bar.
2. All dockm, b~ lifts, etc. ~ ~~ ~ ~ C~
C. T~ e~~ ~ t~ Access ~ ~~d ~d a ~ ~il
i~e~.
D. ~k ~8 ~ l~i~d to ~si~nt8 tn ~ ~ ~d
~ A~en on ~ n~h -~ ~n ~ %~ ~t.
~ Council is invited to a T~mils Co~mi~mion ~kettng on
April 14th in the Spring Pa.-k Village ~ll at 7,~O P.H.
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 153
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING THE ISSUING OF DOCK
PERMITS IN THIS AREA UNTIL THE COMMONS lvLARK-
ING POSTS ARE INSTALLED: SUCH WORK TO BE
STARTED IlviMEDIAT ELY
WI-IEP, EAS, dock permits are restricted until such tim as Roanoke
Commons has official posts marking area designated _
as commons, and
WHEREAS, such work is to start immediately in order to allow said
residents to enjoy the l~_ke/boating season this year
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the issuing of dock li~emmes in this area be re-
stricted until such time as the commons marking
posts are inst~]ed, and
Such work of installing marking posts identifying
Roanoke Access be started immediately.
Adopted by Council this 1Zth day of.April, 1977.
77-153
4-1Z-77
RESOLUTION NO. 77-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PAR/{ COl~l%4ISSION
AND LI1%4IT THE DOCK PERI~ITS TO RESIDENTS IN THE
A/tEA BOUNDED BY A]SERDEEN ON THE NORTH, DEVON
ON THE WEST AND THE LAKE ON THE EAST
WHEREAS, dock permits are limited in the P~anoke Access, aL*si, and
WHEREAS, it is expedient that the immediate residents o£ the area be
given priority in obtainin§ permits in this location
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, lVLINNESOTA:
That the Council concurs with~he Park Commission and
hereby limits the dock perm[ts to residents in the area
bounded By Aberdeen on the north, Devon on the west, and
the lake on t~e east.
Adopted by Council this lath day of April, 1977.
77-15Z
4-12-77
//32
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 151
RESOLUTION TO CONDUR WITH THE PARK COI~41VIISSION
AND THE STA/i~WAY ON THE ACCESS BE REPAIRED AND
A I4AND RAIL BE INSTALLED FOR THIS BOATING SEASON
WHEREAS, Gary Ingle of 4708 Island View Drive has the stairway in
question, and
~NHEREAS, Ingle has stated he ~ build a less steep stairway in-
EorporA~ing a handrail, and
WHEP, EAS, approval ~ allow residents to utilize the Roanoke Access
this boating season.
NO%V, THEREFORE, ]~E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
I~OUND, lV~OUND, MINNESOTA:
That Council concurs v~th the Park Commission and the
stair%ray on the access be rep.~ired a_nd a hand rail be
installed for this boating season.
Adopted by Council this 1Zth day of April, 1977.
77-151
-77
RESOLUTIO. N NO. 77 - 1~0
RESOLUTION OPENING ROANOKE ACCESS FOR THE
ABUTTING pROPERTY OWNERS AND pROVIDING
FOR ADDITION OF 7 DOCKS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR
INLAND RESIDENTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF I~oUND, lv[ouND,
S6TA:
That they concur v~ith the Park CommiSs{on and
agree to the opening of Roanoke Access for the
abutting property owners and,
Tn&t proyisions for an additional seven (7) docks
to be set aside for Luland residents.
MINNE-
Adopted by Counc~l this 1Zth day of April,
1977.
77-150
4-1Z-77
ROANOKE ACCESS
After considerable discussion the Park Commission Committe on Roanoke Access report was
taken into parts A, C, D. and Flor action; parts B and E. required no action.
Pa rt A
Withhart moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-150
RESOLUTION OPENING 'ROANOKE'ACCESS FOR THE
ia-BUTTING PROPERTY OWNEIIS AND PP. OVIDING FOP.
ADDITION OF 7 DOCKS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR. IN-
LAND RESIDENTS · ' ' . .'.
The vote was unanimously in favor
Part C
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-152
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COM-
MISSION AND THE STAIRWAY ON THE ACCESS
BE REPAIRED AND A HAND RAIL BE INSTALLED
FOR THIS BOATING SEASON
The vote was unanimously in favor
Part D
Withhart moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-15Z RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COM-
MISSION AND LIMIT THE 'DOCK PERMITS TO
RESIDENTS IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY ABERDEEN
ON THE NORTH, DEVON ON THE WEST AND THE
LAKE ON THE EAST.
The vote was unanimously in favor
Part F (This xvas not part of the Park Commission Recommendations)
Withhart moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77 - 153 RESOLUTION RESTRICTING THE ISSUING OF DOCK
PERMITS IN THIS AREA UNTIL THE COMAdONS
MARKING POSTS ARE INSTALLED; SUCH WORK
TO BE STARTED LMMEDIATELY
The vote ~vas unanimously in favor
0
18/82/1997 09:45 &12~?B&445 C~EP~:~LI DOCKS
P....oO-~ 0 t =
I
CITY OF MOUND
MEMORANDUM
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(6121 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
OCTOBER 2, 1997
TO: DCAC R~ ~...''~
FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTO
SUBJECT: ROANOKE LANE ACCESS MULTI~LE SLIP DOCK
ROANOKE ACCESS DOCK SITE BREAKDOWN;
TOTAL LN.FT. OF PARK .......................... NOT A FACTOR
# OF CURRENT DOCK SITES .................................. 4
OF SHARED DOCK SITES ................................ NONE
OF TOTAL BOATS ......................................... 2
A) TWENTY FEET OR LESS ............. 1
B) 20' THRU 24' .................... 1
C) 24' THRU 32' .................... 0
D) 32' THRU 40' .................... 0
~ OF TWO BOATS WITH ONE OWNER ......................... NONE
# OF INDIVIDUALS WITH NO BOAT AT THIS TIME ............... ~
35.0'
WIDTH OF PROPOSED DOCK ...............................
LENGTH OF DOCK
SET REQUIRED FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY ....................
72.0'
NONE
TO DCAC MEETING
CITY OF MOUND
534'~ MAYWOOO ROAD
MOUN O. MINNESOTA 55364.1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-06?.0
January 6, 1998
TO: city Of Mound Dock Site User
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Discussion Of Possible Implementation Of A Multiple
Slip Dock.
Dear Dock Site User,
At this time the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC)
has scheduled a meeting for all individuals who had a 1997
dock site, or shared one, and the abutting property owners
on Devon Common at the access points of Devon Lane and
Roanoke Lane. The discussion will relate to the possibility
of combining the non-abutting dock users onto two city owned
and maintained docks at their respective current locations.
This meeting will be on Thursday January 15, 1998 at 7:30
pm, Mound City Hall Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road.
This will be your opportunity to discuss with the DCAC the
concerns you may have and to hear the DCAC explanation of
what a multiple slip dock has to offer. Please be advised
that this is only a look at a plan that would retain the
1997 dock users and may lead to further discussions.
If you can not attend please feel free to write a response
and it will be presented at the:meeting. Please address your
correspondence to; Jim Fackler, Park Director, City of
Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364.
/Jim ~ta~kler, Park Director
cc: DCAC
DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MINU'IZ3 - JANUARY 15, 1998
McCaffrey stated there is still a potential for a third boat.
Ahrens believed a third boat could be put on a straight deck.
Polston stated there aren't any non-abutters present tonight, and
we don't know if they are interested in participating.
Goldberg asked why some non-abutters put docks in and don't put
boats at them. McCaffrey stated he was unsure. Ahrens noted one
of the sites was not even used. McCaffrey stated there are four
dock sites with three assigned and one of the three not used.
Polston suggested the maximum number be authorized contingent on
that number applying. Ahrens believed there would never be more
than three boats at the site.
Motion by Polston, seconded by Hopkins to recommend to the
City Council that a straight dock up to 100' be authorized to
accommodate three boats provided the non-abutters become a
part of the multiple dock program at the Roanoke access on
Devon. Motioh carried unanimously.
Commissioners and members of the audience discussed docks being
left in year round.
Commissioners and members of the audience discussed the intent of
the motion to reduce the number of dock spaces from four to three.
They also discussed whether another site or sites could ever be
added.
Fackler discussed how dock sites are identified and assigned in
response to a question from the audience. He explained if someone
on the multiple dock moves, the site becomes available for anyone
who lives within that area.
John Gabos stated it would be a real advantage to cut the dock down
for two boats rather than three and limit it to a~5' dock, because
the area is too tight. Fackler stated even though one individual
didn't use his dock last year, he has the right by ordinance to
apply for his site this year.
Polston stated non-abutters will be notified this item will go to
the City Council, and up to three sites have been recommended.
Commission took a break at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 1998
Paul Jereczek stated he was concerned about not being able to have
more than one boat. He wo~ld have a problem with relocating. He
asked what this would cost. Goldberg stated all costs would be
defrayed by the annual dock fee. Jereczek stated he likes the dock
proposal in spite of his concerns.
Phil Kinds stated he has a 28' pontoon this year.
it can be accommodated. Kinds stated he is
proposal.
Goldberg stated
in favor of the
Ron Nordstrom asked if the City is adding more docks
program. Goldberg stated, no, the number of boats
maintained while cutting the congestion.
to the
will be
Goldberg stated there needs to be more input from the other 11
participants. Polston suggested that the other participants be
sent another letter indicating that the City Council will consider
finalizing the action recommended by the DCAC so they will have an
additional opportunity to comment. Goldberg stated he would rather
have this figured out before it goes to the City Council. Polston
stated that he believes the DCAC has responsibly addressed the
situation and tried to solicit input. His suggestion was that this
now be forwarded to the City Council. Polston then suggested that
letters be sent to everyone advising that this will be addressed at
the City Council.
Commissioners discussed a situation where a dock owner would have
two boats and choose not to move to the new dock. Fackler stated
in this case, the individual dock site would be moved. Ahrens
stated he would not be in favor of having a multiple dock and
individual docks.
Ahrens stated boat density on the lake is a concern, and this is a
favorable way to manage density.
In response to a question from the audience, Fackler stated the
City has liability insurance.
Polston noted this would be forwarded to the City Council to
recommend approval, and letters will be sent to all residents in
the area. Paul Jereczek will be left off the multiple slip.
ROANOKE LANE ACCESR
Roanoke Lane residents were identified. Goldberg noted 50% of the
residents were present. Fackler stated the configuration will be
determined by measuring it with the two adjacent property owners to
see where the docks are now. He noted there are four sites now and
no shared sites. There is a site withodt a boat.
Ahrens suggested since there are only two boats down there now, the
dock configuration should be reconsidered. He suggested a straight
dock be used instead.
2
DCAC MI1WLrlT. S RE(~OMMENDING APPROVAL
DEVON & ROANOK~
crrY
MOUND DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMLe, SION
January 15, 1998
Members present: Mark Goldberg, Dennis Hopkins, Frank Ahrens, and
Mayor Bob Polston. Members absent and excus.ed: Jim Funk and Gordy
Tulberg. Others present: Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock
Inspector Jim McCaffrey, and Secretary Clare T. Link. The
following interested ccitizens were also present: Michael Kane,
Dillon Kraavenbrink, John Gabos, Keith Forester, Wes Lafortune,
Mark & Gina Smith, Dave Osmek, Phil Keintz, Thomas Carlson, Linnea
Manske, Greg Knutson, Becky Cherne, Jim Kudin, and Ron Nordstrom.
~PPROVAL OF DECEMBER 18t1997 DC~C MINUTES
Motion by Ahrens, seconde4 b~ Hopkins to approve the minutes
of the Decemb&r lS, 1997 meeting as written. Motion carrie4
unanimously.
~GENDA CHANGES
Goldberg suggested the election of officers be moved to following
dock discussion.
MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
Goldberg discussed the dock task force decisions on areas of
improvement. He explained the dock site program. He stated Devon
Lane' and Roanoke Lane are the next two locations under
consideration for review.
DEVON LANE ACCESS
Devon Lane residents identified themselves. Gold[berg noted 1/3 of
those affected are present. He stated there is room for ten boats
on the slip including a canoe. There are six dock sites and' four
shared dock sites. Fackler noted the length is approximate based
on what is ~here now. He noted sites G through I would be for
smaller boats. Goldberg suggested G or H be elimated with J
remaining for a canoe.
Residents commented on the proposed configuration. Mike Kane
stated he liked the configuration and believed it would clean up
the area. John Grane stated it is a great advantage to have the
dock provided.
A
I3"x ~c:)~
This is your opportunity to discuss with the City Council
the concerns you may have. If you can not attend please feel
free to write a response and it will be presented at the
meeting. Please address your correspondence to; Jim Fackler,
Park Director, city of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound,
Minnesota 55364.
cc: DCAC
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Tom Mc Caffery, Dock Inspector
enclousures
SENT TO DOCK SITE HOLDERS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOO0 ROA0
MGUN0. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612} 472-0600
FAX (612} 472-0620
January 21, 1998
TO: City Of Mound Dock Site User
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: City Council hearing On Implementation Of
Multiple Slip Docks On Devon Common Located At
Devon Lane And Roanoke Lane Accesses.
Dear Dock Site User,
From my letter, dated January 6, 1998, you were advised of a
discussion to be held at the January 15, 1998 regular
scheduled monthly meeting of the Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission (DCAC). As my letter pointed out your boat
dockage could be changed from a single city dock site to
mooring of your boat at the same general location but on a
city owned multiple slip dock.
From that meeting the DCAC has recommended approval of one
city owned multiple slip to be placed at each of the
accesses, Devon Lane and Roanoke Lane, the design of each
dock will be different, see enclosure . The city multiple
slip dock at Devon Lane will provide for nine boats while
leaving one individual dock site with its location at Devon
Lane but with a yet to be determined location for Paul
Jereczek. All the remaining five non-abbutting dock sites
with four shares on the Devon access will be eliminated and
both the site holder and share person will be placed on the
city dock. The multiple slip dock at Roanoke will provide
dockage for three boats on a straight dock not to e~ceed 100
feet in length. The four non-abutting dock sites at Roanoke
access, with no current shares, will be eliminated and the
site holders placed on the city dock.
This recommendation from the DCAC is scheduled to go before
the Mound City Council on February 1'0, 1998. The location is
the council chambers at, Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 pm and will be a agenda item
to be discussed that evening, a exact time for this item can
not be determined.
prmted oa recycted pa~er
t
,/
II
II
II
II
'l
11
_ _.J N.__...~
II
I
)
NOA3G
3NV9 ~.~ln8 xo~
ii Ii I
II Ii
ii
ol s oil
iI Ii
,I II i
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
{612) 472-0600
FAX {612} 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
JANUARY 26, 1998
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ROANOKE LANE & DEVON LANE MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
There has been some question about the exact location of the
proposed city dock at the Roanoke access. The Dock
Inspector, Tom McCaffery and myself went to the site and
measured it. At this time we can only approximate the
locations due to the snow and not being able to find the lot
corner stake located 369 LnFt from this area, or as noted on
the Dock location Map as ~41631 (Note attached portion of
the Dock Location Map).
From the attached drawing of the Roanoke area, and with the
belief that dock site #41956 (Casey) is on the center of
their space, (Note; A dock does not have to be on center as
long they have their dock and boat inside assigned area.) it
appears that with using the on site measurements or the Dock
Location assigned lineal footage number the proposed
installation of a straight city dock will fit.
The Devon Lane proposed dock will fit as designed in my
letter dated January 21, 1998 to all abutting and
non-abutting dock site holders.
prlnle(~ on recycled paper
Bob Schmidt
4708 Island view Dr.
Mound, M'N 55364
1-29-98
Jim Faclder
Park Director
City of Mound
5341 Ma)wood rd
Mound, NfN 55364
CC
Tom Mc Caffery
Dock Inspector
Jim,
After reading your letter of Jan 21, 1998, I have several concerns about the plan.
First you're only providing 3 non-abutting dock slips at Koenoke Ln commons. There is currently 4 sites
available there and I feel this number must be maintained. Ifs true that only 3 are currently used, but I
understand that is due to a conflict with the abutting land owner. When I bought my house in Mound it
was primarily due to the commons program. I feel a reduction in the number of slips available, and one
boat per house, directly effects the salability (property value) of my house. I also am afraid that if non
abutters do not renew their dock permits, the slip will be r~moved from the commons program, further
phasing out non abutters from the commons program
Secondly, I have an inboard boat. This means I cannot steer in r~verse and it pulls to the left when in
reverse. Because of this only slip "A", as noted on the plan, would be acceptable for my use.
Finally, the concept that two boats can occupy one side of the dock will not work at this location. If there
were 43 feet between dock centers(there is less than that now, and the docks converge because of shoreline
curvature) only 9 feet would remain for boat ttavel (allowing for two 14 foot boat lifts and 6 feet of dock ).
Last year there was about 6 feet between my boat and the boat lift at site g42000. ALso the water depth
increased rapidly in this area. I have a 48 foot dock now at this location and at the end of my dock it is 4
feet deep in the spring. Extending the dock another 30 feet to accommodate a second boat would make the
depth about 10 feet deep which I believe exceeds the maximum allowed by the LMCD. I believe two
straight docks for the non abutters at this commons site would be the best solution.
I was told at the First meeting that no one would be forced to give up their current dock site. If these
concerns are not addressed to my satisfaction I will not relinquish my spot.
Please respond to this letter before the city counsel vote on Feb 10~'.
1112.
Memo
T~
City of Mound Dock Inspector
Todd Stead
February 10, 1998
Roanoke Multi-Dock Proposal
Tom McCaffrey has discussed with me the multi-dock pmposaJ for the Roanoke
area. I currently have a 17 foot boat and would definitely be in favor of ~is proposal,
The convenience of not having to put up and take down my dock every year would
be great.
I will not be able to attend the City Coundl meeting tonight so if you could pass along
these comments I w~uld appreciate it.
Thank you.
Todd M. Stead
· Page 1
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY I0, 1998
Greg Knutson, 4701 IVD - He likes it the way it is and sees no reason to change
anything.
Keith Foerster, 4645 IVD - Stated he is an abutter. In general he didn't have a big issue
one way or the other, but he did have concerns that some of the other dock sites that are
there are not easily accessible and in the past that is one reason they have not been used.
He stated that the proposed multiple dock slip has worked in other places very well but
some of the people opposed to this;
A. Don't use their dock;
B Have left their dock is disarray, sitting in front of abutters homes for them
to look at. These issues need to be evaluated.
C. Make sure that the people that use the Commons, use the access point and
not private property to access their dock.
Councilmember Weycker, stated she is opposed to this, because if both of these were approved,
it would make the entire Devon Commons multiple docks so there would be no room for
nonabutters to have any private docks. She stated this is a voluntary program and should be
treated that way.
The Mayor explained the whole intent of this multiple dock program has always been that this
is a voluntary program that the City Council adopted to limit congestion on the Commons. It
was not directed at the nonabutters, but simply to facilitate by giving trade-offs to the
nonabutters by the City picking up the portion of those docks and putting them in and taking
them out and to limit congestion on very small isolated Commons in front of people's houses.
It is not intended to become a political issue being fought b.y abutters and nonabutters over
whether or not they will have access to docks or not.
The Mayor further related that there are two places in the City where this multiple dock slip
concept is working very well and people are very happy with it.
MOTION made by Polston and seconded by Hanus to approv~ the multiple slip dock
for Devon Lane Access and refer the multiple slip dock for Roanoke Lane Access
back to the DCAC to determine if both abutters and nonabutters support this action.
Councilmember Weycker asked if all the nonabutters being put at the Devon Lane
multiple dock were notified and were in favor of it. Mayor Polston stated that
all who were at the meeting were in favor of it. Councilmember Weycker stated
that from the DCAC Minutes she could only come up with 1 or 2 nonabutters in
attendance. The Mayor stated that there were 3 meetings on this and it was the
opinion of the DCAC that they were in favor at Devon Lane.
The vote was 3 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
troll
1.11
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL- FEBRUARY I0, 1998
APPROVAL OF ROANOKE LANE MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP & APPROVAL OF
DE¥ON LANE MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP.
The City Manager explained that in the 1998 Budget, it was recommended by the Dock and
Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) and subse~uentiy approved by the City Council to
spend up to approximately $22,500 for two multiple dock sites, one at Roanoke Lane and one
at Devon Lane. This was reviewed by the DCAC and is now before the Council for approve.
He pointed out that there is information submitted by some residents who are in disagreement
with this pa.rticularly the dock proposed for the Roanoke Lane.site.
DEVON LANE ACCESS:
The Mayor stated that the people from the Devon Lane Access were present at the DCAC and
were in favtr of it.
ROANOKE LANE ACCESS:
He stated there were several people opposed to the dock configuration of up to a 1t30 foot
straight dock at the Roanol~e Access. Since that meeting there has been a letter from someone
who has an objection to the configuration and reducing the number of docks. The Mayor stated
there were no non-abutting people in attendance. A suggestion was made to send out letters to
all of the people who would be affected to let them know that the City Council would be
considering this tonight. This was done.
The Mayor then suggested that the Council approve the multiple dock slip for the Devon Lane
Access and refer the Roanoke Lane Access back to the DCAC to re. assess whether there is
support of this multiple dock at that access. He emphasized that this is a voluntary program.
The Council asked if there was any public comment on this item.
The following people spoke:
1. Wes I.aFortune, 4649 IVD - Asked if any comments from non'abutters was received?
Councilmember Weycker stated that 3 non abutters wrote letters after the notice was
sent. 2 opposed and 1 in favor of the multiple dock at Roanoke Access.
Bob Schmidt, 4708 IVD - Stated there were two meetings on this. He attended the first
and at that time a 4 slip multiple dock with all slips at the end of the dock was proposed.
Barb Casey, 4704 IVD - Stated she is not interested in a multiple slip dock site. She
stated she is a non abutting dock site holder and does not wish to be limited to just one
boat or giving up the privilege to share a dock or giving up the privilege of owning her
own dock.
John Gabos, 4687 IVD - Stated he is an abutting prgperty owner and didn't have any
desire to change the existing situation at the Roanoke Lane Access.
~1o7
fl.
t
!
!
I
fl.
I
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
February 17, 1998
TO: City Of Mound Dock Site User
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Hearipg On Implementation Of The Multiple Slip Dock
On Devon Common Located At Roanoke Lane Access.
Dear Dock Site User,
At the February 10, 1998 City Council meeting the
recommendation from the council was to send the proposed
city multiple slip dock at the Roanoke Access back to the
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) for further
discussion.
This item is scheduled to go before the DCAC on March 19,
1998. The location of the meeting is the Council Chambers
at, Mound city Hall, 5341 Maywood Road. The meeting will
begin at 7:30 pm and will be a agenda item to be discussed
that evening, a exact time for this item can not be
determined.
This is your opportunity to discuss with the DCAC the
concerns you may have. If you can not attend please feel
free to write a response and it will be presented at the
meeting. Please address your correspondence to; Jim Fackler,
Park Director, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound,
Minnesota 55364.
Uim Fack e~/Park Director
cc: DCAC
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Tom Mc Caffery, D'9~ Inspector
printed on recycled paper
March 8. 1098
We. the undersigned, petition thc Dock.& Co~qmns Adxisovy Commission to proceed with the
plan to place a multiple dock tbr current non-abutter duck site holders on the end of'the tire lane
at tt~e Roanoke Access on the De,,on Commons. The. multiple slip dock at Roanoke should not to
exceed 100 fcct in length. All other non-abuning dock sites at Roanoke access should be
eliminated
Address
Mar-19-98 03:32P P.01
Jim Fackler
City of Mound
Mound, MN 55364
March 17,1998
Dear Jim:
My wife and I will be unable to attend the dock commission meeting on Thursday March 19. l want to forward my
thoughts and Feelings on this issue so members of the commission, the city council and my neighbors can anticipate
my reaction if another proposal comes bet'ore the city council while I still own my house on Island View.
First, I would like to say, in the I0 )'ears we have lived on Island View, we have not had even ihe smallest objection to
the actions of the dock site holders on either side of our property. Our move From Mound has nothing Io do with
commons l~e shore issues.
I am appreciative m the members of the dock commission for ~e time th~ have donated to this issue in the interest of
creating a better dock program. Based on changes in tim cmmuni6' over ~he past 40 years. I feel thc time is right to
begin transforming ~e cmnmons and dock programs. I feel that with a good long term plan. a dock program can
exist that inco~orates more boats for non abutting property owners and less impact on the abutting progeny owners.
I believe that the additional recreational resources ( ci~ and regional parks) available today in the Mound area, lessen
the necessity For the commons. The increase in water elevation and erosion of shoreline since the creation of some
commons areas has greatly reduced their usefulness ~d usability (look at the number of plotted dock siles that are
currently not usable). I also believe the land use of the abutting property owners (year rmmd x.s. vacation homes)
has evolved and this space is now primarily residential, not recreational.
At the Febman' I0a' eiB, council meeting that last addressed this dock matter, one of my neighbors suited lhat because
I was moving, ~y opinion shouldn't matmr. This statement is totally ridimlous. Anything that is done that would
negatively impact the value of this prope~ and our abili~' to sell this pmpe~y is a matter that ~ects me more
immediately and measurably than the change would ~ect any of my neighbors.
I am absolutely opposed to the relocation of dock sit:s from olher areas of the commons to dock sile locations that
abut our prope~'. I am absolutely opposed to increasing the q~nti~' and densiD' of boats that abut our prope~:.
These changes would cause a negative impact on thc value of our prope~'. This feeling was reinforced wiflfin the
past 30 days, when a pa~' who was extremely inleresled in purchasing our house stated that he was reluctant lo m~e
an offer on ~c house because he was told that "Mound planned to put a bunch o[boat docks righI next to lhe house"
I suggest that the following two roles ~ide those making reco~en~tions. First, if you are an abutting prope~'
owner and you would not be willing to have the pmpos~ multiple dock site in front of your prope~', don't expect
someone else to want it in front of their prope~y. Second, If you ask or allow the ci~ council to vote on a multiple
dock site in front of an abutting prope~y and Ihe abutting owner is opposed to i~. don't object in the fitmrc when the
city council (which could be made up of different indMduals in the hture) dctemfines that they need more dock sites
for non abutting residents and passes a motion to put another dock in front of your prope~'.
I believe the best long term solution would be m m~e residential areas stri~ly residential and establish communi~'
boating areas with ample space (more than a fire lane and 6 feet of shoreline) and resources for communiD' gathering.
refuse collection and boat maintenance. I do not m~e this suggestion as someone who purchased commons lake
shore prope~' looking for thc benefits of private l~e shore, I tiffs& it just m~es sense.
! rcspec~lly request that you pass a copy of this letter along to the eiB: council, the dock commission mtd my
neighbors who attend the ~arch 19th meeting. Thank you for the consideration you have given me in relation to this
matt?~Good Luckl
Sinc~~ .
IIO .
JAMES KUEHN
4633 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
KEITH FOERSTER
4645 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
TODD STEAD
4767 ABERDEEN ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
WES LAFORTUNE
4649 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
LINDA & SCOTT MACK
4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
GINA ANDERSON
4665 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
FRANK AHRENS
4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
BARB CASEY
4704 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
JOHN GABOS
4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
BOB SCHMIDT
4708 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
GREG KNUTSON
4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
GENE SMITH
4705 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MOUND, MN 55364
DOCK & COMMONS COMiMiSSiON MEETING - MARCH 19, 1998
Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive stated he is in favor of the dock. He believed it
would clean up the shoreline.
Funk stated the objective origina, lly was to reduce congestion. Ahrens also noted there is
a petition from nine abutters who are in favor of the multiple dock. Commissioners
discussed the program in detail.
Ahrens proposed the dock be installed on a trial basis, a.survey be done at the end of the
year, and the dock could be moved somewhere else.
re~tson stated more congestion will be created with a multiple dock-in a small area.
Gretchen Smith, 4705 Island View, stated Barb Casey is against the multiple dock.
Motion by Alu'em, seconded by Funk to recommend to the City Council that
a multiple slip dock be placed at the end of the Ronaoke fire lane on the Devon
Commons at dock site 42043 for a one year period. The multiple dock should
be a straighf dock not to exceed 75 feet in length to accommodate up to three
boats. Dock sites 41477, 41956 and 41866 will be elimiated, and the site
holders 41477 and 41956 will be placed on the city multiple dock. Dock site
42043 will become the site of the multiple dock with the dock site holder placed
on the multiple dock. Dock site holder Schmidt would have the first choice of
dock slips on the multiple dock. Dock site holder 42000 will be instructed by
Dock Inspector to center the dock property on site 42000 so as to not encroach
in the water space allotted to the dock site for the city multiple dock.
Goidberg stated he is very uncomfortable with the proposal. Motion failed 2-2.
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg to recommend installation of the
multiple dock, 75' in length, straight dock to accommodate two boats. Dock
sites 41477 and 41866 will be eliminated and site holder 41477 will be placed
on the city multiple dock. Dock site 42043 will become the site of the multiple
dock with the dock site holder placed on the multiple dock. Dock site holder
Schmidt would have the first choice of dock slips on the multiple dock. Dock
site 41956 (Casey) will remain in its current location.
Ahrens explained the motion and explained how congestion would be eliminated.
Goldberg-stated he could vote for this provided there is feedback from those concerned
prior to the City Council meeting.
Motion carried 3-1.
Schmidt stated he is opposed to eliminating any docks. Knutson stated he is not in favor
of having the multiple dock sites in from of his property.
Fackler stated this item would be sent to the City Council for their review on April 14.
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
THLFRSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
ROANOKE ACCESS MULTIPLE DOCK
Ah.rem noted the City Council has referred this item back to the DCAC, because letters
were received from non-abutting dock siteholders after the DCAC first reviewed the item.
He noted this is the last access on Devon Commons to get a multiple dock.
Bob Schrnidt discussed his concerns about the proposed dock configuration and
maneuverability of his boat. He was not in favor of the reduction in the number of slips.
He was also opposed to being limited to having just one slip.
Ahrens asked who would be sharing the dock with him under his proposal. Schmidt
indicated it would be one of the dock users. Ab. rem indicated it would be possible to
provide a dock at the end because of maneuverability problems. Commissioners discussed
relocating the Gabos dock to correct problems. Fackler stated a letter has been received
from Mr. Gabos which was given to those present.
.Greg Knutson stated many of the existing dock site holders do not want the multiple dock.
He stated more don't want it than do want it. Hopkins noted it is voluntary. Ahrens asked
what his opposition is to the multiple dock. Knutson cited the narrowness of the area and
problems with maneuverability.
Gene Smith, 4705 Island View discussed his concerns about the multiple dock proposal.
He was concerned about the City adding more docks to it in the future. Goldberg noted
a limit on the number of boats would limit the number of docks allowed. Smith stated he
is opposed to the multiple dock.
Ahrens discussed the purpose of the multiple dock program. He, stated the proposed dock
can be reduced to 75' rather than the proposed 100'. Hopkins noted it is a voluntary
program, and they do not have to move to the multiple dock. Once they move, they cannot
go back.
Renee LaFormne, 4649 Island View Drive didn't think the use of the lakeshore is taken
away because of the multiple dock. She stated many residents are very pleased with the
multiple dock program. She believed it would be very accessible.
Ahrens agreed there are benefits to the multiple dock system. He stated a letter was
received from Mr. Stead in support of the multiple dock system. In response to a question
from the audience, Ahrens discussed the width of the area.
MOUND CITY COUNC~I. MINUTES- W.4RCH 24, 1998
1.12
,~OMM'ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRF_.SE~.
ROANOK~ ACCF-3$
John Gabos, 4687 Ishnd View Drive, stated that the issue of a multiple slip dock located on
the Roanoke Access has been hanging on since the February 10th City Council Meeting. This
was discussed by the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission last week and he understands that
they are recommending the Council approve a multiple slip dock at this site which will come
before the Council April 14th. Mr. Gabos currently has his home for sale and would like to
know what the situation is with this multiple slip dock on Roanoke Access _so he can inform
potential buyers. He asked for assurance that this is a voluntary program and that the guidelines
the Council adopted are not posing an undue hardship on abutting property owners.
The Mayor explained that Roanoke Access multiple slip dock is not on the Agenda tonight but
will be on the April 14th Agenda.
Mr. Gabos again asked, what he should tell potential buyers of his property. The Mayor stated
that the Council is not in a position to tell him what he should or should not say.
Councilmember Weycker stated that this multiple slip dock program was set up to be voluntary.
She stated that if this is not a voluntary program, then she was misled.
Mr. Gabos then asked if the City Attorney is in the position to issue a statement letter to him.
The City Attorney answered, absolutely not.
The Mayor stated that the Council is not going to issue a statement to Mr. Gabos telling him
what he can tell potential buyers.
The City Attorney stated that if Mr. Gabos wants a clarification of the guidelines that were
adopted by the Council, he should take this up at the April 14th Meeting.
No action was taken at this time.
meeting. Please address your correspondence to: Jim Fackler,
Park Director, city of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Nound,
Minnesota 55364. To allow for any written information to be
put into the Council Packet it would need to be received no
later than April 9, 1998.
i~ Fa~ler, Park Director
cc: DCAC
Ed Shukle, city Manager
Tom Mc Caffery, Dock Inspector
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472q3620
March 31, 1998
TO: City Of Mound Dock Site User
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Hearing On Implementation Of The Multiple Slip Dock
On Devon Common Located At Roanoke Lane Access.
Dear Dock site User,
At the February 10, 1998 City Council meeting the
recommendation from the council was to send the proposed
city multiple slip dock at the Roanoke Access back to the
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) for further
discussion on March 19, 1998.
This item was discussed at the DCAC and a excerpt of the
minutes related to this item is enclosed. Please review the
document and be aware of the motion that was passed. If you
have a question please contact me at 472-0611 for
clarification. .
As you will note from the passed motion this item will be
heard at the city Council level during their regular
scheduled meeting on April 14, 1998. The location of the
meeting is in the Council Chambers at, Mound city Hall, 5341
Maywood Road. The meeting will begin at 7:30 pm and will be
an agenda item to be discussed that evening.
This is your opportunity to discuss with the city Council
the concerns you may have. If you cannot attend please feel
free to write a response and it will be presented at the
printed on recycled paper
~PR-Ol-19DB 1.~: 14 COUNSELOR RE_~LTY P.01/01
March 31, 1998
Mr. Ed Shukle
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Mr. Shukle:
We do not feel Counciiperson Andrea Ahrens should be allowed to vote on the
motion presented to the council from the dock committee or, any motion
concerning the city multiple dock site at the Roanoke access. Councilperson
Ahrens has a serious conflict of interest, which will result in direct financial gain
due to the fact that her property is directly involved.
It is very obvious Councilperson Ahrens could not make an unbiased vote that
would not add value and marketability to her property,
Mound, MN 55364
Rebecca A. Cherne
CCi _
TOTAL P.01
· RECEIVED
Apr-02-98 09: 24A
P.03
Any motion should only be voted upon by council members who would not be directly affected by the motion.
We appreciate the time council person Ahrens has given to the city. However, in this instance, we must insist
that she not be permitted to vote on any motion that is related to the Roanoke Access. The city must respect
this conflict of interest situation and take the necessary, action to prove that the city council is a body that exists
to serve all of' Mound. If there is an error, lets make sure it is on the conservative side. Would any council
person be allowed to vote on a motion for their own variance request?
We further request that the council state for the record that this pr. ogram for multiple docks is voluntary on
behalf of the affected abutting property owners as well as the non abutting dock site holders.
Thank you for your concern on this matter.
Sincerely,
& Christine Gabos
Island View Drive
Apr-02-98 09:23A P.02
Mr. Ed Shukle
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound MN 55364
April 1,1998
Dear Ed:
There is a motion that has been forwarded to the ciD' council for vote on April 14. This motion for a multiple
dock site at the Roanoke access will cause undue hardship on us as the owners of the abutting property. We are
opposed to this motion.
The creation of a multiple dock site at the end of the 14' wide fire lane that abuts our property that could
accommodate more than one dock site holder and a multiple number of boats will only add to the current
congestion.
The proposed change will decrease the value of our property, from two diff'erent aspects. First, it adds more
boats in front of our house and makes our property less enjoyable to use. Second, it changes our property and
our properties rights as they compare Io the neighboring properties who would no longer have Commons docks
in front of their property,. Today our property is equal to those properties. With the proposed change, our
property becomes less desirable than the neighboring properties.
If Mound chooses to eliminate dock sites that is their right. But to move them from in front of another
property and place them in front ofo~r properb; is not right. This is a residential neighborhood not a marina.
This opinion about the negative financial impact on our property is also held by qualified Realtors and several
prospective buyers. The strongest test to find out how commons docks affect property value is to ask each of
my neighbors i£they would be willing to have a multiple dock site in front of their property. ! suggest you start
with my neighbors at 4655, 4633,4645,4649,and 4673 Island View who submitted the enclosed petition to the
city. If none of these people are in favor of'having a multiple dock in front ofthe~ property this should tell
you that current Mound residents perceive this proposal as a negative to the abutting property owner.
We feel strongly that there is a grave conflict of interest if council person Andrea Ahrens is allowed to vote on
this issue. Her desire to have the dock sites in front of her properS' removed is so strong thai we feel it is not
possible for her to vote in an unbiased manner. The only way she can prove this statement wrong is by
voluntarily withdrawing from voting on this issue,
We feel it is not fair to allow her to vote on a proposal that would increase the enjoyment and financial
value of her property at the expense of our property value.
Earlier thi~week the mayor approached us trying to see if there was an opportuniw, for a different proposal that
was acceptable to the parties that are opposed to the current motion that will be passed to the council on April
14. While we are currently comfortable with the current dock situation, we do believe there are other
proposals that could be worked out to benefit everyone, not just a few.
As April 14 approaches, we are hopeful an alternative proposal can be reached that all of the parties who
would be affected by the change can approve of. It would be hypocritical for us to say "If we are in favor of
the proposal then lets just let council person Ahrens vote, we might need her vote". That is not right. If
council person Ahrens can directly benefit from the proposal she should not be allowed to vote. Ifa new
proposal reaches the council that is equally fair to all parties, we are confident that the remaining council
members will vote in a fair, unbiased and wise manner.
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1977 AT 8:00 P M AT TEE MOUND
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Present were: Mayor Tim Lovaas.en; Councilmen Gordon Swenson, Robert Polston,
Orval Fenstad and Ben Withhart; City Manager Leonard L Kopp
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of April 12, 1977 were presented for considerationl~
Mr Withhart corrected Part A of Roanoke Access (Page 67 of Minutes) Resolution
~ should be corrected to read as follows: "Resolution opening Roanoke ~
Access for the abutting property owners and providing for addition of 7 docks to
be set aside for inland residents." Motion seconded by Fenstad rather than ~
Polston.
Lovaasen moved and Feustad seconded a motion to accept the minutes of April 12,
1977 meeting as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor.
CONSULTANT ON PUBLIC WORKS
Kent Lande of Public Works Consultant, Inc. made a presentation on a Public
Works maintenance management program. He discussed improvements a municipality
might make to increase quality and quantity productivity through efficient
programming in scheduling work and use of equipment and getting a job done for
the least cost. Mr. Lande stated that after looking at the City's program, he'd
be better able to give the Council idea of City's needs and cost of developing
sound program.
Mayor Lovaasen requested Mr. Lande to confer with the City Manager and Public
Works Director on what the City has and report back with findings. Council will
look at system for more efficient means of operation in order to give taxpayers
the most for their money.
COUNCILMEMORANDUMS
77-81 County Road 15 By-Pass
77-89 Sidewalks - Shoreline Boulevard
Mayor Lovaasen recommended that the above two items be held over until a
meeting with businessmen can be scheduled - need their feelings on developing
definite plan - tentative date for meeting - May 3rd.
Discussed condition of sidewalk. Staff requested to make a recommendation on
condition of sidewalks in downtown and possibly look into revision of ordinance
regarding assessment and maintenance of. Whose responsibility? Hold over
until information available ou funding and setting down policies that are fair
and equitable.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS BY CITIZENS PRESENT
Miles Roe stated that he thinks downtown businessmen are ready for the County
Road 15 improvement and believes that they want 15 to by-pass downtown and the
downtown to be improved.
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 77-83 Dog Ordinance
Police Chief Johnson was present to answer questions regarding the changes he
had recommended in this ordinance.
Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion
o~n~.rr~vnw ~TW~T~ ~T~ORI~E¥ TO DRAW UP A REVISED
......... Iii I ~1,
Anderson/Smith Residence
4665 :[sland View Drive
Mound, Minnesota 55364
City of Mound
City Dock Inspector
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
This note is to inform you of our desire to re-locate the placement of our existing dock
site from #41824 to #4:[866. ]: believe this can occur pursuant to Mound Dock
Licensing Procedure Manual, Section 437:05, Subd. 7- a. "First Priority. An abutting
owner has first priority for a city designated location w/thin his or her lot lines extended
to the shore#ne. Docks sha// be /ocated in accordance with the dock/ocation map."
(ORD. 45-:1990 - :12-29-90)
If you have any questions or concerns please give me a call (612) 472-3703. Thank
you for your time and attention to this matter. ! look forward to seeing you this
summer.
Best Wishes,
Gina Anderson & Mark Smith
Bob Schmidt
4708 Island view dr
Mound, MN 55364
,F..CEIVED t 3 lg§8
4-10-98
John Dean, City Attorney
cc:
Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd
Mound, MN 55364
John,
As you are aware the City Counsel will, on April 14*, here a motion to change the commons dock site map
in the Roanoke Ln access area. The Mayor has told me that you have determined that counsel member
Athens can vote on this issue with out violating the conflict of interest law, because it would not result in a
f'mancial gain. I have spoken to several real estate agents in the lake Minnetonka area and they all agree
that; removal of non-abutting dock sites from in front of a commons abutting property would increase the
value of that property.
The Mayor also indicated that a change could be made to the site map, and myself and Barb Casey could
be moved to another site, without our consent. This action would violate city code 437 subdivision 5
which states the reasons allowed for suspension of an eligible location are; interference with the use of
public waters, or a hardship on an abutting property owner. There is no ordinance in the city code allowing
forced removal of dock sites for the purpose of reducing congestion or increasing the value of the abutting
properties.
Also this motion would reduce the number of dock sites dedicated to the Roanoke Ln neighborhood. Due
process requires notification of effected people, prior to action by the console. This change will effect all
of the properties in the neighborhood, but only the people who currently have docks have been notified.
For these reasons I feel you should advise the City Counsel not to vote for any plan that would force people
out of their current sites, because the City of Mound would be vulnerable to litigation if they did.
Thank You
April 13, 1998
Mr. Bob Schmidt
4708 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Your Letter of April 10, 1998
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
I have received a copy of your letter, dated April 10, 1998, to John Dean, City Attorney.
As your letter indicates, at its April 14, meeting, the Mound City Council will consider the
establishment ora multiple dock site on Devon Common at the end of the Roanoke Fire Lane on the
site presently designated for your dock.
Although I do not presume to anticipate how the City Council may resolve that matter, you may
wish to defer the installation of your individual dock at that location until after the City Council has
rendered its decision.
The meeting on April 14, 1998 is, of course, open to the public and you are welcome to attend and
participate in the discussion.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
CC:
John Dean, City Attorney
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Tom McAffery, Dock Inspector
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-062O
March 31, 1998
TO: City Of Mound Resident / Property Owner
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Fishing Site off Wilshire Blvd.
Dear Resident / Owner,
The Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) on March 19,
1998, discussed the creation of a location near your
residence or property for the purpose of providing shore
fishing for neighborhood residents. A notice was sent to
you with all related information en February 10,1998. Please
refer back to that mailing and review the enclosed action
that was taken by the DCAC.
The proposal is to be heard at the city Council level on
April 14, 1998. The location is the Council Chambers at,
Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road. The meeting will begin
at 7:30 pm and will be an agenda item to be discussed that
evening.
This is your opportunity to discuss with the Council
concerns you may have. If you cannot attend please feel free
to write a response and it will be presented at the meeting.
Please address your correspondence to: Jim Fackler, Park
Director, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota
55364. All correspondence must be received no later that
April 8, 1998 in order to be placed in the council packet.
~-~r ely /
cc: DCAC
enclosure
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
e
FISHING AREA PROPOSED ON BLACK LAKE CHANNEI J
Hopkins discussed the proposal for a fishing area on Black Lake Channel. He noted areas
on an overhead which would be cleared out in order to have more available shoreline. He
noted it is deep enough for fishing. A resident noted there are only three good weeks of
fishing in the area because of milfoil, and a fishing area would be a waste of money.
Hopkins stated the milfoil would be treated. He noted the area is well used for fishing.
Ken Ryan, owns three lots abutting this area. stated he owns three lots adjacent to this
property. A majority of the lots are under water. He submitted a letter questioning the
ownership of the property, whose idea it was, and funding for the project. He stated he
is opposed to this proposal. He believed it is intended to accommodate only a few
residents. Hopkins stated the purpose is to keep it for the use of the local residents.
Jonathan Paul, 4679 Wilshire stated no parking is permitted on any of the streets in this
area. He discussed discrepancies on the overhead. He explained why he is opposed to the
fishing pier (sic). He stated he didn't believe this is a good fishing area. He was
concerned about after hour activities, need for additional policing, garbage, sanitation
facilities, illegal parking, and trespassing. He believed the money should be used to
improve an already existing area. He submitted a petition of signatures in opposition to
the proposal.
Car¥ Eneelbrightsen, 4626 Bedford Road didn't believe that many more people would
use the area if it were upgraded. He supported the. project.
Alan Cole¥, Denbigh Road believed there is room to fish in the area right now. He
suggested only a couple smaller areas be cleared out rather than the entire 100 feet.
3
DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 19, 1998
Ahrens was concerned about the proposal and the number of people in opposition.
Kathleen Ree, Wilshire Blvd. stated she is opposed to the proposal. She suggested
putting a dock in Black Lake instead.
Darrin Lee, Denbigh Road said he is also opposed to the proposal.
Gene Bagland stated he is opposed to the removal of the brush.
Daryl Nehring, Denbigh stated there is already a fishing area there and was not in favor
of the area being overused.
Hopkins stated he would withdraw the entire idea if space is provided along Stratford.
Funk stated the area would be more usable if the sand washed into the lake is removed in
addition to some milfoil treatment.
Ahrens stated he would be opposed to the proposal.
Goldberg asked if the sand removal and milfoil treatment would be met with the approval
of the residents. Fackler noted the sand would be removed by a barge. He explained how
much of the sand would be removed.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Funk to consider this on a 1-year test basis
limiting it to dredging of the sediment and treatment of milfoil.
Ahrens believed the sediment should be funded by the street fund.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Hopkins to amend the motion to consider
this on a 1-year test basis limiting it to dredging of the sediment in front of the
storm drain (funding by the street fund) with removal by barge and treatment
of milfoil. If no funds are available in the street fund, the dock fund would be
used. Motion carried 3-1.
Faclder stated this will be going to the City Council on the 14th of April for their final
approval.
85 19-117-23 23 0067
JONATHAN P. PAUL
4679 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0017
KARLA KAY RENO
2754 CARDIGAN LANE
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0033
JAMES & ELIZABETH ROGERS
4615 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0013
BRIAN R. DAHLIN
4565 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0019
RICHARD FILLMORE
BOX 161 400 CENTER AVE. S.
MONTROSE, MN 55363
85 117-23 31 0014
KATHLEEN E. MARIE
4518 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0016
DONALD I. DRESSEL
4601 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0215
ROLAND & DONNA HERBST
4638 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0030
TROY RODEN & K. BIGALKE
4519 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0032
STEVEN W. SOLMONSON
4609 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 24 0011
NANCY L. OBRIAN
4568 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0027
V. PAINE & B. PAINE
4549 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 23 0068
KENNETH M. RYAN
302 11TM AVE. NORTH
HOPKINS, MN 55343
85 19-117-23 31 0024
GERALD & VALERIE GALLUS
4579 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0035
JANE M. FISH
4639 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN. 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0025
ROBERT D. TRIPLETT
4571 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0031
C. & W. ENGELBREKTSON
4626 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0016
D. WOLF & G. YOUNES
2764 CARDIGAN LANE
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0102
TIMOTHY & TONI WARD
2764 CARDIGAN LANE
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 23 0069
KENNETH M. RYAN
302 11TM AVE. NORTH
HOPKINS, MN. 55343
85 19-117-23 31 0004
A. COLEY & C. HEALY
4580 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0018
PHYLLIS MC ALPINE
4621 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0005
SCOTT J. NAGEL
2224 26TM AVE. SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406
85 19-117-23 31 0028
GREGORY T. ELSTAD
4535 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0212
CLARK O. GRABILL
4627 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0029
RICHARD & LYNN YOUNG
4527 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117- 23 32 0046
STEVEN W. SOLMONSON
4609 BEDFORD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0026
KEITH & KAREN COOK
4559 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0017
DENNIS M. HOPKINS
4609 WILSHIRE BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 24 0053
RICHARD A. LIETZ
4574 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
April 11, 1998
TO:
Mayor Polston and Council Members
FROM:
Donald Dressel
4601 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: Fishing Site Off Wilshire Boulevard
As stated above my name is Donald Dressel and I live at 4601
Wilshire Boulevard. I am in favor of Mr. Dennis Hopkins proposal
for a fishing pier on the site of Wilshire for the children of the
neighborhood and their families to fish on. In reading the minutes
of the Dock & Commons meeting of March 19th I question the people
who are making up this commission with two Arhens being on the list
of minutes. Yes, I am aware that we have a council person with
Andrea Arhens and wonder why the council would have appointed
another Arhens on this Commission.
I would like to request that any future written material include
the addresses of the Commissioners as I would like to know how the
Commissioners abutting the lake verses the non-abutters voted as I
think most people in the City of Mound would.
I did some calling and found out Tonka Bay put in a fishing pier in
1993 for an estimated cost of $12,000 and except for power washing
the pier in 1997 have spent nothing for maintenance.
I have checked in Spring Park because they have a fishing spot on
the corner of Hennepin County roads 19 & 15. The DNR did that
project.
Will anyone go to the DNR to request some assistance in this area.
If this proposal fails I would like to go on record as requesting
that all commons area abutting the lake in Mound be posted so
neighbors know where they can legally take their children/families
to enjoy the lake.
Sincerely,
Donald Dressel
DEAl{ NEIGHBOR:
YOU HAVE PROBABLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM
THE CITY REGARDING A POSSIBLE NEIG~{BOR~{OOD
FISHING AREA TO BE LOCATED ON WILSHIRE
BOULEVARD.
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 19, 1998
AT 7:30 P.M. AT THE MOUND CITY HALL LOCATED
AT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
YOU ATTEND TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, YOU CAN SIGN
THIS PETITION, WHICH WOULD SHOW YOUR
FEELINGS.
NAME ~ ADDRESS ,
YES NO
85 19-117-23 31 0006
DARLY R. NEHRING
4590 DENBIGH ROAD
)UND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 23 0070
KENNETH M. RYAN
302 11TM AVE. NORTH
HOPKINS, MN 55343
85 19-117-23 31 0007
KEVIN RUDEK
4594 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
85 19-117-23 24 0054
DARRIN & KRISTIN LEE
4578 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
DEAR NEIGHBOR:
YOU HAVE PROBABLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM
THE CITY REGARDING A POSSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD
FISHING AREA TO BE LOCATED ON WILSHIRE
BOULEVARD.
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 19, 1998
AT 7:30 P.M. AT THE MOUND CITY HALL LOCATED
AT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
YOU ATTEND TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
IF YOU ARE I~NABLE TO ATTEND, YOU CAN SIGN
THIS PETITION, WHICH WOULD SHOW YOUR
FEELINGS.
YES NO
Petition
Against Proposed Public Fishing Site on Back-Waters/Channel Area on Black
Lake.
To:
Mr. Jim Fackler - Park Director
Dock & Commons Advisory Commission
We, the neighborhood residents adjacent to, next to and across from the
proposed public fishing site respectfully submit our concerns and request the
discontinuation of this proposed action, for reasons following:
- The proposed site is a back waters area, a dredged channel, where no fish
inhabit during the fishing months. This is a natural spawning area in the spring.
In the spring, when fish are abundant, the taking of most species found in these
back waters is illegal. Shortly thereafter, the fish go to deeper lake areas.
- The proposed area is only 3-4 feet deep and the water stays quite warm, thus
inhibiting game fish from inhabiting the said area.
- The proposed fishing site would impose upon a very peaceful area, the reason
we inhabit the area.
- Any mound resident has adequate canoe and row boat access to the main lake
areas as well as many bridge areas where all species of game fish are more
abundant.
- A public fi,~hing area would draw the "out-side the area" people that currently
fish the black lake bridge, etc., and not draw from the general population of
Mound.
- The proposed site would increase traffic/parking congestion and produce litter
and refuse problems as evident from viewing other "public fishing sites".
While other reasons exist why the proposed site will ill-effect the immediate
area, these are some of the initial concerns that make themselves evident.
Address
Telephone
MARCH 19 19.8
KENNETH M. RYAN
302 11%h AV. N.
HOPKINS, MN 55343
( OWNER OF LOTS 26,27,28, BLOCK 24, SETON )
JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUND
5341MA'¥'WOOD ROAD
MOUND, NN 55364
MR. FACKLER AND NfEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
PLEASE ACCEPT FOR THE RECORD AND GIVE YOUR CONSIDERATION TO
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS WHICH i SUBMIT IN
REFERENCE TO "THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A LOCATION ......
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SHORE FISHING FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS".
QUESTIONS:
1. WHO IS(ARE) THE "ORIGINATOR(S)" OF THIS REQUEST ¢
2. DOES THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAVE A SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNATED USAGE a ( I.E. PARKLANDS )
3. WHY IS THP MATTER WITH THE DOCKS AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION ~
4. WHO PREPARED THE "DRAWING" OR "PLAN". ?
5. IF THIS IS INDEED A "PILOT" PROGRAM, THERE MUST BE
OTHER SPECIFIC SITES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING
CONSIDERED FOR SIMILAR ACTIONS. WHERE ARE THEY AND IS
THIS PART OF A MORE BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE PARKS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN a
6. WHY ARE YOU SUGGESTING TREATING FOR AQUATIC
VEGETATION a
7. FROM WHICH DEPARTMENTS BUDGET WUOLD FUNDING COME ~
COMMENTS'
I AM CERTAINLY NOT OPPOSED TO CREATION OF A VERY SMALL
NEIGHBORHOOD "MULTI-PURPOSE" PARK AT THIS LOCATION. INDEED,
I MADE A SIMILAR SUGGESTION TO THE CITY MANAGER LESS THAN ONE
YEAR AGO. Z OFFERED TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO SUCH A
PROJECT BY MEANS OF PURCHASING A SMALL PORTION OF THIS
PROPERTY WHICH I COULD ANNEX TO THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN AND
WHICH WOULD ALSO FACILITATE A SOLUTION TO SEVERAL IF NOT ALL
OF THE PROBLEMATIC NATURE OF THIS PROPERTY.
( SEE AT~ACHED COMMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED TO EDWARD SHULKE IN MAY, 1997 )
I AM HOWEVER, OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSAL BASED ON THE
iNFORMATION AND DRAWING THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO ME. IT
APPEARS THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE THE
DESIRES OF AN EXTREMELY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND PERHAPS
FOR SOME VERY NARROW AND SPECIFIC REASONS. AS DRAWN, THE
"PATHWAY" APPEARS TO BE MORE SUITABLE AS A SNOWMOBILE ACCESS
RAMP. THE DELETION OF ANY FUNDING FOR BENCHES SEEMS TO
ELIMINATE THE IDEA OF USAGE OTHER THAN FISHING. THE DELETION
OF ANY SIGNAGE SEEMS TO INDICATE A DESIRE TO KEEP THE GENERAL
PUBLIC FROM KNOWING ABOUT THE PUBLIC NATURE OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE ONLY WAY I COULD SUPPORT ANY PROPOSAL FOR
EXPENDITURES FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE IF THE FOLLOWING
WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED-
1. DESIGN THE ACCESS PATHWAY TO ACCOMODATE FOOT TRAFFIC
ONLY AND TO SPECIFICALLY PREVENT SNOWMOBILE TRAVEL.
2. ERRECT SIGNAGE.
3. PLACE AT LEAST TWO "SEATING ONLY' BENCHES AND ONE
TRASH RECEPTICLE.
4. NAME THE PARK AND STIPULATE THAT AS PART OF THE PARK
SYSTEM IT WILL BE MAINTAINED ON A SCHEDULED BASIS BY THE CITY
AND IT WILL ADHERE TO THE CITY PARK RULES.
THANK YO~
KENNETH M. RYAN
MOUND DOCK LOT
BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL
1. PROVIDES A SOLUTION TO THE INHERENT "PROBLEMATIC" NATURE
OF THE LOTS WHICH I OWN.
2. PROVIDES A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF HAVING TO KEEP
KELLS ROAD AS AN ACCESS TO THESE LOTS.
3. ELIMINATES THE KELLS ROAD EASEMENT THROUGH THE 4679, 4685
AND 4691 WILSHIRE BLVD. PROPERTIES.
4. PLACES THE PROPERTY AND THE SHORELINE INTO THE OWNERSHIP
( AND THE CARE AND RESPONSIBILITY ) OF A RESIDENT HOMEOWNER.
5. "CLEANS UP" THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPERTY IN REGARDS
TO THE SUSCEPTIBILITY THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD TO COLLECT
DEBRIS, FOSTER UNWANTED VEGETATION, AND GENERALLY PROMOTE AN
UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE.
6. IMPROVES THE SHORELINE STATUS. MAINLY BY ELIMINATING SOME OF
THE DEAD AND DYING TREE AND MISC. VEGETATION GROWTH THAT
EXISTS AND OFTEN ENDS UP AS DEBRIS IN THE WATER.
7. POSSIBLY CREATES AN ATTRACTIVE, SMALL PUBLIC PARK AREA WITH
THE INSTALLATION OF A GRADED TRAILWAY THAT TRAVERSES THE HILL
GOING DOWN FROM THE SIDEWALK TO A CLEARED SHORELINE AREA
HAVING A COUPLE OF PICNIC BENCHES AND PROVIDING AN "ACCESS"
TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FISHING AND GENERAL ENJOYMENT OF THE
NATURAL WILDLIFE THAT EXISTS AS ONE LOOKS OUT OVER THE
LAKE/HABITAT AREA.
8. CONTINUES TO UPGRADE THE GENERAL STATUS AND VALUE
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE HOUSING PERSPECTIVE WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.
9. ADDS REVENUE TO THE CITY OF MOUND IN THE FORM OF NEW AND
CONSIDERABLY INCREASED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.
February 20, 1998
TO: City Of Mound Resident
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: The Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Requests
Input From Affected Neighbors.
Dear Resident,
The Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) has been
discussing the possibility of creating a location near your
residence for the purpose of providing shore fishing for
neighborhood residents. This area is designated on the
enclosed map and drawing.
The proposal is to do minor improvements such as limited
brush removal from a portion of the property, treat aquatic
vegetation for weed removal from the lake and ground
leveling as needed.
This will be discussed at the March DCAC meeting scheduled
for March 19, 1998. The location is the council chambers at,
Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road. The meeting will begin
at 7:30 pm and will be an agenda item to be discussed that
evening.
This is your opportunity to discuss with the DCAC concerns
you may have. If you can not attend please feel free to
write a response and it will be presented at the meeting.
Please address your correspondence to; Jim Fackler, Park
Director, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota
55364.
~a~kler, Park Director
cc: DCAC
enclosures
VAC 4625704 2~ TYRONE LA -YAC g-.~ 6J
CLARE: LA I~:~. ~0
SHANNON LA
YAC R.~.N
,,.,, EXCELSIOR LA
-~ ........ -~o .....
174
174
;.;KERRY LA
;
:
/
!
t
November 28, 1997
City of Mound
5341 Mai;wood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687
TO:
JIM FACKLER, PARK DIRECTOR
FROM:
DENNIS HOPKINS, DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
MEMBER
This memo is in response to your estimate on the cost for
the proposed fishing site on Black Lake totaling $10,770.00.
I would like to suggest the removal of rip rapping,
$6,000.00, 3 Benches, $750.00, the sign $50.00, Storm drain
sediment removal, $2,000.00.
I do recommend leaving in tree removal or brushing,
$1,000.00, the ground repair of $500.00, DNR application, $20.00,
Chemical treatment, $450.00.
(B) Tree Removal and brushing $1,000.00
(C) Ground Repair $ 500.00
(F) DN-R Application $ 20.00
(G) Chemical Treatment $ 450.00
Total $1,970.00
After visiting and measuring the area to be used for a
neighborhood fishing site, I found by increasing the tree and
brushing area from 80 feet to 100 feet, there may not be a need
at this time for any storm drain sediment removal. This would
still leave an adequate area for shore fishing.
Since this site would be a pilot program for a neighborhood
shore fishing site, it is possible that in the future further
improvements may or may not be needed.
Dennis Hopkins,
Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Member
DEAi~ NEIGHBOR:
YOU HAVE PROBABLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM
T~IE CITY REGARDING A POSSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD
FISHING AREA TO BE LOCATED ON WILSHIRE
BOULEVARD.
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 19, 1998
AT 7:30 P.M. AT THE MOUND CITY HALL LOCATED
AT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
YOU ATTEND TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, YOU CAN SIGN
THIS PETITION, WHICH WOULD SHOW YOUR
FEELINGS.
YES NO
April 11, 1998
TO:
Mayor Polston and Council Members
FROM:
Donald Dressel
4601 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: Fishing Site Off Wilshire Boulevard
As stated above my name is Donald Dressel and I live at 4601
Wilshire Boulevard. I am in favor of Mr. Dennis Hopkins proposal
for a fishing pier on the site of Wilshire for the children of the
neighborhood and their families to fish on. In reading the minutes
of the Dock & Commons meeting of March 19th I question the people
who are making up this commission with two Arhens being on the list
of minutes. Yes, I am aware that we have a council person with
Andrea Arhens and wonder why the council would have appointed
another Arhens on this Commission.
I would like to request that any future written material include
the addresses of the Commissioners as I would like to know how the
Commissioners abutting the lake verses the non-abutters voted as I
think most people in the City of Mound would.
I did some calling and found out Tonka Bay put in a fishing pier in
1993 for an estimated cost of $12,000 and except for power washing
the pier in 1997 have spent nothing for maintenance.
I have checked in Spring Park because they have a fishing spot on
the corner of Hennepin County roads 19 & 15. The DNR did that
project.
Will anyone go to the DNR to request some assistance in this area.
If this proposal fails I would like to go on record as requesting
that all commons area abutting the lake in Mound be posted so
neighbors know where they can legally take their children/families
to enjoy the lake.
Sincerely,
Donald Dressel
F
4O i
r
(67_)
/ /
]l' 05)i(66~
50 i ~ ;'.50 , 50 ~
~CL' S
~'.,- ~- 85
RD
RD
4O
-!
P, RUNSW o
~ RD
85 19-117-23 23 0062
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
85 19-117-23 23 0063
HENNEP[N FORFEITED LAND
NOT FOR SALE/WATERFRONT
85 19-117-23 23 0069
KENNETH M RYAN
302 11TH AVE N
HOPKINS MN 55343
85 19-117-23 24 0055
RICHARD A LIETZ
45?4 DENBIGH RD
MOUND MN 55564
19-117-23 31 0006
DARYL R NEHRiNG
4590 DENB[GH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0014
KATHLEEN E MARIE
4518 WILSHiRE BLVD'
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 51 0025
ROBERT D TRIPLETT
4571 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0029
RICHARD A & LYNN L YOUNG
4527 WlLSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-25 31 0036
CITY OF MOUND
5541 MAYWOOO RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0016
DONALD I URESSEL
4601 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0031
CARY L ENGELBREKTSON
WENOY 5 ENGELBREKTSON
4626 BEDFORD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-25 32 0046
STEVEN W SOLMONSON
4609 ~EDFORD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0215
ROLAND A & DONNA L HERBST
4638 BEDFORD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 23 0070
KENNETH M RYAN
502 11TH AVE N
HOPKINS MN 55343
85 19-117-23 24 0054
DARRIN d & KR[STIN K LEE
4578 DENBIGH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0007
KEVIN RUDEK
4594 DENBIGH RD
MOUN0 MN 55364
85 19-117-25 51 0016
DOUGLAS WDLF/GEORGINA YOUNES
2764 CARDIGAN LA
MOUND MN 55304
85 19-117-23 31 0026
KEITH J E KAREN A COOK
4559 WILSHIRE ULVD
MUUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0030
TROY M ROUEN/KART L ~IGALKE
4519 NILSHIRE ~LVD
MUUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0102
TIMOTHY R & TONI J WARD
2764 CARDIGAN LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0017
DENNIS M HOPKINS
4609 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0032
STEVEN W SOLMONSUN
4609 BEOFOR~ RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-25 32 0207
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
TOTAL LABELS BATCH 504 00045
11/,.2..
85 19-117-23 23 0067
JONATHAN P PAUL
4679 W[LSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 24 0011
NANCY L OBR[AN
4568 OENDIGH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19--117-23 31 0004
ALAN COLEY & COLLEEN HEALY
4580 DENBIGH RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0008
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWUOO RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0017
KARLA KAY RENO
2754 CARffIGAN LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0027
V E PAINE & B A PAINE
4549 WILSH[RE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0034
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0103
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-25 32 0018
PHYLLIS MC ALPINE
4621 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0033
JAMES & ELIZABETH ROGERS
4615 BEDFORD RD
MOUND MN 55364
~5 19-117-23 32 0209
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 23 0068
KENNETH M RYAN
302 11TH AVE N
HOPKINS MN 55343
85 19-117-23 24 0047
CITY OF MUUND
5341 MAYWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 000S
SCOTT J NAGEL
2224 26TH AVE S
MPLS MN 55406
85 19-117-23 31 0013
BRIAN R DAHLIN
4565 DENBIGH RD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0024
GERALD P & VALERIE L GALLUS
4579 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0022
GREGORY T ELSTA0
4535 WILSHIRE BLVO
MOUNO MINN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0035
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWUOD ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 19-117-23 31 0150
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOU RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0019
RICHARD FILLMORE
BOX 161
400 CENTER AVE S
MONTROSE MN 55363
85 19-117-23 32 0035
JANE M FISH
4659 BEDFORD RD
MOUNO MN 55364
85 19-117-23 32 0212
CLARK 0 GRABILL
4627 BEDFORD RD
MOUND MN 55364
PREMIUM SUMMARY
1997
PROPERTY 7,615
INLAND MARINE 1,852
LIABILITY/E&O 42,096
AUTO LIABILITY 12,178
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE 17,869
CRIME 403
WORI~ER'S COMPENSATION 35,627
BOILER & MACHINERY 1,384
AD&D BENEFIT 350
LIQUOR LIABILITY 7,080
EMPLO~E DISHONESTY 1,097
OPEN MEETING LAW 679
1998
7,529
2,170
40,998
12,198
17,914
403
26,154
1,441
350
3,,443
1,211
571
TOTALS 128,230 114,382
CITY OF MOUND
OPTIONS FOR 1998
COVERAGE
e
$1,000,000 Excess Liability
With Waiver of Immunity
Open Meeting Law:
100 % Reimbursement-Additional Premium
13,458
131
TORT CAP'LIMIT EXPLANATION
The 1997 legislature increased the municipal ton liability limits to $300,000
per claimant, $750,000 per occurrence, effective January 1, 1998. At the same
time, the currem covenant language that waives the per-claimant portion of the-
statutory limit has been eliminated. This will enable cities and LMCIT to take
advantage of the per-claimant limit. Cities will still have the option to
reinstate that waiver, for an additional charge.
Please complete the LMCIT Liability Coverage Waiver Form if you want to
waive the $300,000 per cl .aimant limit up to $750,000 per occurrence.
If you have Excess Coverage, you have two options:
If you waive the municipal ton liability limits from
$300,000 per claimant to $750,000 per occurrence; and
you purchased Excess Liability Coverage you are
automatically waiving the statutory limits to the extent
of the excess coverage purchased.
If you have not waived the municipal tom liability limits
of $300,000 per claimantJ$750,000 per occurrence; and
you have purchased Excess Liability Coverage, you are
automatically not waiving the statutory limit to the extent '
of the excess coverage purchased.
CITY OF MOUND
CLAIMS P~NALYSIS (AS OF 3al/9S)
1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
PAID LOSSES 17,944 19,929 20,112 29,223 16,989
PAID EXPENSES
17,390 1,435 806 0 9,713
RESERVE LOSSES
0 0 0 0 1,000
RESERVE EXPENSES
0 0 0 0 15,369
TOTAL INCURREDAMOUNT 35,283 21,364 20,958 29,223 43,071
SAL/SUBRO AMOUNT
-2,197 -270 -1,006 0 0
DEDUCTIBLE RECOVERY
~2,545 -3,845 -5,200 -4,500 -7,531
DEDUCTH]LE: $500 PRIOR TO 2/1/97, AND $1,000 Ti~~R.
CLAIMS: (CLOSED OVER $5,000 COST AND SELECTED OPEN CLAIMS)
CLAIM # DATE DESCRIPTION
11003147 02/09/93
11003192 10/01/93
11006368 07/19/94
11010389AD 08/15/95
11012124 02/02/96
11016835A-C 01/13/97
11019873 02/01/92
Alleged Negligence, Crosswalk Eliminated
(Paid Loss $0, Paid Expense $17,330)
City Vehicle Hit Other Vehicle
(Paid Loss $13,434 Less Salvage/Subro $1,437)
Lightning Damage at City Hall (Paid Loss $6,022)
Fird Dept. - Water Damage (Paid Loss $3,181 + $4,299 + $979)
Water Tower Overflowed (Paid Loss $5,570)
Insured's Plow Hit Claimant's Vehicle, Which Struck Garage -
(Paid Loss $4,649 + $1,308)
(Claim Made 8/14/97) Land Use - Easement Rights (Open)
Remarks:
This information is provided for loss control analysis purposes only, and should
be disseminated to others with discrimination for confidentiality.
r/winword/carl/mound4?
LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE - WAIVER FORM
Cities obtaining liability coverage fi.om abe League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide
whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The
decision t6 waive or not to Waive the statutory limits has the following effects: ..... .,,~,,.
If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no
more than $300,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which-all claimants
would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be. limited
to $750,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or n& the city purchases the
optional excess liability coverage.
If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single
claimant could potentially recover up to $750,000 on a single occurrence. The total which all claimants
would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be
limited to $750,000, reg~dless of the number of claimants.
If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant
could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which all
claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would
also be limited to the mount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants.
Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision.
This decision must be made by the city council. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return
this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further information, contact LMCIT.
You may also wish to discuss these issues with your city attorney.
The City of accepts liability coverage limits of $
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT).
from the League of
Check one:
~ The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established
by Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
The city WAIVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes
466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT.
Date of city council meeting
Signature Position
Return this completed form to LMC1T, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN. 55103-2044
Page 1 of l
YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES
Mr. Gino Businarro, Finance Director
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
RE: 1~8 LMCIT INSURANCE RENEWAL
Dear
There is a substantial decrease in your city's renewal premium. This is due primarily to the
municipal liability rating basis.
· Operating Expenditures
· Total Expenditures ('E & O)
· Loss Experience
Down 9.2%
up
5% better
($3,005,520 vs. $3,308,065)
($5,935,493 vs. $5,801,701)
(1993-I995 vs. 1994-1996 policy years)
Municipal Liability loss experience impacts on all liability coverages, including automobile,
uninsured/underinsured motorist, and public officials liability. The Excess I iability
('Umbrella) and the Open Meeting Law premiums are also a factor of the municipal liability
rating.
Your municipal liability coverages, including Automobile, unin~ed/undefin_sured
motorist and public liability, were quoted with the "waiver of statutory limits." The
additional 3.5% "Waiver" charge was included in the premiun~ which is approximazely
$1,841 premium. The City is exposed to some kinds of liability, to which the statutory
limits either don't or might not itpply. Some possible examples are:
1)
2)
3)
Li~ility under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
Certain types of liability that the City has assumed contractually, and in an
indemnification agreement, for example.
Liability for actions in another state; e.g. by a city official attending a conference,
or under a mutual aid agreement with it political subdivision across the border.
Liability for a zoning a~ion under an 'inverse condemnation" theory of law.
~"~ 102~1 YellOw Circle Drive - MJmr~eton~:o. MN 55343-9307 · 012-933-7488 * 8Q0-888-53::2~ - FO.~' o12-933-C~16
Mr. Gino Businarro
Page 2
April 3, 1998
There are other reasons for "waiving" the statutory limits, such as a successful court
challenge possibility. Some Cities' believe in holding themselves to a similar standard of
responsibility as a private citizen.
The optional Excess Liability has to be purchased on a "following form" basis, with the
municipal liability, which in your case could be "with or without waiver." Excess Liability
coverage has not been purchased previously.
Liquor Legal Liability coverage for the off sale has been transferred to the LMCIT
program at $1,000,000 limits. Your LMCIT Excess Liability coverage can include Liquor
Legal Liability, which i.s preferable since the Minnesota Municipal Statutory tort limits do
not apply to this exposure.
The LMCIT continues to provide the broadest insurance coverages in their program,
including limited flood coverage for those buildings not in a National Flood Insurance
Program eligible location. In addition, excess proceeds from premiums and investments
have been returned to the City in the form of dividends on both the Workers"
Compensation and Property/Casualty programs.
Please let me know if you require any additional information, especially with regard to the
"LMCIT Liability Coverage - Waiver Form."
I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you to provide the City's insurance needs.
Cad A. Bennetsen
Commercial Representative
CAB/bb
April 14, 1998
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION REGARDING WAIVER
ON TORT LIABILITY LIMITS
FOR LMCIT INSURANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound has approved
participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) insurance program
for the 1998 year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, that the City hereby waived the monetary limits on tort liability
established by MN. Stattrtes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of liability coverage obtained
from LMCIT for the policy period from 2/1/98 to 2/1/99.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
1171
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF MOUND AND INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 (WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT) CREATING TIlE WESTONKA COMMUNITY
CENTER BOARD
BE IT ILESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota (CiW):
Section 1. Background: findi, n.~s.
1.01. The City of Mound and Independent School District No. 277 have studied that
feasibility of jointly ow-riing and operating a community center at the site of the old Mound
Senior High School in the City (ProjecO. The City and the District are authorized to own and
operate the Project by Minnesota Statutes, ~ctions 471.191 and a71.59.
1.02. The voters of the District at a duly called and regularly conducted election on
December a, 1997 approved the issuance and sale of the District's gener~] obligation bonds to
finance the construction of the Project.
1.03. A task force comprised of representatives of the City and the Dis~ct have
prepared a joint exercise of powers agreement (Agreement) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
section 471.59 for the ownership and operation of the Project. The form of the Agreement has
been reviewed by the City Council and is now on file v, ith the clerk.
1.04. It is found and determined that it Js in the best financial, administrative and public
recreational interests of the City that the Agreement be executed and delivered and that the
Westonka CommuniVy Center Board. as described in the Agreement. be formed.
Sec. 2. _Appeals: authorizations: appointments.
2.01. The form of the Agreement is approved.
Oi£SZEEZt9
2.02. The mayor and city manager are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
Agreement on behalf of the City.
2.03. The clerk i$ authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution and
the executed Agreement with the clerk of' the District on May 1, 1998
2.0~t. The following members of the Council are appointed as the City's directors on the
Westonka Community Center Board:
I.
ATTEST:
Mayor
ChY Clerk
DJK1410~7
~T~J200-64
cZ2-=l 90/~O'd
O[£Sl££Zl9
B6-60-Jdy
DRAFT 4/1/gg
DJK
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD
The parties to this agreement are the City. of Mound (the "City") and Independent School
District No, 277 (Westonka School District) (the "District") goverrtmental units in Hermepin
County, Minnesota. This agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Mirmesota Statutes,
Sections 471.59 and 471.I5 to 471.191 (collectively, the "Act").
ARTICLE I
General purpose:
Section 1.1. The general purpose of this agreement is to create an organization to o'~xt
and operate a community center complex in the City of Mound as part of a joint recreational
program of the City and the District and any additional governmental units that agree to become
Members of the organization as provided herein.
Section 1,2. The name of the organization is "The Westonka Community Center Board."
Section 1-3. The Initial Membcrs of the organization arc the City of Mound and
Independent School District No. 277.
ARTICLE 11,
Definitions
Section 2.1. For purposes of this agreement the terms defined in this Article have the
meanings given them.
Section 2.2. "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.59 and 471.15 to 471.19I, as
amended from time to time.
Section 2.3.
Section 2A.
Section 2,5.
functions.
"Agreement" means this agreement.
"Board" means the board of directors created by Article III.
"City" means the City of Mound. Minnesota. and any successor to its
sot-~ tt/ZO'~ 9o8-J,
OL£6Z££ZL9
N~AYe~ T AO~N~-mod~ w~t~:tO
Section 2.6. "Director" means a director appointed under Article III of this agreement.
Section 2.7. "District" means Independent School District No. 277 (Westonka School
District), and any successor to its functions.
Section 2.8, "Executive Committee" means one or more directors designated in a by-law
adopted pursuant to Section 5.5 to perform duties enumerated in the by-law.
Section 2.9. "Governing body" means either the city council of the City or the school
board of thc District, or both, as the context requires.
Section 2.10. "Member" means a governmental unit that is a party to this agreement:
"Initial Member" means the City or the District, or both as the context requires,
Section 2.11.
agreement.
"WCCB" means The Westonka Community Center Board created by this
ARTICLE III.
Board of directors
Section 3.1. The WCCB is governed by its board of directors. The initial board consists
of six members selected as follows:
ao
resolution.
Two members of the city council of the City appointed by council
b, Two members of the school board of the District appointed by resolution
of the school board.
c. The city manager of thc City and the superintendent of the District are e...~x
officio members of the board without voting rights.
The Board may provide in its by-laws that the City, and the District may appoint one or
more members of their respective governing bodies to serve as alternate directors in the event a
director is unable to attend a meeting or perform other duties of a director.
Section 3.2. The term of a director, other than a director ex officio, begins on the date
of appointment and terminates on December 31 next following. Thereafter the term of a director
is three years commencing on JanuaD' 1, except that of the directors initially appointed on
January 1, one director appointed by the District and one director appointed by the City serve for
a term of one year, and one director appointed by the District and one director appointed by the
City, serve for a term of two years. Appointed director~ serve until their respective successors
are appointed and qualify. A vacancy in the office of an appointed director is filled for the
unexpired term in the same mariner that an appointment is made. If a councilmember or school
board member ceases to be a member of that director's governing body thc office held by that
director is vacant.
Section 3.3. A director has one vote. An alternate director may vote only in the absence
of a director appointed by the same governing body and as provided in the by-laws. A tie vote
results in failure of the proposition under consideration.
ARTICLE IV
Meetings
Section 4.1. The board must conduct an organizational meeting no later than 30 days
after the effective date of this agreement. The organizational meeting is to be convened by the
mayor of the City. At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as is re~onably possible.
the board must elect its t~fficers and adopt such by-laws and other procedures go'~-erning the
conduct of its meetings and its business as the board deems appropriate.
Sectio~ 4.2. The board must provide in its by-laws for a schedule of regular meetings.
A regular meeting must be held at least once each calendar quarter. Four voting members of the
board constitutes a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn a meeting from time to time,
Section 4.3. A special meeting of the board may be called by the president and must be
called by the president upon written request of the number of directors specified in the by-laws.
Notice of a special meeting must be given in accordance with the by-laws and with law. The
resolution appointing directors must specif,v a mailing address for directors for purposes of giving
notice. Business at a special meeting is limited to matters contained in the notice of that special
meeting.
Section 4.4. The annual meeting of the board must be heId in the month of January,,
following the first meeting in .Tanuary of each of the governing bodies.
Section 4.5. Meetings of the board are governed by the Minnesota Open Meeting Law,
Minnesota Statutes. Section 471.705. Unless otherwise provided in the by-laws, the secretary-
treasurer or other ~oting member or ex officio member of the board appointed by the president
must take written minutes of each meeting of the board.
ARTICLE V
Officers: Committees
Section 5.1. The initial officers of the board are a president, a vice president and a
secretary-treasurer elected by the directors at the organizational meeting for a term ending
December 31 next following. Thereafter, those officers are to be elected by the directors at the
annual meeting for a term of one year. The board may designate a director to act as an officer
,7/.
in the absence of that officer. An officer remains in office ~mtil a successor is elected and
qualifies.
Section 5.2. The president presides at meetings of the board. The vice president performs
the duties of the president in the absence of the president.
Section 5.3. The president, the secretary-treasurer or any t',,.'o officers must sign vouchers
or orders disbursing funds of the agency. The board must provide in its by-laws for additional
procedures for the disbursement of funds. Disbursements must be made in the manner prescribed
by law for statutory cities.
Section 5.4. The board may in its by-laws provide for and define the duties of such other
officers as it deems necessary from time to time.
Section 5.5. The board may in its by.laws provide for advisory committees as it
determines necessary from time to time. A by-law providing for an Executive Committee and
defining its powers and duties must be adopted by a unanimous vote of all members of the board.
Section 5.6. Contracts, bonds and other legal instruments of the WCCB must be executed
and delivered on behalf of the WCCB by the president and the secretary-treasurer.
ARTICLE vi
Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors
Section 6.1. The board may take such actions as it deems necessary and desirable to
accomplish the general purpose of this agreement.
Section 6.2. The board may
a. enter into contracts with public or private agencies or persons to cazry out
its powers and duties;
b. provide for thc prosecution, defense or other participation in proceedings
at law or in equity in which it may have an interest;
c. employ such persons as it deems necessary on a part-time, full-time or
consultant basis or (subject to the provisions of Section 6.5. if applicable) contract with
public or private agencies or persons for necessa~' services;
d. purchase, hold or dispose of personal property:
e. contract with a Member for space, commodities or services:
f. accept gifts on behalf of the WCCB. apply for and use grants or loans of
money or other property, from the state, the United States of America and from other
c~Ol-:l [l/c~O'cl 908-.I. Oi£8,Zi~i~ZL9 IdaAY~I~
governmental un,ts and enter into agreements in connection therewith and hold. use and
dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gffi. grant, loan
or agreement relating thereto: and
g. apply for and pay ~emiums on policies of insurance and surety bonds for
personnel in such amounts as it deems necessary, provided that the board must provide
that the WCCB or each of its Members has public liability insurance coverage in amounts
not less than the liability amounts specified in Minnesota Statutes. Section 466.04.
Section 6.3. The board must. from time to time. but not less than once each year, submit
a written report to each governing body summarizing in the detail necessary to adequately inform
each governing body of the WCCB's activities and financial status. The report must include the
annual audit described in Section 7.2f.
Section 6.4. A di.spute between the parties regarding the interpretation of or violation of
the terms of this Agreement must be submitted to mediation or non-binding arbitration.
Section 6.5. The board may contract with any Member as defined in section 2.10 for
administrative and support services, bm any such employees so supplied are not to be deemed
to be employees of the WCCB. The costs of such services may be considered to be an operating
cost of the WCCB.
Section 6.6. The board must enter into ~'ritten leases with all users of the project other
than the District and a Member.
ARTICLE vii
Financial Matters
Section 7.1. The fiscal year of the WCCB is the calendar year.
Section 7.2.
a. The board must promptly adopt an initial budget for the balance of the
fiscal year remaining after the organizational meeting and for fiscal year 1999. Each
Member agrees to fund this initial budget in accordance with this Article.
b. If the effective date of WCCB is prjor to May 1. 1998. the board must
adopt a proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 setting forth the respective shares of the
Members as provided in Article VIII and submit the proposed budget to each governing
body prior to June 15. 1998.
c. If the effective date of the WCCB is on or after May 1. 1998. the Initial
Members must adopt a budget for the fiscal year 1999, and each Member agrees to fund
that budget in the shares determined pursuant to Article VIII.
tt/ge'e
908-& 01£6£~£ZL9
N~^¥$~ t ZO~NN~-modd mdgz:~O
d. The Board must thereafter annually, prior to March 15, adopt a proposed
budget for the ensuing fiscal year and submit it to each governing body.
e. The annual budget, except for the initial budget, must be finally adopted
no later than at the annual meeting.
f. The board retest provide for an annual audit of the financial status of the
WCCB performed by a certified public accountant.
Section 7.3. The budget and a~y amendment thereto must be adopted by a majori~' vote
of all members of the board. Expenditures of the WCCB may be made only pursuant to the
budget as adopted and amended from time to time.
Section 7.a. After ado~ion of the budget, the board must forward copies of the proposed
budget to each Member's governing body. The governing body may return the proposed budget
to the board ,,,,4th the gov_erning body's recommendation for change, but a final budget for the
WCCB must be approved by each governing body no later than August I. Upon adoption of the
budget by each governing body, each Member is obligated to the WCCB for the cost sharing
charges fixed by the board for the ensuing fiscal year in accordance with this Article and Article
VIII. Each Member must make payment of its share of operating costs on a monthly basis.
ARTICLE vlll
Allocation of costs
Section g.1- _Operating costs. It is the intent of this agreement that the operational and
maintenance costs of the project are to be allocated to each Member~ in direct proportion to the
number of square feet (i) occupied and used by the Member itself, and (ii) occupied and used
under lease by a person or entity sponsored by or conducting an activity sponsored by or
allocated to the Member. The initial allocation of building area to e~ch Member is set forth in
Exhibit A hereto. The allocation and Exhibit A hereto must be revised annually as part of the
wCCB budget process to reflect the anticipated occupancy and use of the project durivg thc next
succeeding year. The percentage determined under this Section must be used by the board of
directors in the preparation of the annual budget under Article VII.
Section g.2. The cost of capital improvements, if any. to common areas and elements of
the project u~dertaken after the initial renovation, equipping and improvement described in
Section 9.2 are to be borne by the Members in the same proportion as operating costs as allocated
in Exhibit A. A description of such capital costs, the source of funds for those costs, and the
respective obligation of each part)- must be included in the ann~al budget for the fiscal year i~
which the improvements arc to be made. After the initial renovation, equipping and improvement
described in Section 9.2, the cost of capital improvements, if any. to space allocated to a Member
under Section $. 1 is to be borne by the respective Member.
Section 8.3. The board of directors may in its by-laws provide for additional procedures
for the allocation of capital and operating costs not inconsistent with this Article.
Section 8,4. This Article applies to the Initial Members and any governmental unit
becoming a Member pursuant to Article X. The allocation of operating costs must be
recalculated on the effective date of the addition of a new Member to WCCB, and any such
recalculation is to be deemed an amendment to this agreement adopted by all Members on that
date.
ARTICLE IX
Section 9.1. It is thc intent of thc WCCB to operate a community center consisting of
the Westonka Community Center (Old Mound High School) as it exists on the effective date of
this agreement and as renovated, equipped and improved as provided herein (hereafter referred
to as the project). The fee title to the project is, on the effective date of this agreement, in the
District. Upon the completion of the construction of the project in accordance with this
Agreement and as certified by the District, the District agrees to convey the fee title to the project
to the WCCB.
Section 9.2. The initial renovation, equipping and improvement of the project v-ill be
undertaken by the District and financed through the issuance &bonds or other obligations by the
District. During the construction period, the WCCB will develop procedures for the review and
comment by the Members on the plans and specifications for the project, its general design and
other matters related to the construction of the project as an efficient community center for the
Members. The plans, specifications for the project, its general design and funds allocated for
those purposes must be approved by the WCCB.
Section 9.3. The parties to this agreement and the WCCB undertake and agree that they
will. neither individually or collectively, take any actions that could result in the interest on the
bonds of the District that have or will be issued by the District for the project becoming subject
to federal or state income tax.
Section 9.4. Upon dissolution of the WCCB, the project and all improvements thereto are
to be disposed of in accordance with Article XI.
ARTICLE X
Section,10.1. A~dditio. Bal Members.
a. The cities of Mirmetrista~ Spring Park, Independence. Shorewood and
Orono, in Hennepin County, or any of them. may become a Member of WCCB by filing
a~ identical executed copy of this agreement with the respective recording officer of the
three Members and the new Member, but only (i) upon the approval of the board of
directors by unanimous vote, and (ii) a resolution approving such membership by all
existing Members of WCCB. A new Member is. entitled to appoint two directors to the
board of directors. The board may by resolution adjust the terms of such new directors
to be compatible with the staggered terms established by Article III.
~Ot-~ tt/BO'ct
908-1 OL£~A££ZL9
7
86-t£-deW
b. Any governmental unit in I-Iennepin County may become an associate
member of WCCB, but only with the unanimous approval of the board of directors. An
associate member may, but need not. share in the financial obligations of the WCCB. An
associate member must desigr~ate a representative to serve on the board of directors, but
that member does not have a vote, The board may in its by-laws provide for further
procedures and conditions governing associate memberships. An associate member has
no interest in the real property or assets of WCCB or a Member upon dissolution.
ARTICLE
Dissolution: Amendment
Section 1 l. 1. A Member other than an Initial Member may withdraw from the WCCB
by giving written notice-to the board prior to December 1 of any year stating an intent to
withdraw as of December 31 of the calendar year next following the year in which the notice is
given. A withclrawing Member remains obligated to thc WCCB for its proportionate share of thc
operating budget for the fiscal year in wI~ich the withdrawal is effective.
Section 11.2. The WCCB may be dissolved at any time by identical resolutions of
dissolution adopted by the respective governing bodies of the Members. The WCCB must be
dissolved upon v~?itten notice given by an Initial Member to the board and the other Member or
Members prior to December 1 of' any year stating an intent to withdraw as of December 31 of
the calendar year next following the year in which the notice is given. In the event of
dissolution, the board will continue to function for purposes of winding up WCCB affairs and
each Member will remain obligated for its proportionate share of the operating budget.
Section 11.3. Upon dissolution, the board must take the steps necessary to effect
dissolution as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement.
Section 11.~. Subject to the provisions of Section 1 l.a, upon dissolution and following
the final payment or provision for payment of the WCCB's outstanding obligations and the bonds
or other obligations issued by the District to finance the initial renovation, equipping and
improvement of the project described in Section 9.2, the remaining assets of the WCCB are to
be distributed to the Members in direct proportion to their respective contribution as determined
by the WCCB at the time of dissolution.
Section 11.5. If. upon dissolution of the WCCB, the District certifies that the project will
continue to be used for District purposes, the title to the the project will be conveyed by the
WCCB to the District. In such event the District will be responsible for the payment of any
outstanding indebtedness of the District or the WCCB incurred for the acquisition or betterment
of the project. If that certification is not made, and the City of Mound certifies that the project
will be used for City purposes, then fi) the City of Mound must be given the opportunity to
purchase the project at a price equal to the then outstanding indebte~ess of the District and the
WCCB, if any. for the project, and (ii) if the City of Mound does not elect to purchase the
project, the project must be sold by the WCCB at fair market value and the proceeds of the sale
must be first used to pay outstanding indebtedness of the District and the WCCB for the project
Iv/U200- $4
SOL-~ IL/60'e 90e-.I. OL£BZi~£ZL9
88-L£-den
and second distributed to the then current Members in a mariner deemed equitable by the board
of directors.
Section l 1.6. This agreement may be amended by identical resolutions adopted by the
governing bodies of the Members and filed together with the amendment with the secretary-
~eas~trer.
ARTICLE Xtl
Effective Date
This agreement is effective on the date following thc day on which executed copies of this
agreement, accompanied by a resolution of the governing body of each Member, are filed with
the recording officers of lhe City and the District.
W, J2oo-65
lL/Ol'd 90B-~ OL£6Z£EZI9
EXHIBIT A
The City of Mound and Westonka School District recognize that the Westonka Community Center
project involves the renovation of the existing Community Center facility. The facility's square
footage can be divided as follows:
SPACE LOWER MAIN UPPER TOTAL
Auditorium SF 6,870 SF 2,268 SF 9,138 SF
Available Space 9,726 SF 227 SF 2,015 SF 11,968 SF
Court Yards SF 9,803 SF - SF 9,803 SF
Gymnasium SF . 5,312 SF - SF 5,312 SF
Head Start SF 997 SF - SF 997 SF
Locker Rooms 3,661 SF - SF - SF 3,661 SF
Public Access TV 3,934 SF - SF - SF 3,934 SF
School District 1,074 SF 21,200 SF 3,129 SF 25,403 SF
Senior Center - SF 10,747 SF - SF 10,747 SF
WeCan - SF 4,224 SF - SF 4,224 SF
Support 12,478 SF 31,380 SF 5,008 SF 48,866 SF
Total 30,873 SF 90,760 SF 12,420 SF 134,053 SF
These numbers were developed by TSP/EOS, an architectural firm working on behalf of the City of
Mound and the Westonka School District.
Discussions have occurred between the City of Mound and the Westonka School District that have
resulted in a consensus that at least for the first year of operating expenses, a 50% City and 50%
School District division of the space is fair and equitable. Using this formula, the operating
expenses are to be divided ½ City and ½ School District. An annual review of this calculation is to
be conducted pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Joint Powers Agreement to assure an accurate reflection
of the occupancy of the facility.
I1% )
· EXHIBIT A
The City of Mound a.nd Westonka School Die.ct re~oenize that thc Westonka Community Center
project involves the renovation of the existing Communit7 Center facility.
The facility's square
footage tan be divided u follows:
SPACE LOWER MAIN UPPER TOTAL
Auditorium - SI: 6,870 SF 2,261 SF 9,138 SF
Availmblo Space 9,726 SF 227 SF 2,015 SIr 11,961 S1r
Court Y~rds - SF 9,803 SF - SF 9,803 SF
Gymnasium - SF 5,312 SI: -SF 5,312 SF
Head Start - SF 997 SF * SF 997 SF
Locket Rooms 3,661 SI: - SF - 81' 3,661 SF
Public Access TV 3.934 SI;' - SI:' - SF 3,934 SF
School District 1.074 SF 21,200 SF 3,129 SF 23,403 SI=
Senior Center - SIr 10,747 SI:. -SF 10,747 SF
WeCan - SF 4,224 SF - SF 4,224 SI:
Support 12.478 SF ~ 1,380 SF 5,008 SF 48,166 iF
Total 30,87;3 SF 90,760 SF 12,420 Sir 134,0S3 SF
These numbers were developed by TSP/EOS, an architectural finn working on beh-lfofthe City of
Mound and the Westonka School District.
'Di,~cussions have occurred between the City of Mound and the Wcstonka School
Dislrict addressillg operating expetlses.
· rile Westonka School District agrees to cover l(X)% of the operati,g cos[s for all
usable space to be occupied by Ihe school district programs and offices, and 66%
of [lie operating cost.,~ for the gymnasium, audiwrium aqd locker rooms I"or the
fir.,;[ year of operation, usage and percentages to be .reviewed and possibly
changed a,nually, a,d that the combi~lalion of lhese responsibilities totals,
therefore, 50% of the operating expenses for the first year.
P
The City or' Mound agrees to cover !00% o£ thc operating costs for ail usable
space to be occupied by the community progran~s, offices, and available space.
mtd 34% of the operati~g costs for the gym,lasium, at~ditorium and locker rc"3ms
for the first year of operation, usage and percentages to be reviewed a,ld
possibly chal~ged amlually, and that the combination of these respoilsibilities
totals, ther¢£ore, 50% of the operati,lg expenses for the first year.
Thc Cily oi' Moulld is offeri~lg usc of lite Core,cji Chambers for School Board
meeth~g,~ ~ t~o cos~ as u~ encouragement for tile School Board to accept 50%
respo~tsibility or' ope,'ati~g costs.
z ~
o =~
t_ L
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT REGARDING THE USE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS BY THE
WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON A
PERMANENT BASIS
WHEREAS, the Westonka School District has approached the City of Mound regarding the
possible use of the Mound City Hall Council Chambers for the scheduling of Westonka
School Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Westonka School District and the City of Mound have been working on a joint
project to renovate the existing Westonka Community Center; and
WHEREAS, the Westonka School District and the City of Mound have developed a joint powers
agreement in relation to the renovation of the Westonka Community Center which provides
for both entities to create an organization to own and operate the community center as part
ora joint program of the City and the School District and any additional governmental units
that agree to become members of the organization; and
WHEREAS, the joint powers agreement calls for the City of Mound and the Westonka School
District to share in the operating costs of the facility by some percentage breakdown; and
WHEREAS, the Westonka School District agrees to cover 100% of the operating costs for all usable
space to be occupied by school district programs and offices whereby the Westonka School
District agrees to cover 50% of the operating costs for the gymnasium, auditorium and locker
rooms, for the first year of operation, usage and percentages to be reviewed and possibly
changed annually and that the combination of these responsibilities totals 46% of the
space and, therefore, 46 % of the operating expenses for the first year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound agrees to cover 100% of the operating costs for all usable space
to be occupied by community programs, offices and available space whereby the City of
Mound agrees to cover 50% of the operating costs for the gymnasium, auditorium and locker
rooms, for the first year of operation, usage and percentages to be reviewed and possibly
changed annually and that the combination of these responsibilities totals 54% of the usable
space and, therefore, 54% of the operating expenses for the first year; and
WHEREAS, the Westonka School District had previously requested use of the City Council
Chambers at Mound City Hall for School Board meeting space since the Westonka School
Board has not included in the renovation plans any ~pace for a meeting room for School
Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council took no action on this request; and
WHEREAS, in order for the Westonka School District to consider a 50/50 split of the
operating costs, the City of Mound will consider the use of the City Council Chambers by
the Westonka School District for their monthly School Board meetings.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOUND, MINNESOTA AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREE TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS AT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON A
PERMANENT BASIS:
1. Westonka Schools would be invited to use the City Council Chambers for }~chool Board
meetings.
The City of Mound will waive any rental fee for School Board use of the City Council
Chambers. The City will provide the cost of custodial, utilities, video/audio equipment,
coffee machine, water cooler and other related services.
o
Westonka School Board meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. School Board will meet in the
City Council Chambers but will have the use of Conference Room #301 for the serving of
coffee, etc., and any possible executive session or other uses deemed appropriate. Use of the
City Hall building will be restricted to the lobby area, restrooms, Conference Room #301 and
the City Council Chambers. Use of the copy room is not permitted. From time to time,
it may be necessary for an executive session of the School Board which would begin at 6:00
p.m. and end at 7:00 p.m., to be held in Conference Room #301. It is understood that most
School Board meetings will conclude by 11:00 p.m. School District will be responsible for
cleanup of the coffee area before leaving the building and will return the Council Chambers
and Conference Room #301 to its original setup, i.e., chairs back in place, extra tables put
away, etc. A key will be issued to the Superintendent of Schools who will be responsible for
opening and closing the building, turning off the lights, etc.
o
School District will provide its own person for the audio/video taping of each school board
meeting. Person must be trained and certified by Triax Cablevision Public Access (Sally
Koenecke) to operate the City's audio/video system. In addition, School District will
provide its own audio and video tapes for recording of School Board meetings.
o
Attendees at School Board meetings are allowed to park in the upper level parking area.
Overflow parking is available along the western end of Maywood Road (lower level near
police vehicles).
o
The term of this agreement will be one year beginning on or before July 1, 1999 and ending
June 30, 2000. This agreement is renewable upon inutual agreement between the City of
Mound and Westonka School District. Any changes to the agreement must be negotiated
sixty (60)days prior to expiration. Upon thirty (30) days written notice, either party can
terminate this agreement. The 30 day termination fight does not require cause. The City of
Mound reserves the right to suspend or withhold use of the premises (or perhaps immediately
terminate the agreement) for certain reasons such as a lapse of insurance coverage.
Westonka Public Schools will be allowed, at their own expense, to place signs indicating that
the School Board meets at City Hall. Due to the underground sprinkling system and
underground electrical system, proposed locations of these signs must be approved by City
staff prior to installation. If a scheduled school board meeting conflicts with designated
holidays of the City, meetings shall be rescheduled to a different day and shall be approved
by the City of Mound prior to rescheduling.
Any other issue relating to this agreement will be decided by the Mound City Manager after
discussing it with the Superintendent of Schools.
Westonka School District hereby indemnifies and holds harmless and agrees to defend the
City, its officers, agents and employees, from any cause or action or claim, of whatever
nature, occasioned by or arising out of Westonka School District's use of the city hall facility
and premises.
10.
Westonka School District will provide the proof of liability insurance and agrees to name
the City of Mound as an additional insured.
11.
City of Mound reserves the right to "bump" the Westonka School District to a different
meeting date if its scheduled date conflicts with a city need to use the space for an emergency
type meeting which cannot be held at another time or place.
Upon proper signatures being affixed to this agreement by the City of Mound and Westonka Public
Schools, this agreement will be in effect as stated above.
CITY OF MOUND
.,WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT
By
Its Mayor
By
Its School Board Chair
By
Its City Manager
By
Its Superintendent
Date
Date
I1 ,?
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 1998
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~I ~-
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORM WATER UTILITY
As you know, we have been discussing, for about one year, the idea of creating a storm water utility.
The purpose of such a utility provides the City with a fair method of financing needed operations
and maintenance to the overall drainage system of the City. The utility also provides funding for
improvements such as the possible acquisition of property for regional storm water ponds and/or the
maintenance of such ponding areas.
As you know, federal and state laws, as well as watershed district regulations mandating stormwater
management, are currently in place. For example, as the Mound Visions program is implemented
in the downtown area, there are requirements that have to be met relating to ponding to handle the
downtown area's drainage system. Specifically, the City will be required to have regional ponds in
its downtown area to handle the drainage of the redeveloped area as well as to account for other
drainage issues in the community. Costs associated with the redevelopment of the downtown under
Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility.
The City will be required to complete a stormwater management plan as a part of its Comprehensive
Plan Update that is due into the Metropolitan Council by the end of 1998. A possible source of
funding for the stormwater management plan would be the storm water utility fund.
Other costs, such as street sweeping, which are now paid for out of the general fund, could be paid
for out of the storm water utility fund. As you can see, there are many advantages to having such
a utility available.
Attached is a proposed ordinance creating a storm water utility. This ordinance is based upon the
prmted on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
April 10, 1998
Page 2
City of Richfield's ordinance which was passed in 1985. The ordinance does not spell out the fees
to be charged within the utility. The ordinance simply creates the utility and allows, by resolution
to establish a fee schedule based upon the needs of our City. The fees could be established later
after we have had the opportunity to study the issues in more detail.
Although this ordinance does not require a public hearing, you may want to consider having one so
that when you actually establish a fee schedule, the public would have had some background on the
utility. I have also attached some information that Richfield used to educate the public on the
purpose of the utility. Although they used a public hearing process, they were also very careful to
provide adequate education to their residents so that everyone became informed about the utility and
why it was being created. I share this idea with you only to avoid public relations problems that
could occur after the ordinonce is established. We can talk more about this Tuesday evening.
I believe we are proceeding in the right direction by establishing a storm water utility. It will
provide another source for financing necessary improvements to our overall drainage system in the
City of Mound.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
l
- .~.. ~-o.,_~ =~c~ =,. ~ :~ ~ '=
~ ~ ~-=~ :-~ o~- *- ~- -8;8~ ~o:~ ~o'
t
~]~ ~='~=' · ~: .... .~
~ '~ ~ ~.-- ~ ~.-- ~ O~ 0~ ~00~
~ . : : : :~ ~='~
..... ~ ~ ~
·/17
3
:ity of .uLK ~
N U.S. Postage
PAID
ichfield Permit No. 2256
MmneaDolis, MN
Portland AVMtUl South
~chtield. Minnesota SS42~-2SgS
ORDINANCE NO. 97-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE,
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 650 is hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
_Section 650 - Storm Sewer Svste~,
Section 650:00. Storm Sewer System; Statutory_ Authority. Minnesota Statutes, section
444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of
storm sewer facilities ("charges"). By this Section, the City elects to exercise such authority.
Section 650:05. Findines and Determinations, In providing for such charges, the findings and
determinations set out in this Section are made.
Subd. 1. In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the
public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, the City has constructed, operated
and maintained a storm sewer system (the "system"). This Section is adopted in the
further exercise of such authority and for the same purposes.
Subd. 2. The system, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through
the imposition of special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Such financing methods
were appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary
and desirable to provide an alternative method of recovering some or all of the future
costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of
charges as provided in this Section.
Subd. 3. In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes
to make them just and equitable. Taking into account the status of completion of the
system, past methods of recovering system costs, the topography of the City and other
relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to assign
responsibility for some or all of the future costs of operating, maintaining and improving
the system on the basis of the expected storm water runoff from the various parcels of
land within the City during a standard one-year rainfall event.
Subd. 4: Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm water
runoff cannot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within
reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of this Section undertake to establish a
reasonable and practical methodology for making such charges.
Ilfz
Section 650:10. Rates and Charees.
Subd. 1. Residential Eauivalent Factor_. Rates and charges for the use and availability
of the system shall be determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor"
CREF"). For the purposes of this Section, one REF is defined as the ratio of the
average volume of surface water runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to
a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected
to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one-year rainfall
event.
Subd. 2. Determination of REF's for Iand Uses. The REF's for the following land
uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows:
~ REF Classification
Cemeteries
Parks and Railroads
Two-family Residential
Single-family Residential
Public and Private Schools and
Institutional Use
.25 1
.75 2
1.00 3
1.00 4
1.25 5
6
Multiple-family Residential Uses and 3.00
Churches
Commercial, Industrial and Warehouse 5.00 7
Uses
Subd. 3. Other Land Use~.. Other land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be
classified by the City Manager by assigning them to the classes nearly like the listed
uses, from the standpoint of probable hydrologic response. Appeals from the City
Manager's determination of the proper classifications may be made to the City Council
in the same manner as other appeals from administrative determinations under Section
350:510.
Section 650:15. Establishing' Basic Rate. In determining charges, the Council shall, from time
to time, by resolution establish a basic system rate to be charged against one acre of land having
an REF of one. The charge to be made against each parcel of land shall then be determined by
multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the
basic system rathe.
Section 650:20. S~_andard~ized Acreage. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges
against property used for single-family and two-family residential purposes, each of such
properties shall be considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre.
2
s~o,~ 65~$. A~_i~m~ms of C~ar?es, Thc City Counci! may by resolution, from time to
Lim¢~ adopt lx)]Jci¢5 p?oYJdin~ ~or ~e adju$£mem of ch~es £o~ @~cels o~ gmugs of ga~ceJs,
based upon hydrologic dam supplied by affected prope~y owners, demonstra~n~ an actual
hydrologic response substantially different from the REF being used for the parcel or parcels.
Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the City Manager and
shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of changing
the REF for all or substantially all of the land u~$ ill a parOcular classit cation, l~owever, such
adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the REF table in Section 650:10, Subd. 2.
Section 650:30. Excluded Landq. No charge for system availability or service shall be made
against land which is either (i) public street right-of-way or (ii) vacant and unimproved with
substantially all of its surface having vegetation as ground cover.
Section 650:35. SuDul_ving Information. The owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises shall supply the City with such information as the City may reasonably request related
to the use, development and area of the premises. Willful failure to provide such information
or to falsify it is a violation of this Section.
Section 650:40. Estimated Charge~. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises fails or refuses to provide the information requested, as provided in Section 650:35,
the charge for such premises shall be estimated and billed in accordance with such estimate,
based upon information then available to the City.
Section 650:45. Drainage and Erosion Control.
Subd. 1. I~g2~,9_~. In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the
direction, quantity or qualify of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the
development are submitted to the City Engineer. Run-off shall be properly channeled
into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility.
Subd. 2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit for any development, improvement or alteration of land, a plan for
erosion and sedimentation control shall be presented with the site plan. The erosion and
sedimentation control plan shall specify the measures to be used before, during and after
construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control
measures shall be maintained in good working order until site stabilization occurs.
Subd. 3. PI A~u~ll__.&p. lzr.~. In areas which are susceptible to erosion hazard or
sedimentation damage, the City may require the erosion and sedimentation control plan
to be approved by the appropriate water management organization prior to the issuance
of a permit.
3
Subd. 4. ~. Plans and provisions required for compliance with this Section
must be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Mayor
ATrEST:
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council
Publish in the Official Newspaper, The Laker,
4
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
April 14, 1998
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~')'
SUBJECT:
LABOR CONTRACT - CITY OF MOUND V. TEAMSTER'S LOCAL #320 -
POLICE OFFICER/INVESTIGATOR DETECTIVE AND JUVENILE
OFFICER
I have been negotiating with Teamster's Local #320 for a new labor contract for the years 1998 and
1999. The current contract expired December 31, 1997.
Negotiations involved the discussion of many issues presented by the Union and the City. The
tentative agreement, however, can be summarized as follows:
1. 1998 Wages - 3% increase; 1999 Wages - 3% increase.
Health Insurance - 1998 Contribution for family coverage - $400 per month; 1999
Health insurance contribution for family coverage - $420 per month.
Increase uniform allowance to $500 per year for both 1998 and 1999. Current
allowance is $465 per year.
Extension of the Physical Fitness program, which is a voluntary program already in
place.
Other language changes which includes a provision to be consistent with laws, rules
and regulations of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and an additional mediation step within the grievance process.
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
April 14, 1998
Page 2
I believe that the tentative agreement is reasonable. The union has approved it and it is now subject
to your approval. I am recommending that you approve the labor Agreement as summarized with
the above changes. All other provisions within the 1-1-96 through 1-1-97 Agreement are to remain
in effect.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me.
RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL #320, POLICE OFFICER
INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE AND JUVENILE OFFICER FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a Labor Agreement with Teamsters Local #320 for
Police Officer, Investigator/Detective and Juvenile Officer; and
WHEREAS, the current agreement is for the years 1996 and 1997; and
WHEREAS, the current agreement expired December 31, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted labor negotiations with Teamster's Local #320 and has
reached a tentative agreement for a new contract beginning January 1, 1998 through December 31,
1999; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending approval of the labor agreement, which is
essentially the same agreement in effect with five changes as follows:
1. 1998 Wages - 3% increase; 1999 Wages - 3% increase.
Health Insurance - 1998 Contribution for family coverage -$400 per month; 1999
Health Insurance contribution for family coverage - $420 per month.
Increase uniform allowance to $500 per year for both 1998 and 1999. Current
allowance is $465 per year.
Extension of the Physical Fitness program, which is a voluntary program already in
place.
Other language changes which includes a provision to be consistent with laws, rules
and regulations of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and additional mediation step within the grievance process.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, that the City Council hereby approves the labor agreement between the City of Mound
and Minnesota Teamster's Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union Local #320 for Police
Officer, Investigator/Detective and Juvenile Officer, effective January 1, 1998 through December
31, 1999.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
and seconded by
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
~A)~ (Gl 2) 472-0620
MEMOI~AIVZ)IJM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 3, 1998
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~
MARCH 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There were 28 building permits issued in March for a construction value of
$ 405,221. we issued 25 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits
for a total of 53 permits this month, and 113 permits year-to-date. Total
valuation now stands at $ 601,452.
PLANNING & ZONING
The Planning Commission reviewed six (6) cases and sent five (5) variance
cases and one (1) Minor Subdivision case to the City Council.
kl
printed on recycled paper
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: YU~RCtt Year: 19 9 8
THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ]- ]- ]-45 , 849 ]L ]-45 , 840
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS]
TRANSIENT HSG, (HOTELS / MOTELS]
SUBTOTAL ]- ] ']45 , 849 ]- ]-45 , 849
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT)
OFFICE ! PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING ]- -5 8 t 0 0 0 4 ]- 4 6 ! 0 6 7
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ]- ]-5 t ]..50
DECKS 2 4~502 4 9~282
SWiMMiNG POOLS
REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 23 173,570 37 24 ]-, 804
REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
SUBTOTAL 26 236,072 66 612,303
ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) ]- ~) 0 ~ 0 0 0
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC /SCHOOLS I 23,300 1 23,300
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SUBTOTAL i 23,300 2 43,300
DEMOLITIONS Il # PERMITS I # UNITS I VALUATION II # PERMITS I VALUATION
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS
# PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION
#' PERMITS
1
TOTAL w
28 1 405,221 49 601.452
pERMIT COUNT I THiS MONTH I YEAR.TO.DATE
"BUILDING 28 49
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 51 2
SIGNS i 2
PLUMBING ].4 , 32
MECHANICAL 6 23
GRADING 0 0
S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 2 -5
[,TOTAL I 53 I
GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF MARCH 1998
MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT TYPE
MAR 98 20 3779 1609
MAR 98 5 3936 1900
MAR 98 5 3937 1718
MAR 98 6 3938 4886
MAR 98 6 3939 2628
MAR 98 10 3940 2550
MAR 98 10 3941 1724
MAR 98 11 3942 5440
MAR 98 11 3943 5051
MAR 98 11 3944 2125
MAR 98 12 3945 5300
MAR 98 12 3946 2125
MAR 98 16 3947 2055
MAR 98 17 3948 5189
MAR 98 17 3949 4994
MAR 98 20 3950 5801
MAR 98 20 3951 6419
MAR 98 23 3952 4955
MAR 98 23 3953 6041
MAR 98 24 3954 6041
MAR 98 24 3955 4750
MAR 98 26 3956 5421
GULL LN
SHOREWOOD LN
EAGLE LN
EDGEWATER DR
TYRONE LN
LAKEWOOD LN
SHOREWOOD LN
G A DALEIDER MECH
CUSTOM PLUMBING
FLARE HEATING
NORBLOM PLUMBING
MN WATER TREATMENT
DEAN'S TANK
H & H PLUMBING
THREE POINTS BLVD DALE SORENSEN CO
WOODLAND RD
CEDAR LN
LYNWOOD BLVD
CEDAR LN
LAKESIDE LN
EMERALD DR
MANCHESTER RD
BARTLETT BLVD
BAY RIDGE RD
BEDFORD RD
RIDGEWOOD RD
RIDGEWOOD RD
DORCHESTER RD
CHURCH RD
MR ROOTER PLUMB
FLARE HEATING
GATEWAY MECH
WESTONKA MECH
PRACTICAL SYSTEMS
WlLLETT BLDRS
DONAHUE MECH
AL'S MASTER PLUMB
PREFERRED HEATING
KLEVE HEATING
ALPINE HTG
HOPKINS PLUMB
SELF
LEE STULL PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
TANK REMOVAL
PLUMB
WAT CONNECT
PLUMB
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
PLUMB/DRAINTIL
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
MECH
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
BUILDING PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF MARCH 1998
MONTHYEAt~ DAY PERMIT ~t ADDRESS
OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF CONST.
MAR 98 4 12289
MAR 98 3 12290
MAR 98 3 12291
MAR 98 3 12292
MAR 98 3 12293
MAR 98 4 12294
MAR 98 6 12295
MAR 98 11 12296
MAR 98 13 12297
MAR 98 13 12298
MAR 98 17 12299
MAR 98 16 12300
MAR 98 17 12301
MAR 98 17 12302
MAR 98 19 12303
MAR 98 20 12304
MAR 98 20 12305
MAR 98 26 12306
MAR 98 24 12307
MAR 98 23 12308
MAR 98 24 12309
MAR 98 24 12310
MAR 98 24 12311
MAR 98 25 12312
MAR 98 25 12313
MAR 98 25 12314
MAR 98 30 12315
MAR 98 26 12317
MAR 98 27 12319
MAR 98 30 12320
MAR 98 31 12321
5300 LYNWOOD BLVD FRANK NIESEN SELF
2794 HALSTEAD LN DAVE GRAHAM AT YOUR SERVICE
6020 ASPEN RD RICHARD WAGNER SHOWCASE BUILDERS
1688 AVOCET TINA GREENSLADE SELF
4882 EDGEWATER DR TOM PETERSON SAWHORSE BLDRS
4440 RADNOR RD CINDY POHLKEMP ALLSTAR
6056 HAWTHORNE RD JODI ROEHL SELA ROOFING
1724 SHOREWOOD LN MAGGIE CANNATELLI FIRESIDE CORNER
2208 FAIRVIEW LN DAVID LINDSTROM SELF
2331 CHATEAU LN MATT MITTELSTEADT SELF
2873 ESSEX LN MARK ANDERSON HOME VALUE
2055 LAKESIDE LN ESTER MARTENS PRACTICAL SYSTEMS
5991 RIDGEWOOD RD DAVID TAYLOR SELF
5183 TUXEDO BLVD KAREN COTTINGHAM TOWN & COUNTRY
4731 WILSHIRE BLVD KURT & BETH OLSON PANELCRAFT
1668 GULL LN C HAMMERSCHMIDT SELF
6020 ASPEN RD CAROL WAGNER HUBER CONST
1881 COMMERCE BLVD DIST 277 - GRANDVIEW SCHAD TRACY SIGNS
5341 FRANKLIN RD BRIAN & DEE SKALBECK TOOLBOX
1773 SHOREWOOD LN MICHAEL JOHNSON
2137 GRANDVIEW BLVD DAVID NYBERG
1825 RESTHAVEI~ LN DUANE SMITH
4750 DORCHESTER RD KIRK KELSEY
2902 WESTEDGE BLVD RANDY SIEBEN
5421 CHURCH RD JEROME MADER
2547 BLACK LAKE LN JAMES BYERS
5341 MAYWOOD RD CITY OF MOUND
6395 ACORN RD MARK WINTER
2929 OAKLAWN LN AL GUSTAFSON
2156 CENTERVIEW TERRI BONNICKSEN
6221 LYNWOOD BLVD HAL BORG
SELF
SELF
CHRISTIANS
SELF
SELF
SELF
SELF
B & B SHEETMETAL
BOB LOHMANN
HUBER CONST
SELF
CASTLE BUILDING
SFD; MODULAR HOME
BASEMENT ROOM FINISH
SIDING & WINDOWS
REROOF
ADDITION; 2ND STORY
REROOF
REROOF HOUSE & PORCH
FIREPLACE INSERT
SIDE. FOUND,DECK. WINDOWS
REROOF
REMODEL KITCHEN
FIREPLACE INSERT
3 SEASON PORCH, SIDE GAR
FENCE
SIDE,SOFFIT, FACIA,TRIM,GUT
DECK 12X28
REROOF
SIGN; FREE STANDING PERM
REMODEL BATH.DECK, SID,ETC
REROOF & SIDE GARAGE
REROOF HOUSE
REMODEL KITCHEN
REMODEL LOWER LEVEL
FENCE
WINDOW, CLOSET
REROOF
REROOF
DECK REPLACEMENT 8X14
REROOF HOUSE & GARAGE
WINDOWS, SIDING. CLOSET
FRAME IN FIREPLACE
VALUATION
145.849
5.000
14.500
1,000
58,000
2.600
3.500
1.100
4.300
1.200
25,000
750
10,000
0
10.520
2,352
3,000
0
64,000
1,100
2,500
6,000
6.000
0
1.500
2,300
23,300
2.150
2,900
1.800
3.000
SAC UNIT
1.000
City of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: March 1998
Residential Commercial
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
04/01/98
Utility-98
Total
,078 123 1,201
,082 123 1,205
16,314 2,472
Total
18,786
$27,816 $5,336 $33,152
$64,010 $15,544 $79,554
$5.885 $124 $6.009
$97,711 $21,004 $118.715
$28,264 $5,565 $33,829
$63,899 $15,292 $79,191
$6.067 $109 $6.176
$98.230 $20.966 $119.196
Total
13oo
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
FROM: GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: MARCH FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Bouqht:
Money Market 4M Plus 3,661
Money Market First Bank 85,310
CD First ~Bank 5.603% 719,943
CP First Bank
5.76% 524,718
CP Smith Barney 5.676% 246,512
CP - Smith Barney 5.703% 300,956
Matured:
Money Market First Bank (133,718)
CP Norwest 5.78% (400,296)
CP First Bank 6.228% (409,707)
CP First Bank 5.74% (956,317)
CP Dain Bosworth 5.81% (300,692)
Audit of the Year 1997
Auditors from the CPA firm of Abdo Abdo & Eick Were With us for
a full week this month. Their audit of the 1997 Ci~ financial activity
is progressing aS scheduled. A report to the CitY COuncil will be
presented at the May 12, 1998 meeting.
Lecjislative ConferenCe
The City Manager and I attended the 1998 Legislative Conference.
Many legislative issues were discussed by the leadership of the League
of Cities and its staff. For this year, the two major areas of concern to us
were the property tax reform and the levy limits.
Other issues of concern relate to tax increment financing and sales tax
on local government purchases.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager
From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager
Date: April 1, 1998
Re: March 1998, Monthly Report
March turned out to be a so-so month. Gross sales totaled $116,090. In March of 97 sales were
$114,497 so we were up slightly, $1,593. I was very pleased with the results actually. Last year
in March we had an extra Saturday's business that we did not have his year. Taking that into
account you could say we had an exceptional month.
The first quarter of business is already over with! This is always our slowest time. So far things
are looking pretty good this year. Gross sales for the first three months are $345,045. Customer
count to date is 24,314. Comparative figures for last year were $328,507 and 23,638.
Hopefully this data will give us and indication as to how business will go this year. We are
entering two very critical quarters for us out here by the lake. Last year spring and summer
were unusually wet. Consequently sales were sluggish. If we can keep the rain from falling on
the weekends, the numbers should be good.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
,.,..,IE, did rio:i push .a'n'¥ :~i-lo~,.,~ thi3 month Dut
tine S=utch lake aT.ea on March 30ti-,. 5eaicoatzng ~,Jiti be i~ the
'r'c, nk:s,..Jo.od ~.,~c: Shirley hi!is a'Feas. John
5e~der O<eiD,~ r' '[ i-i/e F1 ~
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
APRIL 10,1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM FA~KLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: MARCH 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
PARKS;
With the warm weather Spring has come on us fast. We are
trying to do the things now that generally wait until the
end of April or the first of May. We have already installed
the tennis nets, put out some picnic tables and garbage
cans. The seasonal staff will be starting over the next four
weeks so unless the weather changes we will be struggling to
keep up with demands.
CEMETERY;
The cemetery had no burials.
TREE REMOVAL;
There were no hazardous trees marked on private or public
property last month.
DOCKS;
The dock inspector has been busy with the 1998 renewals,
generally the majority of applications come in the last week
of February so as to not pay a late fee. At this time there
are over forty individuals on the waiting list for a dock
site. We will only have had only three ten sites open up so
we will not come close to meeting the demand.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 8, 1998
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY MANAGER
CITY CLERK
MARCH MONTHLY REPORT
There was one Regular City Council meeting and one Special Meeting in March. Agendas for
these meetings were prepared. There were minutes and 7 resolutions from those meetings. The
following items were some of the highlights of the month:
Licenses for Tree Removal were prepared, applications reviewed and licenses issued.
Licenses application forms were sent out for Restaurants, Games of Skill, Juke Boxes,
Bowling Alley and Pool Tables.
Got materials together for the May 3 Hennepin County Auction where Mound will be
selling 5 vehicles.
Attended the Minnesota Clerks' & Finance Officers' Association Annual Conference in
Alexandria.
Continued to input the Minutes for 1998 into the Clerks' Index Program.
prtnted on recycled paper
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for March, 1998
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,035 calls for service during the
month of March. There were 33 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 1 aggravated assault, 11 burglaries,
and 21 larcenies.
There were 69 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child
abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF checks, 6 narcotics, 2 damage to property,
15 liquor law violation, 6 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, 9 domestics (5 with
assaults), 3 harassment's, 9 juvenile stares, and 14 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 128 adult citations and 4 juvenile citations.
Parking violations accounted for an additional 53 tickets. Warnings were
issued to 129 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 1 adult and 3 juveniles arrested for a felonies. There were 46
adults and 22 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an
additional 2 felony warrants and 10 misdemeanor warrant arrests.
_The department assisted in 10 vehicle accidems, 4 with injuries. There
were 22 medical emergencies and 38 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 17 occasions in March.
Property valued at $15,137 was stolen in March.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - MARCH, 1998
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues and 3 criminal
sexual conduct cases accounting for 56 hours of investigative time. Other
cases included assault, burglary, robbery, disorderly conduct, fraud, child
endangerment, terroristic threats, damage to property, forgery, violation of
OFP, missing person, NSF checks, narcotics, theft, harassment, and
absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for criminal sexual conduct in the 1st
degree, ~lamage to property, theft over $2,500, careless driving & driving
after cancellation, drag paraphernalia, fleeing a police officer, DWI,
worthless check, disorderly conduct, and controlled substance & and
false information.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 71.5 hours of overtime during the
month of March. Officers used 63 hours of comp-time, 86 hours of
vacation, 69 hours of sick time, and 2 holidays. Officers earned 59 hours
of comp time.
Four officers were sent to assist in St. Peter in response to a mutual aid
request.
Officers attended training in firearms during the month of March. Several
officers attended a 40 hour counter drug intelligence course. Two officers
attended the Wilson Leadership course and two attended an emergency
preparedness incident command course. Shirley attended a computer
workshop.
12o?
COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
Officer Piper addressed 11 animal complaints, 26 ordinance violations,
and 145 miscellaneous calls for services.
Four citations were issued in March.
Not available.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MARCH 1998
OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARF. D BY AP.P.E S TED
I~EPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARP. EST ADULT JT3V
PART I CRIMES
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 2 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect ~
Forgery/NSF Checks
Criminal Damage to Property
Weapons
Narcotic Laws
Liquor Laws
DWI
Simple Assault
Domestic Assault
Domestic (No Assault)
Harassment
Juvenile Status Offenses
Public Peace
Trespassing
Ail Other Offenses
33 0 0 3 I 3
2 2 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 6 4 4
15 0 0 14 15 7
6 0 0 6 6 0
2 0 2 2 2 0
5 0 0 3 3 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 1 1 0
9 0 0 9 0 13
8 0 1 7 12 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 0 3 3 0
TOTAL
69 3 5 51 46 24
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
6
4
0
22
38
22
811
903
HCCP
Inspections
4
26
TOTAL
1,035
54
47 27
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT MARCH 1998
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
66 174 302
58 171 225
22 61 79
40 157 248
1t0 266 207
53 130 306
6 16 28
3 9 21
6 27 27
4 8 8
0 0 0
2 5 6
53 108 107
4 10 4
27 48 21
33 67 49
69 172 184
22 85 71
38 126 160
26 81 64
811 2,627 1,831
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
1,453 4,348 3,448
39 712 196
45 204 110
4 15 7
17 51 29
0 8 13
laid
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MARCH 1998
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
AD3JA~
6
3
1
4
1
54
2
2
3
0
3
0
7
1
16
0
1
53
0
5
0
2
9
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
MOUND
WARNINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MARCH1995
Adu 1 t
44
31
31
0
0
9
0
0
3
6
124
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1 1
7 3
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:54 PRO03
MODq~D POLICE DEPkRTMEN'r
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property /'ypes: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE P~EPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value
Quantity Act
Code
B Prop ~ype Totals: 574 300
C Prop tlmpe Totals: 2,175 0
D Prop type Totals: 50 0
E Prop type Totals: 75 3
G Prop type Totals: 980 0
J Prop type Totals: 450 0
M Prop type Totals: 1,000 0
O Prop type Totals: 3,715 686
P Prop type Totals: 840 505
R Prop type Totals: 1,900 0
S Prop type Totals: 300 150
T Prop type Totals: 33 0
W Prop type Totals: 10 0
X Prop type Totals: 1,200 0
Y Prop type Totals: 1,835 0
**** Report Totals: 15,137 1,644
3.000
2.000
1.000
4.000
2.000
2.000
1.000
10.000
4.000
S.000
2.000
3.000
1.000
3.000
4.000
47.000
Brand
Model
Page
Off-1 Off-2
Assnd Assnd
Run: 1-Apr-98 13:43 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
HOW Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
No
02/26/98 - 03/25/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
9OOO
8001
9002
9004
9012
9014
0
9021
9026
9036
9038
9040
9100
9140
9200
9210
9220
9221
9240
9300
SPEEDING
J-SPEEDING
NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L
RESTRICTED D/L
OPEN BOTTLE
STOP SIGN
EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
CARELESS/RECKLESS
J-CARELESS/RECKLESS
OVER THE CENTER LINE
OBSTRUCTED VISION
ALL OTHER TRAFFIC
NO SEATBELT
PARKING/ALL OTHER
NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS
DAS/DAR/DAC
PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
NO INSUPJkNCE/PROOF OF
J-NO INSLrRJMNCE/PROOF OF
OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE
CHANGE OF DOMICILE
LOST ARTICLES/OTHER
MOUND POLICE DEPlkRTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
54
2
2
2
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
6
2
6
47
4
3
16
1
9
5
2
Page
Run: 1-Apr-98 13:43 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 5
9313 FOUND PROPERTY 10
9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 1
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 4
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 5
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 1
9452 H & R ACCIDENTS W/TICKET 1
9561 DOG BITE
9563 DOG AT LARGE 1
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 5
9710 MEDICAL/ASU 1
9730 MEDICALS 21
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 4
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 4
9811 J-LOITERING/LURKING
9900 ALL HCCP CASES 4
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 6
9930 J{ANDGUN APPLICATION 9
9931 HANDGUN DENIALS 1
9932 OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ENF ACT OF '94 7
9943 PROWLER
9944 UNWANTED GUEST I
Page
,~ ..... Iai
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
How Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
NO
02/26/98 - 03/25/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
Ail
All
All
All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
9OOO
9001
9002
9004
9012
9014
9021
9026
9036
9038
9040
9100
SPEEDING
J-SPEEDING
NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L
RESTRICTED D/L
OPEN BOTTLE
STOP SIGN
EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
CARELESS/RECKLESS
J-CARELESS/RECKLESS
OVER THE CENTER LINE
OBSTRUCTED VISION
ALL OTHER TP~AFFIC
NO SEATBELT
P;%RKING/ALL OTHER
9140 NO P~KING/WINTER HOLTRS
9200
9210
9220
9221
9240
9300
DAS/DAR/DAC
PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
NO INSUP~ANCE/PROOF OF
J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF
OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE
CHANGE OF DOMICILE
LOST ARTICLES/OTHER
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT A/qALYSIS BY ACTIVIT~f C~)DE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
54
2
2
2
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
6
2
6
47
4
3
16
1
9
5
Page 1
Ill& i
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Mow Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NIIMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 5
9313 FOUND PROPERTY 10
9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 1
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 4
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 5
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 1
9452 H & R ACCIDENTS W/TICKET 1
9561 DOG BITE 1
9563 DOG AT LARGE 1
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 5
9710 MEDICA~L/ASU 1
9730 MEDIC_ALS 21
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 4
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 4
9811 J-LOITERING/LUPdfING 1
9900 ALL HCCP CASES 4
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 6
9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9
9931 HANDGUN DENIALS 1
9932 OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ENF ACT OF '94 7
9943 PROWLER 1
9944 UNWANTED GUEST 1
Page
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: NO
DaCe Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
y Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: Ail
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9980
9990
9992
9993
9994
A5351
A5353
AL352
AL354
AL552
Bl131
Bl194
B1294
B2434
B3334
B3494
B3794
B3864
WARPU%NTS
MISC. VIOLATIONS
MUTUAL AID/8100
MUTUAL AID/6500
MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-PJLNDS-ADLT~FAM
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HAN-DS-AD-FAM
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HATDS-ADLT-AC
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-H~NDS-CH-FAM
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ
BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM ASSAULT
BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-U-UN WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 2-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3~UNOCC RES FRC-D-U~ WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCCNRES NO FRC-N-UN~ WEAP-COMTHEFT
BURG 3-UNOCCNRES NO FRC-U~UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
FORGERY-FE-UTT-POSS-PLACE-CHK-201-2500_BUS
DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK
12
1
15
2
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
DA540
Page
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: Ail
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: Ail
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
DC500
DH570
I3060
J2701
J2R01
J3501
J3601
J3E01
J3T01
K5505
LI021
M3001
M3005
M4140
M5313
M5350
N3030
N3070
N3190
P3110
TC029
TC059
DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 3
CON SUB 5-POSSESS-AMPHET-UNK 1
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD. 1
TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV 1
TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV
1
TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 3
TRAF-ACC-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFL 2
TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 3
TRAF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH 1
FALSE IMPRISON-INTENT CONFIN-UTqK WEAP-CHLD-ACQ 1
CSC 1-UNK ACT-PARENT-LrND 13-F 1
JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 3
JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 7
LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 6
JUYENILE-CURFEW 1
JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 1
DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1
DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC Nq3ISANCE 7
DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 3
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2
THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1
THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP 1
Page
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
How Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas~
Days of the week:
No
02/26/98 - 03125/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
TC159
TF059
TF159
TG029
TG159
Ui562
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP ~
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER
FRAUD-FE-FIN-TP~ANS-CARD-USE-FRGD-2501-19000
THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS
FRAUD-MS-FIN-TRAN-CARD-NO-CONSENT-200-LESS
CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-GM-VIOL ORD PROTECTION
CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION
~85
U3498
U3558
X2250
X3250
**** Report Totals:
400
Page
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:43 OFF01
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: Ail
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 1
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACI~3AL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ADULT JIIVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
A5351 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
A5353 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0
AL352 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HND6-ADLT-AC 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
AL552 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS~THRT BODLY-HRM-HN-DS-ADLT-ACQ 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
Bl131 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM ASSAULT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Bl194 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 f
B1294 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-U-UN WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
B2434 BURG 2-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3334 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-Lg~-K WEAP-COM T~EFT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRESFRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3864 BURG 3-UNOCC NRESNO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRESNO FRC~U-UNK WEAP~COM THEFT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
C12C2 FORGERY-FE-UTT-POSS-PLACE-CHK-201-2500-BUS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 100.0
DH570 CON SUB 5-POSSESS-AMPHET-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
J2701 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100
J2R01 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0
..... , ....... Illl II ~1,
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:43 OFF01
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
Dispositions:
Ac%ivity codes;
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
No
02/26/98 - 03/25/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
MOUN-D POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN~ AC173AL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
TRAF-ACC-MS-DRIVE LTNDER INFL
TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
TRAF-ACC-MS-LrND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH
FALSE IMPRISON-INTENT CONFIN-UNK WEA~-CHLD-ACQ
CSC 1-UNK ACT-PARENT-UND 13-F
JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER
JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO
LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21
JUVENILE-CURFEW
JUA;ENILE-Rb'NAWAY
DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT
DIST'uq{BPEACE-MS-PUBLIC N73ISANCE
DIS7737{BPEACE-MS-HARRASSING COF~4LrNICATIONS
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-U-NK INTEN~
THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTN PROP
J3601
J3E01
J3T01
K5505
L1021
M3001
M3005
M5313
M5350
N3030
N3070
N3190
P3110
TC029
TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEX-OTHER
FRAUD-FE-FIN-TP. ANS-C3~-USE-FRGD-2501-19000
THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
..... OFFENSES CLE~RED
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCE~Ff
kRREST AP~REST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
TC159
TF059
TF159
TG029
U1562
U2497
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100 . 0
7 0 7 0 0 7 0 7 100.0
6 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100 . 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
7 0 7 0 6 0 1 7 100.0
3 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 66.6
2 0 2 1 0 0 1 t 50.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
4 0 4 3 0 1 0 1 25.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 1-Apr-98 14:43 OFF01
Primary ISN'S only: No
Date Reported range: 02/26/98 - 03/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 3
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
U3558 FRAUD-MS-FIN-TRAN-CARD-NO-CONSENT-200-LESS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
X2250 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-GM-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
X3250 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 3 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
**** Report Totals: 96 3 93 34 38 16 5 59 63.4
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, March 25, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
RECEIVEL~ 2!:'R - Ii 1§98
PUBLIC HEARINGS
City of Wayzata/Boatworks Development, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata, Consideration of new
multiple dock license and a variance applications to construct a walkway from the Depot
Docks to the Boat Works Development launch ramp. The applications are for variance from
LMCD side setback requirements.
DRAFT
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Terry Schwalbe, City of Wayzata Project Coordinator, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He
noted the representative from the Boatworks Development property had another engagement
that he need to attend but was favorable towards approval of the proposed walkway. He stated
that he believed the Board was familiar with the project and that he would entertain questions.
Babcock asked LeFevere for an explanation of how the variance would work, if approved,
because the proposed walkway encroaches beyond the extended side site lines between the two
properties.
LeFevere stated the District has approved variance requests in the past for length, side
setbacks, and adjusted dock use arms. He added the proposed walkway could be considered
under a side setback variance, even though there would be in effect a negative side setback.
Suerth asked for feedback from Ambrose on how the City of Wayzata felt about this proposed
project.
Ambrose stated the City of Wayzata is favorable towards the proposed improvements because
it will provide access to handicap restroom facilities from the Depot dock and because it will
connect the Depot dock to the city beach on the other side of the Boatworks Development
property. He added the city would prefer that the proposed walkway end on their own
property; however, this is difficult because of the hilly terrain in the area.
Schwalbe added for the proposed walkway to end on the city's property, there would be
considerable grading involved, there would be concern with having to remove trees in this
area, and there is an existing storm sewer in the area that would limit this possibility.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Groveland Homeowners Association, Wayzata Bay, Woodland, Consideration of a new
multiple dock license application to convert two district mooting area Boat Storage Units
(BSU's) to slip BSU's under LMCD Code Section 2.04, Subd. 9., and to reconfigure and
relocate seven slide BSU's to slip BSU's under LMCD Code Section 2.015.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 2
Sarah Colville, speaking on behalf of the applicant, made the following comments:
· The Association believes this i~ a simple request to convert two buoys to two slips and
to convert seven slide BSU's to seven slip BSIJ's. She added they believe these
requests comply with LMCD Code requirements
· Approval by the LMCD Board would allow the Association to better manage and
protect the lakeshore.
· The Association has enjoyed Lake Minnetonka for 96 years and the residents have acted
responsibility to protect this valuable asset.
· The Association restricts watercraft size to no larger than 25' in slips and 16' on slides.
· Last ye. ar, residents in the Association financed the installation of water and sewer for
the neighborhood, ensuring everyone there will never be any pollution of Lake
Minnetonka from the Association.
· She reported the Association is in transition with 17 of 42 homes having changed
Ownership since 1990.
Rascop asked if the Association already limits boat length to 16' for slides, what would the
maximum boat length be at the slips.
Colville noted the Association is requesting for a 10' x 20' slip dimension at the seven
proposed converted slips.
Mayor Jean Stark of Woodland stated the City Woodland is in favor of the proposed changes.
Suerth stated he believed there is one additional comment he needed to add. He noted since
1990, the Association has previously converted five additional buoys and has attempted to
minimize the coverage of water with additional dockage by using tie-ohs rather than building
more dock structure.
Kmbrose asked if Mr. Clifford Code was present to express his concSrns with the proposed
project.
Mr. Code expressed concern with the four proposed slips by the swimming beach area. He
specifically expressed concern with the potential for allowing for powerboats on the west end
of the property by the swimming beach. He noted currently, the powerboats at the Association
are restricted to the east end of the property.
Don Germanson, President of the Lake Minnetonka Association, asked if there would be an
increase in the Watercraft Storage Units.
Babcock noted they would remain the same and that they are used only in tee calculations.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 3
ROLL CALL
Members present: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob Rascop, Shorewood;
Herb Suerth, Woodland; Also present Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck,
Executive Director; Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician, Diane Samis, Administrative
Assistant.
Members Absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Gilman,
Excelsior; Lili McMillan, Orono; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista,
Victoria has no appointed member.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no chair announcements.
READING OF THE MINUTES
Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the minutes of the March 11, 1998 Regular
Board meeting, with the following changes: 1) on page 5, correct the spelling of Ambrose and
note that the city of Wayzata may be willing to add the information to their newsletter, and 2)
on page 7 in the paragraph prior to the motion, change "reconsider" to "rescind". Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda.
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A. City of Wayzata/Boat Works Development, Discussion on Public Hearing for new
multiple dock license and variance applications.
Babcock asked Schwalbe if the applicant is comfortable with staff's recommended
conditions on any approval outlined in the staff memo. He noted specifically: · That no parking of boats be allowed along the proposed walkway.
· To amend the new multiple dock license application by deleting the Boatworks
Development, Inc. from it.
· Subject to approval by the MN DNR in compliance with MN DNR General
Permit 97-6098.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Rascop seconded to direct the attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the joint variance application
to allow for the construction of the walkway between the Wayzata Depot
dock and the Boatworks Development launch ramp, subject to the
conditions recommended by staff..
Babcock clarified the hardships involved in this proposed variance are to provide a
handicap accessibility facility and that there are topographic concerns that make it
difficult for the City of Wayzata to end the dock on their property
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 4
Be
LeFevere stated in this proposed variance, it might make sense that both parties
mutually consent to the walkway crossing over the extended side site line.
Babcock added a condition that boat density allowance cannot be affected for both
sites should also be included in the Order.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously
Groveland HOA, Discussion of Public hearing for new multiple dock license
application.
Babcock stated staff has pointed out some issues that need Board discussion. He noted
he believed the conversion of buoys to slips is clearly defined in LMCD Code. He
added he believed the issue that merits Board discussion is how slides are to be counted
under LMCD Code Section 2.015. He stated according to his records, the conversion
of slides to slips was addressed by the envelope sub-committee but was not resolved by
the Board. He questioned what square footage to give slides credit for is a gray area
because a conversion rate was never established for slides in the Code. He concluded
this is important because in these applications, the Board needs to determine the
cumulative square footage of the slips at the existing facility that has been approved.
Foster asked Suerth to clarify on why he voted against the conversion of slides to slips
at the Minnetonka Yacht Club application and how he advocates approval of slides to
slips in this application.
Suerth stated he voted against the Minnetonka Yacht Club application because of the
nuisance concerns with that application. He noted the residents in that area were quite
vocal and he stated he believed they had a valid reason. He added he believed the
conversion of slide to slips in that case was for commercial reasons while this proposed
application is not. He concluded he believed the proposed conversion of slides to slips
is fair because residents in the Association were not aware in the 1970's that they
would be licensed for what existed then.
Babcock asked LeFevere to bring the Board up to date on whether it could be
constituted as a taking when the density code of 1:50 was established in the 1970's. He
pointed out that the Association is considered a grandfather facility, which means they
have more rights to the lake than new similar Associations could get today.
Suerth stated he understood the Association could be grandfathered for 42 slips but they
did not ask for them.
Babcock stated he understood multiple docks were grandfathered in on a specific date.
LeFevere stated at one time, Associations could have constructed more docks when
there were not regulations on the lake. He noted the problem that the applicant has is
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 5
universally true because most.multiple docks on the lake would have constructed more
docks if they knew regulations were going to be adopted. He concluded you cannot
grandfather entitlement to do what was allowed before the adoption of a regulation.
Suerth stated when they were grandfathered in, they did not exceed the 1:10 allowance
because they have 477' of shoreline.
Babcock clarified they are grandfathered from the 1:50 rule rather than-the 1:10 rule.
He noted the 1:10 rule is for special density licenses, that special density licenses did
not exist when the Association was grandfathered in, and that Homeowners Association
cannot qualify for a special density license because their facilities need to available for
use by the general public. He added LMCD Code Section 2.015 was adopted to allow
reconfigurations in commercial facilities to meet market demands or Associations
demands, provided there is no growth of slips.
Kitchak asked what size of boat the applicants proposed at the seven slips. He noted
the Association already restricts the length of the boats on the seven slides to 16'.
Suerth stated they are proposing slip dimensions of 10' x 20'.
Kitchak stated he believed the conversion rate should be the same as the slide. He
believed the proposed conversion could be considered as an expansion because they are
not converting a like for a like.
Babcock asked Suerth if the Association would be willing to live with restricting the
size of the boats at the slips similar to what is parked on the slides. He noted the Board
need to prevents expansion at a grandfathered facility.
Suerth stated he believed a 20' boat is reasonable.
Germanson asked what is the maximum boat size that could be parked in a 10' x 20'
slips.
Babcock explained the District regulates slip size and not boat size. He added this is an
open issue with this ordinance on whether to place an overhang limit on slips.
Foster stated it was the consensus of the envelope concept ordinance sub-committee not
to allow for expansion of grandfathered facilities. He added there were a number of
grandfathered commercial facilities that sought the ability to make adjustments to meet
market demands. He stated he did not recall discussion regarding the conversation of
slides to slips.
Babcock questioned whether a conversion rate of one slide for one slip is appropriate.
Foster stated he believed slides restrict the size of boats that can be parked on them.
He suggested a conversion rate of 10' x 20' is probably too high and that he may be
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 6
open to consider a conversion rate provided it is more in line with boat size.
LeFevere stated in the Minnetonka Yacht Club application considered by the Board,
they found the conversion of slides to slips at'a grandfathered site could not be done
without a special density license. He added the Board also found that the conversion of
slides to slips was an increase in slip size. He noted the number of watercraft is
grandfathered in at the Association even if the Board continues to believe that the
conversion of slides to slips is an increase in slip size. He concluded they could place
the slides in the lake as slips, provided the square footage of all slips does not exceed
what is currently licensed in the water.
Germanson stated he supported the work of the Board to not allow for growth ~f boats
on the lake. He added he believed allowing the conversion of slides to slips would
allow for growth of boats on the lake and that he is not favorable toward this.
Colville asked if there is a size limitation on boat sizes on slides.
Foster stated there is not a limitation provided you do not put a structure on the slide.
He added there is a practical limitation on the size of boats that can be stored on a
slide.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Rascop seconded to direct the attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Order for approval to convert two buoys from the District
Mooring Area to two 11' x 24' slips.
Babcock asked LeFevere if Suerth has a conflict of interest because his name is on the
application and whether he should be allowed to vote.
Suerth stated there would not be a quorum if he were not alloy?ed to vote.
LeFevere stated for the purpose of voting, being disqualified from a vote would not
affect the quorum.
VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (1, Suerth); motion carried.
MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to deny the proposed conversion of
slides to slips.
Babcock stated there may be a compromise; however, he believed the proposed
conversion by the Association is an expansion.
Kitchak stated he was not troubled with conversion of slides to slips, but he was
concerned with the conversion rate.
Ambrose said he is open to more discussion on the conversion rate.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 7
e
e
Foster stated it might be mor~ appropriate to table the application rather than deny it.
He added this would allow staff and the Board to come up a feasible conversion rate.
He suggested allowing for credit of 100 square feet may be an appropriate conversion
rate.
Kitchak stated the applicant should work with staff in modifying or amending the
application for the 4/8/98 meeting -
MOTION:
Nelson moved, Ambrose seconded to table further discussion until the
4/8/98 meeting to allow staff to come to an equivalent conversion rate for
slides to slips.
VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (1, Suerth); motion carried.
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
LAKE USE AND RECREATION
A. Staff recommendation on 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey Proposals.
Nybeck stated two proposals to conduct the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density
Survey were received by the 3/13/98 deadline. He noted Schoell and Madson
submitted a proposal of $13,389.24 to conduct the study and that Clear Air, Inc.
submitted a proposal of $16,095.00. He concluded that he and Tim Kelly, MN DNR
Planner, reviewed the proposals and recommended the Board award the contract to
Schoell and Madson.
MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to accept the pr6posal from Schoell and
Madsen in the amount of $13,389.24 to conduct the 1998 Lake Minnetonka
Boat Density Survey.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Minutes of 3/13/98 meeting.
B. 3/13/98 meeting report.
Suerth reviewed the Minutes from the 3/13/98 meeting. He covered the following points:
· John Barten led a discussion regarding water quality on Lake Minnetonka and the
correlation it might have with milfoil growth. He noted Barten discussed the
generally poorer water quality at the west end of the lake and how the milfoil
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 8
growth might be affected because of the cooler water temperatures.
· He reported that sampling of the sediments at the bottom of the lake is not currently
being done and that it would be very costly.
· Welling reviewed the treatment of Long Lake with alum and reported the number
of calls had increased because of increased water clarity and the growth of milfoil.
· Task Force members were asked to brainstorm and come back with possible long-
range improvement projects for the next meeting for possible future LCMR
application(s). -
· Five new infestations of milfoil were identified in the State of Minnesota.
· Discussion on the use of phosphorous-free fertilizer and that the City of Medina is
considering passing an ordinance prohibiting the use of it.
Germanson stated he believed the City of Medina adopted this ordinance.
Foster stated he believed John Batten should be scheduled in the near future at a Mayor's
Meeting to explain the phosphorus problem to the mayors. He added he believed it would
be beneficial to get the Lake Minnetonka communities involved in considering similar
ordinances and to get their support in changing the labeling requirements.
The Board directed staff to receive copies of the ordinances adopted by the Cities of
Medina, Plymouth, and Shoreview that prohibit the use of fertilizer with phosphorous in it.
Staff was also directed to check into getting this on an agenda at a future Mayor's Meeting.
Foster stated he believed Mayor Bennis from Deephaven coordinates these meetings and he
noted he would contact him regarding this.
MOTION: Nelson moved Rascop seconded to accept the minutes of the 3/13/98
EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting as submitted.
.~..
VOTE: Motion Carried Unanimously
C. 1998 Milfoil Harvest Plans.
Nybeck reviewed the milfoil harvest plans season with the following points:
· The entire harvesting crew from 1997 has notified staff they will be returning. He
added two new staff positions are planned to make the operation more efficient.
First, a floating staff position will assist crew relief around lunches, will assist in
public access clean-up, and will fill-in when other crew members need a day off.
· Both Gene Strommen and Marsh Gabriel have indicated they will be returning in
1998. He noted Strommen has indicated the compensation he received in 1997,
$25 per hour, would be sufficient in 1998. He added Gabriel was compensated at
$25 per hour for mechanical work and $10 per hour for other work in 1997.
· Permit applications have been submitted to the.DNR, trucking bids have been
advertised, and RFP's have been sent to chemical contractors for treating the public
accesses. He noted one change this year is that three public accesses will be treated
this year versus seven in past years.
· Reviewed the breakdown of the 1998 EWM/Exotic Budget.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 9
0
Babcock stated he would like ~o see if the current harvesting crew, or those that are
hired, could continue to harvest after the middle of August, due to the fact that milfoil
continues to grow after this.
Suerth stated this could be discussed at the next EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting.
Nybeck stated staff is finalizing the text for the zebra mussel educational pamphlet and
is on a fast track to have it formatted and printed prior to the Holiday Crappie Fishing
Tournament. He asked for Board approval for a set amount of funds to keep the
project moving.
The Board suggested Nybeck contact an advertising firm that specializes in pamphlet
design and marketing prior to printing it.
MOTION: Rascop moved, Suerth seconded to authorize up to $4,000 of zebra mussel
funds to finalize the design and printing of the zebra mussel pamphlet.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Rascop moved, Foster seconded to enter into an independent contractor
agreement with Gene Strommen, at an hourly rate of $25, as 1998 EWM
Project Manager.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Rascop moved, Foster second to enter into an independent contractor
agreement with Marsh Gabriel, at hourly rates of $25 and $10, as 1998
EWM Diesel/Hydraulic Mechanic.
D. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
SAVE THE LAKE
Babcock stated he has asked Nybeck to inquire with all agencies and cities affected to
check into and see if there interest in more coordinated signage at the public access ramps
and in the channels between bays. He added he had suggested a meeting be coordinated
sometime this year and that this might be a potential future "Save the Lake" project.
FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers for payment.
· 3/15/98- 3/31/98
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for this period. He noted two additional checks
need to be added to the list for payment of rent to the Freshwater Foundation and to
Charles Schoen for off-site storage.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 10
MOTION: Babcock moved Ambrose seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as
submitted with the two additional checks noted by Nelson.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. February financial summary & balance sheet.
Nelson reviewed the February financial summary and balance sheet.
MOTION: Rascop moved Ambrose seconded to accept the financial report.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
ADMINISTRATION
A. Update on LMCD Office Relocation.
Babcock introduced this agenda item noting that he had discussed this with Nybeck and
that staff could use the Boards assistance. He recommended the Board survey their
own communities and neighborhoods for potential office spaces for the District to
consider. He concluded any possible locations should be communicated to staff to
allow them to compile a list of the top sites to be considered.
Nybeck added when this top list is compiled, staff would like to arrange a Saturday
morning to visit these sites for interested Board members and ~taff in the near future.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
7. EXCUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT
Nybeck reported on the following:
· Staff renSwed the CD at Marquette Bank in Mound and that an updated list of
investments is included for the Board.
· An April Calendar of Events is included for Board review, highlighting the Holiday
Crappie Fishing Tournament on Saturday, 4/25.
· He would be attending an all day meeting on Wednesday, 4/1, in Hudson WI regarding
EWM and other aquatics.
· The criminal lawsuit that challenges the authority 'of Water Patrol Special Deputies to
make arrests is still pending. He asked Board members to request the correspondence
--~---~: that staff has received from Steve Tallen if they are interested.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 1998
Page 11
· He noted that Jay Randall, MN DNR, has expressed some interest in cost-sharing of
billboards and poster-board for education of the public on zebra mussels and other
exotics.
· In a follow-up from the 3/11/98 meeting, staff requested a Special Event application
from Lake Minnetonka Sailing School.
8. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
Members present: Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Jim Funk, Dennis Hopkins. Also present
were: Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Clare T.
Link. Absent and excused were: Gordy Tulberg and Mayor Polston. Also present were the
following interested citizens: Daryl Nehring, Jonathan Paul, Allan Coley, Colleen Healy, K.
Rudik, April Martenson, Bob Schmidt, Mark Hanus, Steve Solmonson, Mark Smith, Gene &
Gretchen Smith, Linda Mack, Becky Cheme, Greg Knutson, Margo Hopkins, Cary
Engelbrekson, Gene Abegglen, Darrin Lee, Wes & Rene LaFortune, Andrea Ahrens, Kathleen
Ree, Gene Bergland and Ken Ryan.
1. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 16, 1998 DCAC MINUTES
Motion by. Funk, seconded by Ahrens to approve the minutes of the January 16,
1998 DCAC meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Items 4 and 5 will be moved to the beginning of the agenda.
4. ROANOKE ACCESS MULTIPLE DOCK
Ahrens noted the City Council has referred this item back to the DCAC, because letters
were received from non-abutting dock siteholders after the DCAC first reviewed the
item. He noted this is the last access on Devon Commons to get a multiple dock.
Bob Schmidt discussed his concerns about the proposed dock configuration and
maneuverability of his boat. He was not in favor of the reduction in the number of slips.
He was also opposed to being limited to having just one slip.
Ahrens asked who would be sharing the dock with him under his proposal. Schmidt
indicated it would be one of the dock users. Ahrens indicated it would be possible to
provide a dock at the end because of maneuverability problems. Commissioners
discussed relocating the Gabos dock to correct problems. Fackler stated a letter has been
received from Mr. Gabos which was given to those present.
Greg Knutson stated many of the existing dock site holders do not want the multiple
dock. He stated more don't want it than do want it. Hopkins noted it is voluntary.
Ahrens asked what his opposition is to the multiple dock. Knutson cited the narrowness
of the area and problems with maneuverability.
Gene Smith, 4705 Island View discussed his concerns about the multiple dock proposal.
He was concerned about the City adding more docks to it in the future. Goldberg noted
a limit on the number of boats would limit the number of docks allowed. Smith stated
he is opposed to the multiple dock.
DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 19, 1998
Ahrens discussed the purpose of the multiple dock program. He stated the proposed
dock can be reduced to 75' rather than the proposed 100'. Hopkins noted it is a
voluntary program, and they do not have to move to the multiple dock. Once they move,
they cannot go back.
Renee LaFortune, 4649 Island View Drive didn't think the use of the lakeshore is taken
away because of the multiple dock. She stated many residents are very pleased with the
multiple dock program. She believed it would be very accessible.
Ahrens agreed there are benefits to the multiple dock system. He stated a letter was
received from Mr. Stead in support of the multiple dock system. In response to a
question from the audience, Ahrens discussed the width of the area.
Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive stated he is in favor of the dock. He believed
it would clean up the shoreline.
Funk stated the objective originally was to reduce congestion. Ahrens also noted there
is a petition from nine abutters who are in favor of the multiple dock. Commissioners
discussed the program in detail.
Ahrens proposed the dock be installed on a trial basis, a survey be done at the end of
the year, and the dock could be moved somewhere else.
Greg Knutson stated more congestion will be created with a multiple dock in a small
Gretchen Smith, 4705 Island View stated Barb Casey is against the multiple dock.
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to reconunend to the City Council that
a multiple slip dock be placed at the end of the Ronaoke f'we lane on the
Devon Commons at dock site 42043 for a one year period. The multiple dock
should be a straight dock not to exceed 75 feet in length to accommodate up
to three boats. Dock sites 41477, 41956 and 41866 will be ellmiated, and the
site holders 41477 and 41956 will be placed on the city multiple dock. Dock
site 42043 will become the site of the multiple dock with the dock site holder
placed on the multiple dock. Dock site holder Schmidt would have the first
choice of dock slips on the multiple dock. Dock site holder 42000 will be
instructed by Dock Inspector to center the dock property on site 42000 so as
to not encroach in the water space allotted to the dock site for the city
multiple dock.
Goldberg stated he is very uncomfortable with the proposal. Motion failed 2-2.
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg to recommend installation of the
multiple dock, 75' in length, straight dock to accommodate two boats. Dock
2
DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 19, 1998
sites 41477 and 41866 will be eliminated and site holder 41477 will be placed
on the city multiple dock. Dock site 42043 will become the site of the
multiple dock with the dock site holder placed on the multiple dock. Dock
site holder Schmldt would have the first choice of dock slips on the multiple
dock.
Ahrens explained the motion and explained how congestion would be eliminated.
Goldberg stated he could vote for this provided there is feedback from those concerned
prior to the City Council meeting.
Motion carried 3-1.
Schmidt stated he is opposed to eliminating any docks. Knutson stated he is not in
favor of having the multiple dock sites in front of his property.
Fackler stated this item would be sent to the City Council for their review on April 14.
FISHING AREA PROPOSED ON BLACK LAKE CHANNEL
Hopkinq discussed the proposal for a fishing area on Black Lake Channel. He noted
areas on an overhead which would be cleared out in order to have more available
shoreline. He noted it is deep enough for fishing. A resident noted there are only three
good weeks of fishing in the area because of milfoil, and a fishing area would be a waste
of money. Hopkins stated the milfoil would be treated. He noted the area is well used
for fishing.
Ken Ryan, owns three lots abutting this area stated he owns three lots adjacent to this
property. A majority of the lots are under water. He submitted a letter questioning the
ownership of the property, whose idea it was, and funding for the project. He stated he
is opposed to this proposal. He believed it is intended to accommodate only a few
residents. Hopkins stated the purpose is to keep it for the use of the local residents.
Jonathan Paul, 4679 Wilshire stated no parking is permitted on any of the streets in this
area. He discussed discrepancies on the overhead. He explained why he is opposed to
the fishing pier (sic). He stated he didn't believe this is a good fishing area. He was
concerned about after hour activities, need for additional policing, garbage, sanitation
facilities, illegal parking, and trespassing. He believed the money should be used to
improve an already existing area. He submitted a petition of signatures in opposition to
the proposal.
Cam,_ Engelbrightsen. 4626 Bedford Road didn't believe that many more people would
use the area if it were upgraded. He supported t~e project.
Alan Cole_v. Denbigh Road believed there is room to fish in the area right now. He
suggested only a couple smaller areas be cleared out rather than the entire 100 feet.
DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 19, 1998
Ahrens was c.~n~rned about the proposal and the number of people in opposition.
Kathleen Ree, Wilshire Blvd. stated she is opposed to the proposal. She suggested
putting a dock in Black Lake instead.
Darrin Lee, Denbi~h Road said he is also opposed to the proposal.
~ stated he is opposed to the removal of the brush.
Daryl Nehring, Denbigh stated there is already a fishing area there and was not in favor
of the area being overused.
Hopkins stated he would withdraw the entire idea if space is provided along Stratford.
Funk stated the a~ea would be more usable if the sand washed into the lake is removed
in addition to some milfoil treatment.
Ahrens stated he would be opposed to the proposal.
Goldberg asked if the sand removal and milfoil treatment would be met with the
approval of the residents. Fackler noted the sand would be removed by a barge. He
explained how much of the sand would be removed.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Funk to consider this on a 1-year test basis
limiting it to dredging of the sediment and treatment of milfoil.
Ahrens believed the sediment should be funded by the street fund.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Hopkins to amend the motion to consider
this on a 1-year test basis limiting it to dredging of the sediment in front of
the storm drain (funding by the street fund) with removal by barge and
treatment of milfoil. If no funds are available in the street fund, the dock
fund would be used. Motion carried 3-1.
Fackler stated this will be going to the City Council on the 14th of April for their final
approval.
13. ADJOURN
Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Clare T. Link
Recording Secretary
4
March 10, 1998
Dear Parade Participant:
The Mound City Days Committee is happy to announce our annual celebration to be
held June 19 and 20, 1998. We had an excellent parade last year and anticipate the 1998
parade to be even bigger and better. The Mohawk Jaycees and the Northwest Tonka
Lions are co-sponsoring the celebration this year and we are looking forward to a great_
weekend.
We invite you to join us on Saturday, June 20, at 10 a.m. to participate in the parade
with your float, band, car or other parade unit. Please fill out the enclosed Parade
Registration Form and return it to us by May 1. If you plan to take part in this year's
parade, we will get back to you with a map of how to get to Mound, our staging area,
staging time and other pertinent information.
If you have any questions, please call us. We are looking forward to having you join us.
Sincerely,
Mike Sorensen
Kim Sorensen
Lorrie Ham
Everett l~ischer
Parade Co-Chairs
4437 Radnor Road
Mound, Mn. 55364
TELEPHONE: 472-1187 (evenings) or 953-2030 (days) Mike Sorensen, Chair
MOUND CITY DAYS CELEBRATION
PARADE REGISTRATION FORM
JUNE 20, 1998
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND COMPLETE ALL ITEMS
Group/Company Represented
Address
Phone #
Contact Person- Name
Address
City/Zip
Phone
Briefly describe Parade Unit
Home Work
for cable television commentary:
(PLEASE INCLUDE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND/OR OTHER
UNITS YOU PLAN TO ENTER IN THE PARADE, SO WE LEAVE PLENTY OF
ROOM FOR YOU IN THE STAGING AREA.)
RELEASE OF LIABILITY: In consideration of the right to participate; I, and any others with
me hereby release the Mound City Days Celebration Committee, the City of Mound and their
employees or agents or any others from any known or unknown damages, injuries, losses,
judgments, and/or claims from any cause or factor involved. Further, each entrant expressly
agrees to indemnify all of the foregoing entities, persons and bodies from any and ali liabilities
resulting from the conduct of entrants, spectators, or any participant assisting or cooperating with
entrant and under direction or control of entrant.
OPERATION: The Mound City Days Celebration Committee, the City of Mound and their
employees or agents reserve the right to restrict entrants to acceptable behavior during any and all
activities. Violation of behavior deemed unacceptable by any hosting bodies will subject individual
to removal.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
Hennevin County
RECEIVED :;,'- 2 lg98 March 31, 1998
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Re: CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive) at Cypress Lane
CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive5 at Wilshire Boulevard
Dear Mr. Shukle:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 3, 1998, concerning the two intersections captioned
above. You asked for clarification of some of the differences between these two locations and CSAH
11 O/Three Points Boulevard that was signalized approximately two years ago.
It is county policy that before a signal is constructed the location must first meet at least one of the traffic
signal wan'ants which are contained in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MMUTCD). When the city requested the installation of a signal at Three Points Boulevard, the then
available data indicated that three of the traffic signal warrants were met. Conversely, the most recent
data obtained for CSAH 15 at Cypress Lane and at Wilshire Boulevard indicate that none of the traffic
signal warrants are met. Thus traffic signals would not be agreed to by the county at the present time.
County board adopted policy also directs that the county will consider the installation of a signal only if
the Priority Factor exceeds a value of 30. The Priority Factor consists of the traffic volume warrants
described above and two safety related factors, accident frequency and accident severity. The Priority
Factor for the Three Points Boulevard intersection was 37 when we wrote you in September of 1994.
Thus, in accord with the city's request and willingness to participate in the cost of a signal and the
intersection having met at least one traffic volume warrant, and having a sufficiently high priority factor,
it was mutually agreed-to install a signal.
Regarding your question about comparison of accident rates we offer the following. When the city's
request for Three Points Boulevard was received the annual accident rate was 1.57 accidents per million
vehicles entering the intersection. The accident rate was more than three times the countywide average of
0.48 at that time for a similar type of intersection.
Department of Public Works
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496
(612)930-2500 FAX:(612)g30-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
March 31, 1998
Page 2
The annual accident rate at CSAH 15 and Cypress Lane over the last 5 years (1992-1996) is 0.81
accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. The similar rate for the intersection of CSAH 15
and Wilshire Boulevard is 1.0. While the accident rates at Cypress Lane and at Wilshire Boulevard are
above average they are not as far above average as was Three Points Boulevard was when it was decided
to signalize that intersection. As you can see from the description above, the decision on installing a
signal involves consideration of both signal warrants and the locations Priority Factor comprised of:
traffic volumes, accident frequency, and accident severity. While a comparison of a particular accident
rate to the countywide average can alert us to the need for further investigation, it does not automatically
result in a traffic signal installation. If a location has significantly greater than average accident rates and
does not meet signal warrants, we generally do a more detailed accident analysis to try to determine what
other measures can be taken to reduce the accident rate.
We are pulling together information to further analyze the accidents at the two captioned intersections to
determine if there is any other solution that might be utilized to solve concerns about the intersections.
We will communicate our findirrgs to you in the coming weeks. We thank you for your understanding in
this matter and for conveying the information to the city council so that we can continue working toward
a solution.
Sincerely,
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ:jrh
cc: Jim Grube
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
March 3, 1998
Mr. Thomas D. Johnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
Hennepin County Dept. of P.W.
320 Washington Ave. S.
Hopkins, MN 55343-8496
Dear Tom:
Re:
CSAH 15 (Shoreline Dr.) at Cypress Lane
CSAH 15 (Shoreline Dr.) at Wilshire Blvd.
Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1998 regarding the above. I presented your letter to the
City Council at their meeting of February 24, 1998. They had some questions regarding your
f'mdings and wanted me to contact you regarding your conclusions.
They wanted to know how the accident rate at these two intersections compared with those at the
intersection of CSAH 110 and Three Points Blvd. in determining that a stoplight was warranted at
that location approximately 2 years ago? In addition, they were confused on how the accidents at
these intersections exceed the County average but yet do not qualify for a traffic signal?
I would appreciate a response to these two questions at your earliest convenience.
City Manager
pr~nted on recycled paper
RECEIVEE]. 2 ,:1
February 19, 1998
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Re: CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive) at Cypress Lane
CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive) at Wilshire Boulevard
Dear Ed:
As per your request of December 15, 1997, our division has recently conducted a traffic investigation to
determine whether traffic signal warrants are met at the referenced intersections.
Copies of the signal warrant review and the individual warrant results based on twenty-four approach
counts and a radar speed survey have been previously forwarded. The results of our investigation indicate
that none of the warrants for the installation of a traffic signal or multiway (3-way) stop are met for either
intersection.
Our investigation also included a review of the traffic accident history at these intersections for the five
year period 1992 through 1996. There have been a total of seventeen motor vehicle accidents at Cypress
Lane and twenty-four motor vehicle accidents at Wilshire Boulevard during this period. The average
accident rate for this period is, respectively, 0.81 and 1.00 accidents per million vehicles entering the
intersection. The accident rate at both intersections is above the county average accident rate of 0.44
Acc/MV for a tee intersection.
Based on our investigation, there is insufficient side street volume to warrant any traffic control changes at
this time. However, there is concern with the accident history and, as rime permits, we will conduct a
more detailed accident analysis to attempt to derive a conclusion or recommendation as a result.
If you have any questions, please call me at 930-2680.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Johnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ:jrh
cc: Jim Grube
Department of public Works
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkats, Mimesota 55343-8496
{612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696
c H A R
T E
R E
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-maih artys~kennedy-graven.com
RECEIVEEI ,'APR -.. 7 19,qI
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Dire~ Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstrommen/~ kennedy-graven.corn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SPA Executive Committee
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
Notice of SRA Quarterly Meeting
There will be n._qo executive committee meeting before the April 15, 1998, Board Meeting. I hope
to see you at the 4:00 p.m. meeting.
JMS141000
SU160-3
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven, co m
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Dire~t Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:j st rommen~ kennedy-g raven.corn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
Notice of SRA Quarterly Meeting
On April 15, 1998, at 4:00 p.m. at The City of Maple Grove Community Center, the SRA will
hold its quarterly meeting. (Map attached).
In addition to updates on a number of important issues, the Board will be discussing and granting
preliminary approval to a budget for 1999. (Agenda attached). Please RSVP to Shannon by
10:00 a.m. April 13, 1998 at 337-9279.
JMS :sms
JMS140692
SU160-3
~2 494 ~4S4 19~8,0~-~0 14:~ #780 P.~2~I~
The City of Maple Grove
Directions to Maple Grove Community Center
~l~l~I,E GRO~
ADDRESS: 12951 Weaver Lake Road (same as Co. Rd. 109)
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Information: '494-6390
From the North:
* Go South on 1-94, exit bnto Weaver Lake Road (County Road 109). Go East for 6 blocks.
Maple Grove Community ~enter is on the South side of Weaver Lake Road and East ofCub
Foods.
FROM :M~PLEGROUE~ PP~RKS&REC~ ~ ~ ~ G12 494 G4S4 1998.0~-~0 14:~ ~78~
-... 1~ (~ ~ SS~ Ave~. Go 3 ~es W~n Co ~ 109. Maple ~ove Co~~
· ": .... C~t~ is on ~e Sou~ Side ofro~ 1 block E~t of Cub Foods.
From the South:
*Go ~orth on Interstate 494. At the 1-94/I-694 interchange, follow 1-94 to the Northwest.
Take the Weaver ~ Rd Exit. Go East on Weaver Lake Road. Maple Grove Comm,,mity
Center is on the South side o£Weaver Lake Road and East of Cub Food~.
From the East:
*Go West on Interstate 694. At the 1-94/I-694 interchange, follow 1-94 to the Northwest.
Take the Weaver Lake Road Exit. Go Fast on Weaver Lake Road for 6 blocks. Maple
Grove Community Center is on the Soufla side of W~ver Lake Road and East of Cub
Foods. '
_FMaplg Grove Home Page [ City Ggvemment J E_eonomic Develooment J Parks and R¢creafion ]
[ Policq ] Fire~ I Maple Grove Community I~ [ Whats New?]
AGENDA FOR THE QUARTERLY
MEETING OF THE
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
Maple Grove Community Center, Maple Grove, Minnesota
April 15, 1998
4:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
3. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
4. COMMUNICATIONS:
- (Memorandum # 1)
0
OLD BUSINESS:
- PUC ROW Rulemaking (Memorandum #2)
- US West Cost Proceeding (Memorandum #3)
- Area Code Proceeding (Memorandum
- US West rate filing (Memorandum #5)
Electric--telephone undergrounding issue (Memorandum #6)
NEW BUSINESS:
SRA Proposed 1999 Budget (Memorandum #7)
LOCATION AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING:
CLAIMS
ADJOURNMENT
JMS141003
C H A R T E R E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: atrys@kennedy-graven.co m
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e .mail:jstrommen{~ kermedy -graven.corn
MEMO #1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City.Managers/Administrators/Direct°rs/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
Withdrawal-St. Louis Park and North St. PaulAnterest-Lino Lakes
We received two notices of withdrawal for 1999, the Cities of St. Louis Park and North St. Paul.
Both Cities noted a cost benefit analysis as the driving force; not any disagreement with SRA
positions or recent work. The City of North St. Paul operates its own municipal electric
distribution utility. St. Louis Park had nine votes and an assessment of $3,600 annually. North
St. Paul had three votes and an assessment of $1,200 annually. Both Cities have indicated that
this is a final decision that is not subject to review. The Proposed 1999 Budget reflects the
reduction of $4,800 in assessment funds.
On a positive note, the City of Lino Lakes requested information on the SRA. If any of you
know staff or council at Lino Lakes, a follow-up may be helpful.
JMS:sms
JMS141007
SU160-3
C H A R
T E
R £
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys~ken nedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstrommen~ kennedy-graven.eom
.MEMO 6'2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
PUC Right-of-Way Rulemaking
The Public Utilities Commission continues its year long process of promulgating rules for right-
of-way ("ROW") use by telecommunications carriers in city ROWs. The scheduled completion
date is January 1, 1999. The SRA is not participating in this process. It receives periodic
updates from the League of Cities representatives who are pursuing this matter on behalf of
cities.
Those cities without comprehensive ROW permit ordinances should consider passing the League
Model Ordinance or abridged versions passed by Anoka and Edina (copies available on request).
The League document serves as a basis for PUC review and is familiar to the industry.
It is clear there will be some unsettled issues throughout the 1998 construction season. Among
the areas that may be subject to dispute are the costs imposed by cities for permits, if they are
significantly greater than previous nominal fees charged.
For further information, please call Jim Strommen at 337-9233.
JMS141010
C H A R T E R E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@ken nedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstromment~ kennedy-g raven.eom
MEMORANDUM
MEMO #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
The US West Cost Proceeding
During March 1998, the parties to the US West generic cost proceeding submitted extensive
testimony on the results of the US West and AT&T cost models. The cost model materials and
resulting testimony are voluminous. The SRA has opted to only monitor these proceedings in
a limited way, given the cost of other matters such as the 612 Area Code.
At issue in this case is the cost to lease telephone facilities to competitors--wholesale. Retail
rates will not be established until the Universal Service Proceedings at the federal and state levels
can be concluded sometime in 1999.
Issues
The following factors make this a complicated process for retail rates that will ultimately be
charged to consumers:
1. Wide range of facility cost.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 promote, s competition and seeks to usher in
wholesale and possibly retail rates based on cost. The cost models for the customer
(loop) of a telephone company ranges from as little as $6 to $8 a month in the highly
JMS141022
SU16D-3
developed urban downtown areas to well over $100 a month in the more remote rural
areas.
If these are averaged ($16-19 month) to the competing companies such as AT&T or MCI,
a true cost-based rate system can never be achieved. Competitors will be paying too
much for the densely populated areas and not enough for the rural areas.
2. Universal Service.
Federal and state law also requirements that as many residents as possible be connected
to lifeline telephone service. Because rural areas cost so much more per line, they have
been subsidized through artificially higher rates (in densely populated areas). In order to
implement both a competitive telephone service system and prevent prohibitive cost
imposed on remote customers, the Universal Service Fund is being established at the
federal and state levels. This Fund will be supported by the telecommunications carders.
This will be used-to support the high-cost areas, as well as residents with insufficient
funds to pay the normal retail rate.
3. Geographic Deaveraging.
A central focus of this proceeding is whether the wholesale costs should be deaveraged
based on location of customer in rural or urban wire centers. If so, should retail rates
also be deaveraged? Most of the witnesses favor a deaveraging of wholesale rates with
a universal service fund remedy to avoid huge disparities in the retail rates. Minnesota
law has a strong policy supporting averaged rates to eliminate the rate disparity between
the Twin Cities Area and the more rural areas.
Impact on SRA Cities.
Generally, the cost data for wholesale rates would support lower retail rates for the inner ring of
SRA cities. Fully developed suburbs with medium to high density are among the least costly
areas to serve. As one moves out into the less developed suburban areas, the cost of the "loop"
increases. Such outer ring suburbs could conceivably be affected negatively by a straight cost-
based service rate structure. The PUC, however, is likely to be conservative about any increase
in telephone rates in the less populated areas.
Positions of US West and Competitors.
Generally, US West favors a status quo in wholesale and probably retail rates. Rather than
substantially benefiting the high density areas at the expense of low density areas, US West seeks
a more averaged pricing structure.
In contrast, the competing companies argue the cost-based policy of the Telecommunications Act
and seek more significant deaveraging. If their position prevails, it is more likely that the highly
populated areas would see reductions and the lesser populated areas of the Twin Cities either the
same rates or slightly higher. It is too early to tell whether any rate increase would ever be
implemented by the PUC, however.
JMS141022
SU160-3
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STROMMEN
A~omey a~ Law
Direa Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstmmmen(~kermedy-graven.corn
MEMO g4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City 'Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Srrommen
April 6, 1998
The 612 Area Code Proceeding
As you may have been made aware from news reports, the PUC reaffirmed, once again, its
municipal boundaries order originally reached in November 1997. A new order will be issued
reflecting its decision at the March 31, 1998 hearing.
Latest Reconsideration Motions--US West and Frontier.
On February 17, 1998, both US West and Frontier brought a petition before the PUC
asking it to reconsider the January 26, 1998 order reafFm'ning municipal boundaries for
the 612 area code split. Both US West and Frontier argued that it was not technically
feasibleto do so by January 1, 1999. The SRA actively intervened, questioned the basis
for the motion and met with representatives of affected cities and US West, including
New Brighton and Shoreview.
Other cities affected were Lino Lakes, Eagan, Rosemount, Apple Valley and Lakeville.
Bumsville could conceivably have been affected if the PUC had redrawn its area code
boundaries to the original proposal.
JMS141041
SU160-3
o
U S West Withdrew Petition.
In the face of mounting negative publicity and through further technical investigation, U
S West withdrew its petition and will follow municipal boundaries. U S West stated it
may seek to recover its cost from the ratepayer at a future time. The PUC has granted
no right of recovery from the ratepayer for the cost of municipal boundary division. The
cost has been estimated by U S West to be anywhere from $10 to $25 million over and
above the wire center boundary area code splits.
Frontier Maintained its Motion and was Denied.
In the face of U S West withdrawal, Frontier maintained its request before the PUC. The
PUC rejected Frontier's motion at the March 31, 1998 hearing. The vote was four to
zero, with Commissioner Johnson absent. Commissioner Johnson had been a strong
advocate of the municipal boundaries, so it is clear there was a strong consensus by the
PUC.
Effect of Order.
The net effect of the multiple hearings and re-hearings on this matter is that the 612-651
area code split will occur as originally ordered, by January 1, 1999. The divisions will
be along municipal boundaries, the first of its type in the United States. The technology
used by the companies will be at their discretion, so long as the boundaries are
established.
This is one clear example of a successful joint effort by municipalities in establishing a
consistent position and letting their views be known to an ultimately receptive PUC. SRA
and non-SRA cities did a tremendous job of establishing a unified position opposing
municipal splits. All cities passed resolutions or sent letters to the PUC articulating
reasons that it was problematic to deviate from municipal boundaries.
There will be, in all likelihood, another area code change in the Minneapolis and western
suburban area. The PUC has strongly asserted its position that these also will be along
municipal boundaries. Yet, U S West will likely seek recovery of cost for its anticipated
requirement of municipal boundaries. The earliest this matter would be heard is in the
year 2000.
JMS141041
SU16D~3
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 relepfione
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys~kennedy-graven.co m
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attomey at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstromment~ kea'mexty-graven.com
MEMO .//:5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
The US West Rate Filing
US West continues to negotiate with the various parties on its recently filed Alternative Form of
Regulation (AFOR). In the AFOR, US West would freeze rates for a period of up to five years,
but be allowed to increase services that are regarded as competitive. There is no decision
pending on this case. There have been active settlement discussions.
The SRA has taken a position opposing a provision in the tariff sought by US West. That
provision allows US West to pass through "special charges" by local government units. In my
discussions with the attorney for US West, it is clear that US West would seek to pass through
costs that it may regard as unreasonably high, even if fully justified by a cost incurred by the
city.
It would be unprecedented to pass through, e.g., as a significant road excavation cost on a
customer's bill.-This would cause a city council to appear as if it were taxing its residents when,
in fact, it is only recovering the cost actually incurred for the undertaking.
While US West acknowledges that legitimate costs can be recovered without characterizing them
as taxes, it seeks through this provision to contest such costs that US West may regard as
unreasonably high. We will object to any such provision and appeal to the PUC if US West is
unwilling to delete it.
JMS141027
SU160-3
C
H A R
TERE
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Al~omey ~ Law
Dire~t Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstrommen~ kermedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City .Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
Electric/Telephone Undergrounding Issue
The previously reported NSP-Oakdale case on electric undergrounding has reached a conclusion
before the District Court.
The decision is very favorable to cities, affirming municipal authority to require an electric utility
to underground its facilities, under the terms of the Oakdale ordinance, and possibly not be
required to pay for the additional cost.
If anyone is interested in a copy of the opinion, please contact my secretary, Shannon, at 337-
9279. The terms of the ordinance are set forth in the opinion.
NSP may appeal this decision. Whether NSP will appeal may be known by the time of the
meeting on April 15, 1998.
Telephone undergrounding authority of cities is less explicit than electric undergrounding
authority. Yet, cities' rights to locate and relocate telephone facilities are prominently included
in the 1997 telecommunications ROW legislation. Cities may want to extend the Oakdale
ordinance to include telecom.
JMS141028
C H A R T E R E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
JnMgs M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
¢-mall.'jstrommcn~ke~medy-gravcn.com
MEMO
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
April 6, 1998
SRA Proposed 1999 Budget
Attached is the Proposed 1999 SPA Budget based on a best estimate of issUes and cost. When
new issues arise, such as the 612 area code matter, reductions in other areas are made necessary,
e.g., US West cost proceeding.
JMS141030
SU160-3
1999 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY PROPOSED BUDGET
1998
Assets:
Cash and Investments (12/31/97)
Membership Assessments~
$9,638
77,600
TOTAL
Anticipated 1998 Expenses:
US West Cost Investigation/Retail Rate Deaveraging
612 Area Code Proceeding2
US West Rate Case
PUC Right-of-Way Rulemaking
Electric-Gas Deregulation
ROW Task Force3
General (fees and disbursements)
$20,000
23,000
5,000
3,000
3,000
8,000
15,000
TOTAL
($77,000)
Reserve at December 31, 1998:
Assets:
Carryover from 1998
Membership Assessments4
1999
$10,238
72,800
$)0,238
TOTAL
$83,038
Anticipated 1999 Expenses:
Right-of-Way Issues (Legislation/PUC)
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging
Electric-Gas Issues (Rate Cases or Deregulation)
General Matters (fee and disbursements)
$5,000
25,000
22,000
15,000
TOTAL
($67,000)
Estimated Reserve at December 31, 1999:
$.17,03S
~This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or
fraction thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 40 SRA members.
2This includes unpaid carry-over from 1997.
3This is upaid carry-over from 1997.
4This number is based on assessment of 38 members. (minus St. Louis Park and North St.
Paul).
JMSl41006
SU160-3
Mi,,ehaha Creek
Watt,['si]ed District
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Email:
admin@minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers:
in E. Thomas
ient
C. Woodrow Love
Vice President
Pamela G. Blixt
Treasurer
Monica Gross
Secretary
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Office:
Diane P. Lynch
District Administrator
Printed pn recycled paper containing
at least 30% post consumer wasle.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1998
Stormwater Task Force
Diane Lynch, District Administrator
Reminder Notice
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 8 from
2:00-4:00 p.m. at the Minnetonka Community Center, 14600
Minnetonka Blvd. The meeting will be held in the Shady Oak
Room.
(For those of you who did not attend the meeting on March 24%
the two rule change copies will be mailed to you)
AGENDA
Side-by-side review of the Draft Rule Changes
Erosion control measures
Public notice requirement
Other
CC: Board of Managers
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSI-W~D DISTRICT
INTERIM RULE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & EROSION CONTROL FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Require stormwater management facilities to be included in land development projects
where practicable and effective.
(b) Manage stormwater runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis throughout the District to:
(i) promote effective water quality treatment, where feasible, prior to discharge to
surface waterbodies and significant wetlands;
(ii) to limit developed peak rates of runoff into major surface water bodies to less than,
or equal to, existing peak rates; and
(iii) promote infiltration of precipitation and runoff.
(c) Require preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for land development
activities, during the period of construction.
2. REGULATION. Except as provided herein, prior to commencing any land altering activities, a
developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway uses shall submit a
stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan to the District in conformity with the requirements
of this rule and secure a permit from the District approving the stormwater management plan and the
erosion control plan. Except as provided herein, a stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan
are required for new development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site. The managers will review
a stormwater management plan and the erosion control plan only after the applicant demonstrates that the
project has received preliminary approval from the municipality indicating compliance with existing
municipal plans. (Please refer to the "Summary of Regulatory Requirements" below.)
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
LANDUSF. JPROJECT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
SINGLE FAMILY HOME NO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION
SUBDIVISIONS NO PERMIT BMP'$ RUNOFF PATE RUNOFF
LOT SIZE > 1/2 ACRE CONTROL, QUALITY AND
RURAL RESIDENTIAL BMP'S PATE CONTROL.
(SINGLE FAMILY HOME) BMP'S
SUBDIVISIONS NO PERMIT BMP'S RUNOFF RUNOFF QL'ALITY AND FATE CONTROL.
LOT SIZE < 1/2 ACRE RATE BMP'S
HIGH DENSITY CONTROL,
RESIDENTIAL BMP'S
(MULTI UNIT)
ROADS. STREETS AND SEE SECTION 2(e) SEE SECTION 2(e)
HIGHWAYS(~)
COMMERCIAL NO PERMIT RUNOFF RATE CONTROL RUNOFF QUALITY AND J;;ATE CONTROL,
INDUSTRIAL AND BMP'S BMP'S
INSTITUTIONAL
SUBDIVISION/PROJECT AREA (acres)
NOTE: Administrative permits will be issued whenever BMP's only are required. All other permits and waivers
require a public hearing.
(a) Single-Family Home Construction. A permit is not required for the construction or
reconstruction of a single family home or its residential appurtenances.
(b) Single-Family, Rural Residential Land Development. A permit is not required for
subdivisions less than five (5) acres with a density of two (2) single family units, or less, per acre.
A permit is required for subdivisions of five (5) acres or more with a density of two (2) single
family units or less per acre, as follows:
(i) For subdivisions of five (5) acres or more but less than ten (10) acres, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required.
(ii) For subdivisions often (10) acres or more but less than twenty (20) acres, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control
provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required.
(iii) For subdivisions of twenty (20) acres or more, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4,
and the water qualit3' provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required.
2
(c) Multi-Unit, High Density Residential Land Development. A permit is not required for
subdivisions less than two (2) acres with a density of more than two (2) units per acre. A permit is
required for subdivisions equal to or greater than 2 acres, with a density, of more than two (2) units
per acre, as follows:
(i) For subdivisions of two (2) acres or more but less than five (5) acres, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required.
(ii) For subdivisions of five (5) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control
provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required.
(iii) For subdivisions of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4,
and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required.
(d) Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Land Development and Additions. A permit is
required for commerciaF, industrial, or institutional development as follows:
(i) A permit is not required for sites less than one-half (1/2) acre.
(ii) For sites of one-half(I/2) acre or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control
provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule will be required.
(iii) For sites of eight (g) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set
forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water
quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule will be required.
(e) Roads, Streets and Highways. A permit is not required for maintenance or improvement
of a public road, street or highway, if the project does not result in a net increase in impervious
surface. A permit is required for a public road, street, or highway project that results in a net
increase in impervious surface area, as follows:
(i) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of less than one (1)
acre, the best management practices in section 3 of this rule will be required.
(ii) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or
more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the best management practi~es
provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section
4 of this rule will be required.
(iii) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surthce of one (1) ac-.a or
more and the total project area is five (5) acres or more, the best management practices
provisions set forth is Section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Section 4,
and the water quality control provisions set forth in Section 5 of this rule will be required.
(iv) A permit is not required for sidewalk and/or walking trail projects.
(v) Sidewalks are not considered as impervious surfaces for the purposes of this rule.
(f) Performance Bond. A performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the
District may be required for construction activity, specifically demolition clearing, grading, and
excavation, that results in the disturbance often (I0) or more acres of land. The District will not
require a performance bond or other ~pe of surety from cities, townships, municipal corporations,
counties, the state or federal government, or agencies of any of the aforementioned.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's) REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Permanent (Structural and Non-structural). Permanent BMP's consist of structural and
non-structural practices. Permanent BMP's must be incorporated in all projects requiring a permit
under this rule and must be consistent with specifications of the MPCA manual "Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas (revised July 1991) and its future revisions. Other permanent B/viP's, not
addressed in the MPCA manual may be allowed on an experimental basis if their use will generate
new and useful data or information regarding effectiveness of the practice. The attached Table I is
a summary oft he MPCA BMP's and their effectiveness for removal of metals, phosphorus, nitrates,
and suspended solids fromm stormwater, and for controlling rates and volumes of runoff.
(b) Temporary. Temporary BMP's must be incorporated in all projects requiring a permit
under this rule, as follows:
(i) An Erosion Control Plan must be_prepared by a qualified individual showing
proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on-site during the period of
construction and showing how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated after
construction.
(ii) The Erosion Control Plan shall be consistent with specifications of the MPCA
manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (revised July 199 l) and its future
revisions.
(iii) Permanent detention/retention ponds, used as temporary sedimentation basins must
be cleaned out after construction is complete.
(iv) Silt fences and hay/straw bales shall be removed after all disturbed areas have been
fully stabilized.
(v) Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodi'ble soils may
be subject to the provisions of Section 2, paragraph (f) of this rule.
4
BMP Type BMP Effectiveness
Metals. Phosphorus Phosphorus NItrate_____~s Solids Floatables Rate Volume Control
Control
Structural
Infiltration (no overflow) high h~gh high high high high yes yes
Wet Detention moderale moderate moderate moderate moderate outlet yes partal
specific
Dry Detention (24 hr) moderate Iow iow Iow moderate outlet yes iow
specific
Oil/grit separators moderate Iow no no Iow yes no no
Skimmers no no no no no yes no no
Grass strip/swale moclerate iow Iow Iow moderate Iow tow Iow
Diwrsions no no no no design sPeafic no paffial partial
Non-structural
Wetlands yes ~,es' yes* yes' yes yes yes partial
organic litter management Iow yes yes yes yes yes no no
Street sweeping yes yes yes - yes yes no no
fertlizer management " .... no no no no
icatch basin cleaning Iow no no no f Iow'-- no no no
Temporary
Temporary silt fence yes yes no no yes"' no no no
Straw bales yes yes no no yes~ no no no
Temporary sediment basra yes yes clesign specific - yes outlet design low
specific specific
Rock entrance pad no no no no yes no no no
· Natural wetlands can also contribute nutrients
-- No data to evaluate effectiveness
'-- Small volumes only
WATER QUANTITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) The peak rate of stormwater runoff shall not increase as a result of thc proposed
development or project. Developed peak rates of runoff shall be controlled such that the existing
peak rates are not exceeded. This criteria shall be analyzed by the applicant and met for runoff
producing events of critical duration with return frequencies of 1, I 0 and 1 O0 years in the
subwatershed in which the site is located.
(b) Natural existing Iow areas will be used, where feasible, for detention of runoff to comply
with rate control criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be
used for design of detention areas and outlets.
(c) The project shall not adversely affect surface water levels offthe site during or after
construction.
o
(d) Runoff tributary to the project must be accommodated in the analyses and design of new
stormwater management facilities.
(e) The volume runoff may not increase due to the project when the receiving area is
landlocked, and not capable of handling the increased volume of runoff. In addition, the applicant
shall either own or have proper rights over the landlocked property, to handle water from the
development. Back-to-back 100-year runoff events will be used to analyze holding capacity and
freeboard for landlocked areas.
(f') Storrnwater detention facilities shall be located above the projected 100-year flood elevation
for the site and within drainage, utility and/or flowage easements to provide access for maintenance.
(g) The outfall structures shall incorporate designs to minimize erosion and scouring.
(h) New buildings and structures shall have door and window openings a minimum of two feet
above the 100 year high water elevation.
WATER QUALITY I:~QUIREMENTS.
(a) Wet detention ponds shall be designed for at least 50% phosphorus removal efficiency. The
applicant shall use the PondNet (or equivalent) model to determine removal efficiency of the pond,
using a 2.5" rainfall. Total tributary drainage area shall be used to calculate permanent pool
volume. Pond outlets shall remove floatables from runoff before discharge for a 1-year event. All
ponds must provide a ten (10) foot safety bench at a slope no steeper than 10H:IV and 2 feet of
freeboard above the 100 year pond level.
(b) The outfall structures shall incorporate desi~s to minimize erosion and scouring.
(c) New buildings and structures shall have door and window openings a minimum of two feet
above the 100 year high water elevation.
KEQUIKED EXHIBITS (SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE).
(a) If the water quantity or water quality provisions set forth in sections 4 and 5 of this rule
apply to a proposed development, plans certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and including or supported by the following items shall accompany the permit
application (one set of plaEs must be full size; one set must be reduced to a maximum size of 11" x
17"):
(i) -
(ii)
Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site and proposed and
existing subwatersheds on-site.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation.
Delineation of existing on-site wetland, shoreland, and/or floodplain areas.
Existing and proposed normal, and 100 year water elevations on-site.
(vi) Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two-foot intervals, related to
NGVD, 1929 datum.
(vii) Construction plans and specifications (if requested by the District) of all proposed
stormwater management facilities.
(viii) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 1, I 0 and 100 year critical
events, existing and proposed conditions.
(ix) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations and models completed to
design the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(x) Documentation indicating conformance ~vith an existing municipal stormwater
management plan. When a municipal plan does not exist, documentation that the project
has received preliminary review and approval from the municipality.
(xi) Delineation of any flowage easements or other property interests dedicated to
stormwater management purposes, including, but not limited to, county or judicial ditches.
(xii) Documentation that the project has received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) if required by the MPCA.
(b) A maintenance agreement must be submitted to the District and recorded with the eounLy
within 10 days of the issuance date of the permit. The maintenance agreement shall address:
storm~ater treatment ponds, outlet structures for ponds, culve~, ouffall structures, and other
stormwater facilities. The maintenance agreement shall specify the methods, schedule and
responsible parties for maintenance and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the
District's Maintenance Agreement Form. A Maintenance Agreement Form will be provided to the
applicant for use or as guidance if the applicant desires to draft a separate maintenance agreement.
(c) Geotechnical soil boring results if available.
EXCEPTIONS.
(a) If the District has approved a municipal stormwater management plan for a municipality., or
for a subwatershed within a municipality, the requirements of this rule may be waived upon a
demonstration of compliance by an individual developer with the municipal plan.
(b) Th~ water quantity requirements of this rule will be waived upon a determination by the
Board of Managers that a downstream facility(les) is in-place, or has been ordered, and the
facility(les) is designed with adequate capacity to limit the peak runoff rate from the subwatershed
under fully developed conditions. The water quantity requirements of this rule may also be waived
upon a determination by the Board of Managers that the time of concentration of the downstream
receiving water body is sufficiently long and that limiting the peak rate of runoff from the project
has either no practical effect or an adverse effect.
(c) The water quality requirements of this rule will be waived upon a determination by the Board of
Managers that a downstream facility(les) is in-place, or has been ordered, and the facility(les) is
designed to remove at least $0% of the phosphorus from ru~offentering the facility from
subwa~ershed under fully developed conditions.
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
RULE B
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & EROSION CONTROL PLAINS
FOR ~r2~,~.rr~U.~.L PP,@~rECTS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Require stormwater facilities to be constructed on individual sites where practicable and
effective.
(b) Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoffon a regional or subwatershed basis and promote
natural infiltration of runoff throughout the District to:
1) provide effective water quality treatment and where possible provide such treatment
prior to discharge to surface waterbodies and wetlands; and
2) so that future peak rates of runoff into major surface water bodies are less than or equal
to existing rates;
(c) Require preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for construction and land
development activities.
2. REGULATION. Except as provided in paragraph 5, prior to commencing any land altering
activities ccnztn:ct:.cn, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public
roadway uses shall submit a stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan to the District in
conformity with the requirements of this rule and secure a permit from the District approving the stormwater
management plan and the erosion control plan. [A stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan
are required for new development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site.] The managers will
review a stormwater management plan and the erosion control plan only after the applicant demonstrates
that the project has received preliminary approval from the municipality indicating compliance with existing
municipal plans.
(a) Single-Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction of a
single family home or its residential appurtenances.
(b) Sim, le-Familv, Rural Residential Development. A permit is not required from the
MCWD for-the construction or reconstruction of sites less than five (5) acres with a density of two
~2) units or less per acre. A permit is required for residential construction or reconstruction with a
densiW of two (2) units or less per acre on sites of five (5) acres or more, as follows:
(i) For construction or reconstruction on sites of five (5) acres or more but less than ten
(10) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are,
required.
Draft - March 24, 1998
(ii) For construction or reconstruction on sites often (10) acres or more but less than
twenty (20) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the
water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required.
(iii) For construction or reconstruction on sites of twenty (20) acres or more, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions
set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are
required.
(c) Residential. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction of residential
subdivisions with a density of more than two (2) units per acre if the site is less than two (2) acres.
A permit is required for construction or reconstruction of residential subdivisions with a density of
more than two (2) units per acre if the site is two (2) acres or greater, as follows:
(i) For construction or reconstruction on a site of two (2) acres or more but less than
five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are
required.
(ii) For construction or reconstruction on a site of five (5) acres or more but less than
eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water
quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required.
(iii) For construction reconstruction on a site of eight (8) acres or more, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions
set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule will
be required.
(d) New Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development and Additions to Existim,
Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development. A permit is required from the MCWD for
the construction of new commercial, industrial, or institutional development [or an a~;.t~on to
~v:~.:~ comm:rcia!, :~'~ .... :~ ^~ ;-~*:'-.~:^-~' deve!cpment] as follows:
~'~'~:*:~"~ the best
(i) For all commercial, industrial, or institutional development or .......... ,
management practices provisions set forth in Section 3 of this rule will be required. [de
minimus?i
{'ii) For construction or a~!t!on activities on sites of one-half (1/2) acre or more but
less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and
the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule will be required.
(iii) For construction er additian activities on sites of eight (8) acres or more, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions
set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule will
be required.
[consider deleting paragraph (e)]
. Draft. March 24, 1998
(e) Reconstructed Commercial~ Industrial or Industrial Development. A permit is required_
for all commercial industrial, or institutional redevelopment or reconstruction activities as follows:
(i) For all commercial, industrial, or institutional redevelopment or reconstruction
activities, the best management practices provisions set forth in Section 3 of this rule will be
required;
(ii) For redevelopment or reconstruction activities that disturb less than five (5) acres
and add less than one (1) acre of impervious surface, the water quality control provisions set
forth in section 4 will be required, only as to the increase in the rate of stormwater runoff
due to the redevelopment or reconstruction;
(iii) For redevelopment or reconstruction activities that disturb five (5) acres or more
and add one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, the water quantity control provisions
set forth in section 4 and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 will be required.
only as to the increase in the rate of stormwater runoff due to the redevelopment or
reconstruction:
(f) Existin~ and New Roads~ Streets and Highways. A permit is not required from the
MCWD for the reconstruction of or addition to a public or private road, street or highway, if the
reconstruction or addition does not result in a net increase in impervious surface. A permit from the
MCWD is required for the construction, reconstruction, or addition to a public or private road,
street, or highway that results in a net increase in impervious surface area, as follows:
(i) For construction, reconstruction, or addition activities that result in a net increase in
impervious surface of one (1) acre or less, the best management practices in section 3 of this
rule will be required.
(ii) For construction, reconstruction, or addition activities that result in a net increase in
impervious surface of one (1) acre or more, the best management practices provisions set
forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water
quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule will be required to treat the increase.
(iii) Municipalities, counties, or state agencies constructing road, street, or highway
improvements may bank mitigation credits for reduction of impervious surface, so that any
stormwater treatment requirements pursuant to sections 4 or 5 of this rule may be met
through the elimination of an equal amount of impervious surface within the MCWD.
(iv) Municipalities, counties, or state agencies constructing road, street, or highway
improvements may enter into cooperative agreements with the MCWD to bank mitigation
credits for each acre foot of stormwater storage and treatment capacity created by the.
municipality, county, or state agency within the MCWD.
[clarify exemption for sidewalks and trails]
(g) Performance Bond. A performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the
District is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the
disturbance of ten (10) or more acres of land. The District will not require a performance bond or
~ ~ ~ Draft-March24,1998
other type of surety from cities, townships, municipal corporations, counties, the state or federal
government, or agencies of any of the aforementioned.
3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REQUIREMENTS. DECISION CP2TEPgA FOR
12,
(a) An Erosion Control Plan must be prepared by a qualified individual shall showing proposed
methods of retaining waterborne sediments on-site during the period of construction and ska!!
showing how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated after construction.
(b) The Erosion Control Plan shall be consistent with specifications of the MPCA manual
"Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (revised July 1991) and its future revisions.
(c) Silt fences shall be removed after all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized.
(d) Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodible soils may require a
cash deposit, performance bond, or other surety in a form satisfactory to the District to ensure
proper, performance and any necessary remedial action.
4. WATER QUANTITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS r~r:r-Tc~r~XT r't>T~rm>~ A r:~r~
(a) The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result of the proposed
development. Developed peak rates of runoff shall be controlled such that the existing peak rates
are not exceeded. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events of critical
duration with return frequencies of 1, 10 and 100 years in the subwatershed in which the site is
located.
(b) Natural existing low areas will be used for detention of runoffto comply with rate control
criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be used for design of
detention areas and outlets.
(c f) The proposed project shall not adversely affect water levels offthe site during or after
construction.
(dg) Runoff draining onto the site must be accommodated in the analyses and design of new
stormwater management facilities.
(_e h) The volume of site runoff may not increase due to the project when the receiving area of said
runoff is landlocked, and not capable of handling the increased volume of runoff. In addition, the
applicant shall either own or have proper rights over the landlocked property to handle water from
the development.
Draft- March 24, 1998
(_f i) All stormwater rate control facilities shall be located above the projected 100-year flood
elevation for the site and within drainage, utility and/or flowage easements to provide access and to
prevent future alteration or encroachment.
(g.~) Water quantity control methods and facilities used or constructed pursuant to
· --~..~,~..-~..-~ ........ · .m.~..~ ...... ~..~.'~' this rule shall be in conformance with approved Municipal Stormwater
Management Plans.
(h k) The outfall structures within wetlands and public waters and wetlands shall incorporate a
stilling-basin, surge-basin, energy dissipater, placement of ungrouted natural rock rip rap or other
devices to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from peak
discharges.
(~ t) All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional structures shall be constructed such
that all door and window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water
elevation of nearby surface waterbodies, wetlands and stormwater basins.
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
(3 e) Wet detention basins shall be required on-site and designed to meet the level of performance
(50% phosphorus removal efficiency) for ponds designed in accordance with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) design recommendations published in sections 4.1-4 through
4.1-5 ("Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas 1991"), and its future revisions. These design
criteria were developed based upon the results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP)(USEPA, 1983). Total site area and any contributing off-site drainage area shall be used to
calculate permanent pool volume. Structural outlets shall remove floatables from ponded runoff for
a I year event. All ponds must provide a ten (10) foot safety bench at a slope no deeper than 10:1.
(h d) Ifa de;'e!~pment ar '~'~, ~ .... · ~,vv.,,~,,.~ ..... * site is less than 40 acres and the Board of Managers
determines that the wet detention and/or stormwater storage requirements would be better addressed
on a regional basis, the applicant may instead contribute to a dedicated District water
quality/stormwater storage fund in lieu of providing the necessary facilities on-site. The fund will
be used in planning, constructing, and maintaining regional detention basins/wetlands.
Contribution to the above fund will only be allowed:
* if an agreement for a regional facility is in place with the affected municipalities; or,
* if there is an existing or planned District regional stormwater facility within the same
subwatershed; or,
* if the Board of Managers determines that another facility in a different subwatershed is of a
higher water quality priority and would better serve the public health and welfare and the
purpose of the watershed law.
The District will utilize funds collected within the same subwatershed, provided that the Board of
Managers may allocate contributions to the dedicated fund for a different subwatershed if the Board
determines that a regional stormwater facility within the same subwatershed is not feasible, or that a
facility in a different subwatershed is of a higher water quality priority and would better serve the
public health and welfare and the purpose of the watershed law. The contribution will be equal to
the cost of the land, basin construction and basin maintenance. Land value will be based on the tax
assessed value and basin costs of $20,000 per acre foot of required pond volume.
{ ~3 Draft-March 24, 1998
At the discretion of the Digtr:.et, the stormwater wet detention and storage requirements for a given
site may be split between on-site facilities and contributions to the District water quality/stormwater
storage fund. e:.o s~ecific r~, Management o.~,:~
..... ~ ....c~.,.;k..,:~. ,~ ,k ..... · ......~,~ ............· .....n.~ Contributions to the
District water qualiw/sto~water storage ~nd for additions to existing sites and for roads, streets,
and highways are based on the area of the new addition or, for roads, streets, and highways, the
increased hard surface area and not the total site area. Contributions to the above ~nd for new
development or reconstruction ~ are based on the total site area. If a site drains to an
existing or planned District regional stomwater faciliW, the applicant is required to contribute to
the water qualiw/sto~water storage fund as stated above.
(_c g) Runoff draining onto the site must be accommodated in the analyses and design of new
stormwater management facilities.
Oj) Wet detention basins constructed pursuant to Sto..-v,.v:ater Managcm~.nt P!anz un,er this rule
shall be in conformance with approved Municipal Stormwater Management Plans.
(e 1~) The outfall structures within wetlands and public waters and wetlands shall incorporate a
stilling-basin, surge-basin, energy dissipater, placement of ungrouted natural rock rip rap or other
devices to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from peak
discharges.
~J,) All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional structures shall be constructed
such that all door and window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water
elevation of nearby surface waterbodies, wetlands and stormwater basins.
REQUIRED EXHIBITS.
(a) If the water q,antity or water quality provisions set forth in sections 4 and 5 of this rule
apply to a proposed development, plans certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and reflecting the following items shall accompany the permit application (one set of
plans must be full size; one set must be reduced to a maximum size of 11" x 17"): The
Management o,~, ~;c~.~ ky. p.^,-~.~:^~, ~.: .... rv. gistcreg in +k~ e ..... r Minnv. zcta, ~k~.
(1) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(2) ~Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site and proposed and
existing subwatersheds on-site.
(3) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation.
(4) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, marshes, shoreland, and/or floodplain areas.
(5) Existing and proposed normal, and 100 year ~vater elevations on-site.
Draft - March 24, 1998
6
(6) Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two foot intervals, related to NGVD,
1929 datum.
(7) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management facilities.
(8) Stormwater runoffvolume and rate analyses for the 1, 10 and 100 year critical events,
existing and proposed conditions.
(9) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the
proposed stormwater management facilities.
(10) Documentation indicating conformance with an existing municipal stormwater
management plan. When a municipal plan does not exist, documentation that the
municipality has reviewed the project.
(11) Delineation of any flowage easements or other property interests dedicated to
stormwater management purposes, including, but not limited to, county or judicial ditches.
(12) Documentation that the project has received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) if required by the MPCA.
(~ ~) A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatment ponds, outlet
structures for such ponds, culverts, outfali structures, and all other stormwater facilities. This
maintenance agreement shall specify the methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance
and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement
Form. A Maintenance Agreement Form will be provided to the applicant for use by the applicant as
a maintenance agreement or as guidance if the applicant desires to draft a separate maintenance
agreement. The maintenance agreement must be recorded with the county within 10 days of the
issuance date of the permit.
EXCEPTIONS.
(a) If the District has approved a municipal stormwater management plan for a municipality, or for
a subwatershed within a municipality, the requirements in ........ k a of this rule which are not met
u.,~., .~_._ ..... -.~----,w.:~':~ ~.=-.-~- ~..~..~k~" may be deemed satisfied upon showing of compliance by an individual
developer with the municipal plan.
(!) The provisions of this section will be deemed met upon a determination by the Board of
Managers that a downstream facility(ies) is in place or has been ordered and the facility(ies) is
designed with adequate capacity to control peak runoff rate from the subwatershed under fully
developed conditions.
Draft - March 24, 1998
DEFINITIONS
"Disturbance" means the altering in any wa¥, including~ but not limited tot the removal of vegetation~ of real
property_.
"Reconstruction" means altering more than one-half of the improved area of the site
April 13, 1998
City Council Members,
I ~vill bc out of town for the April 14 city council meeting; however, I would like my views known
to the council and made a part of the minutes. Before you are recommendations from thc Dock &
Common's Advisory' Commission to make some significant changes to the Devon
CommonsXa~oanoke Access dock program.
Having abutted the Devon Commons in this area since August, 1976, I know all too well of the
problems associated with this commons area. This area was opened by the city council in the
Summer of 1977 for dockage for non-abutters over the objection of the abutters in this area. This
area was not suitable for docks in 1977 and is NOT suitable now. The commons in this area is a
narrow' strip of land that is approximately five to twelve feet wide and is as narrow as two feet in
some places, which is not adequate for traversing. Many homes in the area are on flat lots on the
lake side. Many of the homes are within 50 to 75 feet of the lake.
Current non-abutting dock sites are not easily accessible. Non-abutting dock site holders have
trespassed on private property in the past carrying dock sections to the sites and installing the
docks. Privacy and trespassing on private property was a big issue in 1977 and is still a big
concern today. The winter storage of dock sectiordpipe and boat lifts on the commons in plain
view of abutters homes was not acceptable in 1977 and is not acceptable today. The fire lane (the
only access point) is inadequate to accommodate hea'~5' foot traffic due to the steepness of the
bank. Additional foot traffic definitely causes the land to erode.
We have personally experienced numerous counts of trespassing, some unintentional and some
intentional, persons urinating on our lawn and bushes, dogs being allowed to run loose to defecate
on our lawn and urinate on our bushes, illegal boats moored at docks, dock sites not being
cleaned up and maintained and docks being left in the lake over the winter months. Docks left in
the lake during the winter months have been a significant hazard to snowmobilers and are very'
unsightly to the abutting home owners. This is totally unacceptable to this neighborhood.
The recommendation before you provides a solution to only a portion of the overall problem in
this area. I believe there is a more acceptable solution that would be favored by some that are in
opposition to the current proposal. I would recommend the following:
a. two of the four non-abutting sites be relocated to an area that is more appropriate for this
type of activity.
b. a plan be negotiated between dock site holders Casey and Schmidt, along with the city for
the two dock site holders to share a dock at the dock site located at the fire lane.
c. should an acceptable plan not be reached by the three parties, the city should locate a dock
site in another area for one of the site holders.
I believe this proposal is fair and a good compromise to a problem that some of us have been
forced to live with for over twenty years. I would ask that you give this new proposal
consideration. Your cooperation in finding a fair and equitable solution to this problem is greatly
appreciated.
cc: D&CAC Chair
Fraffk~A. Ahrens '~~
4673 Island Vie~v Drive
April 13, 1998
City Council Members,
I ,viii be out of town for thc April 14 city council meeting; however, I would like my views known
to the council and made a part of the minutes. Before you are recommendations from thc Dock &
Common's Advisoryr Commission to make some significant changes to the Devon
CommonsX~Roanoke Access dock program.
Having abutted the Devon Commons in this area since August, 1976, I ~know all too well of the
problems associated with this commons area. This area was opened by the city council in the
Summer of 1977 for dockage for non-abutters over the objection of the abutters in this area. This
area was not suitable for docks in 1977 and is NOT suitable now. The commons in this area is a
narrow strip of land that is approximately five to twelve feet wide and is as narrow' as two feet in
some places, which is not adequate for traversing. Many homes in the area are on flat lots on the
lake side. Many of the homes are within 50 to 75 feet of the lake.
Current non-abutting dock sites are not easily accessible. Non-abutting dock site holders have
trespassed on private property in the past carryting dock sections to the sites and installing the
docks. Privacy and trespassing on private property was a big issue in 1977 and is still a big
concern today. The winter storage of dock section/pipe and boat lifts on the commons in plain
view of abutters homes was not acceptable in 1977 and is not acceptable today. The fire lane (the
only access point) is inadequate to accommodate hea~5' foot traffic due to the steepness of the
bank. Additional foot traffic definitely causes the land to erode.
We have personally experienced numerous counts of trespassing, some unintentional and some
intentional, persons urinating on our lawn and bushes, dogs being allowed to run loose to defecate
on our lawn and urinate on our bushes, illegal boats moored at docks, dock sites not being
cleaned up and maintained and docks being left in the lake over the winter months. Docks left in
the lake during the winter months have been a significant hazard to snowmobilers and arc very'
unsightly to the abutting home owners. This is totally unacceptable to this neighborhood.
The recommendation before you provides a solution to only a portion of the overall problem in
this area. I believe there is a more acceptable solution that would be favored by some that are in
opposition to the current proposal. I would recommend the following:
a. two of the four non-abutting sites be relocated to an area that is more appropriate for this
type of activity.
b. a plan be negotiated between dock site holders Casey and Schmidt, along with the city for
the two dock site holders to share a dock at the dock site located at the fire lane.
J ,ih
c. should an acceptable plan not be reached by the three parties, the city should locate a dock
site in another area for one of the site holders.
I believe this proposal is fair and a good compromise to a problem that some of us have been
forced to live with for over twenty years. I would ask that you give this new proposal
consideration. Your cooperation in finding a fair and equitable solution to this problem is greatly
appreciated.
cc: D&C_~AC Chair
a rens
4673 Island View Drive
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
As you know-, there is currently a recommendation before you to consider a
city-owned mUltiple dock for the Roanoke Access Area of Devon
Comrnons. Over the past months, there have been numerous meetings
regarding this issue, at both the Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission (DCAC) and City Council levels. The discussions generated
at these meetings have included both support and opposition to this
proposal. The viewpoints expressed have been equally strong at opposite
ends of the spectrum on this issue and therefore, the obvious dilemma is
finding a solution that is acceptable to the majority.
It is our understanding .that this particular section of Devon Commons has
not always been used as part of the dock program for non-abutting
residents. When the City was considering it for this purpose in the late
1970's, a whole host of objections were rai~d; including 'the very ones
being raised today. The commons is.an extremely, rmrrow one,.at, some
places being only two feet wide. The abutting lots are flat and therefore the
homes are in very close proxircdty to this narrow strip of land, resulting in
a serious loss of privacy and a high level of 'congestion for these residents.
It is this very issue that came to light in. the original Task Force's survey
(with a 75% dissatisfaction level) and was one of the primary findings they
established for use in recommending high priority areas for multiple docks.
Another of the original concerns raised and still holds true today is the
traversability. There are many other sections of cormnons in the city that
have been designated as non-traversable because accessing them
compromises private property rights and would actually encourage
trespassing.
Hindsight is almost always 20/20, as the saying goes, and perhaps what
the City Council should really be considering is returning this section of
the Devon Commons to its original designation of non-traversable, rather
than attempting even a trial multiple dock. This solution seems to address
the multitude of concerns raised by both sides.
When.the City Council established the Task Force, the predecessor of the
DCAC, it did so with the focus being the assessment of the dock program,
the identification of problems, and the formulation of solutions. After
those things were done, the City Council established the permanent
Commission. This would surely indicate a seriousness on the part of the
Council to make the program better by solving the identified problems.
We urge each of you to carefully consider this proposal, as it appears to be
the most logical and equitable solution in this particular case, Not only
would this follow in line with the City C ' ' ' '
ouncd s original intentions, 'we
believe it serves the greater good of the City's entire program_ and the City
itself. -
Respectfully,
April 13, 19 J o
City Council Members,
I will be out oftoxvn for thc April 14 city council meeting; however, 1 would like my views known
to the council and made a part of the minutes. Before you are recommendations from the Dock &
Common's Advisor)' Commission to make some significant changes to the Devon
CommonsX~Roanoke Access dock program.
Having abutted the Devon Commons in this area since August, 1976, i know all too well of the
problems associated with this commons area. This area was opened by the city council in the
Summer of 1977 for dockage for non-abutters over the objection of the abutters in this area. This
area was not suitable for docks in 1977 and is NOT suitable now. The commons in this area is a
narrow strip of land that is approximately five to twelve feet wide and is as narrow as two feet in
some places, which is not adequate for traversing. Many homes in the area are on flat lots on the
lake side. Many of the homes are within 50 to 75 feet of the lake.
Current non-abutting dock sites are not easily accessible. Non-abutting dock site holders have
trespassed on private property in the past carrying dock sections to the sites and installing the
docks. Privacy and trespassing on private property was a big issue in 1977 and is still a big
concern today. The winter storage of dock section/pipe and boat lifts on the commons in plain
viexv of abutters homes was not acceptable in 1977 and is not acceptable today. The fire lane (the
only access point) is inadequate to accommodate hea~' foot traffic due to the steepness of the
bank. Additional foot traffic definitely causes the land to erode.
We have personally experienced numerous counts of trespassing, some unintentional and some
intentional, persons urinating on our lawn and bushes, dogs being allowed to run loose to defecate
on our lawn and urinate on our bushes, illegal boats moored at docks, dock sites not being
cleaned up and maintained and docks being left in the lake over the winter months. Docks left in
the lake during the ','inter months have been a significant hazard to snowmobilers and are very
unsightly to the abutting home owners. This is totally unacceptable to this neighborhood.
The recommendation before you provides a solution to only a portion of the overall problem in
this area. I believe there is a more acceptable solution that would be favored by some that are in
opposition to the current proposal. I ~vould recommend the following:
a. two of the four non-abutting sites be relocated to an area that is more appropriate for this
type of activity.
b. a plan be negotiated between dock site holders Casey and Schmidt, along with the city for
the two dock site holders to share a dock at the dock site located at the fire lane.
c. should an acceptable plan not be reached by the three pa~ies, the city should locatc a dock
site in another area for one of the site holders.
I believe this proposal is fair and a good compromise to a problem that some of us have been
forced to live with for over twenty years. I would ask that you give this new proposal
consideration. Your cooperation in finding a fair and equitable solution to this problem is greatly
appreciated.
cc: D&C,AC Chair ~
Fran 7A. Ahrens
4673 Island View Drive
I, ,,il, J, , Ii,
· N
,,i? Henne in Count
,, P y
An Equal Opportunity Employer
April 2, 1998
Francene C. Clark-Leisinger, Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Ms. Clark-Leisinger:
This is to inform you that the new voting equipment acquisition project for the 1998
elections has been delayed. We found it necessary to reject all proposals received from
the three vendors who responded to our Invitation for Bids. We fully intend to issue a
request for rebids, however, we do not anticipate this will be completed and in place
within the short time remaining for implementation in 1998.
A meeting has been scheduled to discuss this issue in further detail. We also will bring
you up to date on legislation and rules that will impact us for the 1998 elections.
Date: April 23, 1998
Location:
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN
Tirne: 1:00 P.M.
We appreciate your support in this project, and request that you continue that support as
we resume our plans for new voting equipment in 1999.
Sincere~
Patrick H. O'Connor, Director
Taxpayer Service~,~~t Dep~,rtme,t
A-600 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060
Recycled Paper
APR 10
01:08PM LEAGUE OF MM CITIES
FRIDAYFAx
A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities
Vol. 3, No. 15
April 10, 1998
Legislature adjourns
The 1998 legislative session came to a
close at 3:30 this morning. Many ma-
jor bills were passed in the last two
days including taxes, capital improve-
merits (bonding), K-12 education,
higher education finance, state de-
partments, agriculture and natural re-
sources, and others. The following is a
quick summary of some of the action:
Taxes (H. F. 3840)
As we reported in the special
Wednesday fax, agreement was
reached on the major provisions of the
omnibus tax bill. Highlights include
class rate compression for taxes pay-
able in 1999, reduced school levies
and other protections for home own-
ers, one more year of levy limits for
cities over 2,500 in population and all
counties, local sales taxes for 13 cit-
ies, and another $500 million property
tax rebate for home owners and rent-
ers. Also included is a provision which
will dedicate the first $200 million ora
state budget surplus to income tax re-
ductions, and the next $400 million to
pay cash for state capital improvement
projects that would otherwise be paid
through bonding. A last-minute addi-
tion to the bill is $10 million in housing
money that was originally contained in
the economic development bill vetoed
by the governor.
In response to potential problems
in TIF districts caused by property tax
class rate compression, cities are
granted authority to create special tax-
ing districts within existing TIF dis-
tHc'ts. The authority is limited to TIF
districts for which the request for cer-
tification was made before June 2,
1997, and applies only to property
subject to an assessment agreement
or a development agreement. To
qualify for this authority, the city must
have a TIF district deficit caused by
the 1997 or 1998 class rate change
('deficit" means an inability to pay ob-
ligations issued or contracts entered
into before June 2, 1997); and, ex-
hausted any available increments from
other TIF districts in the city. Cities
that do not have actual deficits are
also authorized to create special tax-
ing districts, but the special tax may
only be used to pay pre-existing obli-
gations and the TIF distdct is required
to be decertified when the obligations
are paid. TIF disclosure and reporting
deadlines are extended from July 1 to
Aug. 1, and a penalty is established
for failure to report on time.
Environment & Agriculture
Supplemental Appropriation
(S. F. 3353)
The Legislature approved $17.8 million
from the general fund and $500,000
from the natural resources fund for
supplemental environment and agricul-
ture funding. Projects funded under
the bill include $1.5 million for flood
hazard mitigation, $100,000 for
brownfields, and $1 million for f~edlot
water quality grants.
Significant policy changes in the
bill include increased feedlot regula-
tions with a two-year moratorium on
open-air swine lagoons, modified indi-
vidual septic treatment systems laws,
and a new water quality cost-benefit
model scoping task force.
State Departments
Supplemental Appropriation
(Chapter 366/S. F. 3354)
The governor signed into law Chapter
366, a $33 million state department
supplemental appropriation for the op-
eration of state agencies. In addition
to the funding provisions, the bill con-
tains changes to the community-based
planning law, establishes a construc-
tion cox:les advisory coundl including
LMC membership, requires the de-
partment of administration to develop
nonvisual technology standards for fu-
ture procurement of technology by the
state and political subdivisions, directs
the attorney general to educate the
public on telemarketing fraud, and
amends statutes t~ accommodate the
state's telecommunications infrastruc-
ture projects.
Bonding (HF3843)
The Legislature passed and the gover-
nor is expected to sign the nearly $1
billion capital investments bill. Among
the projects with statewide impact are
$44 million to the public facilities au-
thority to assist local governments with
water and wastewater lzea~nent
projects, $34 million for local bddge
replacement and rehabilitation, and $6
million to the housing finance agency
for transitional housing loans and pub-
licly-~wned rental housing. The bill
also contains funding for the St. Paul
RiverCentre project, hence securing
professional hockey in St. Paul, and
funding for planning and construction
of light rail transit and commuter rail.
An interesting policy change requires
notification to local governments of
proposed wastewater treatment
projects within 10 miles of the project
area. This provision may encourage
better land use and other infrastruc-
ture planning.
League staff is preparing more de-
tailed summaries of these and other
laws of interest to city officials for the
annual legislative summary, which v~[[[
appear in the Apd122 issue of the Cit-
ies Bulletin. And if that isn't enough
information for you, take heart; there
are only 2.70 days until the 1999 ses-
sion.
t
i ali IJf
U.S. Department of Just/ce
Federal Bureau of Investigation
In Reply, Please Refer
File No.
tO
111 Washington Avenue South
Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2176
March 31, 1998
Chief Len Harrell
Mound Police Department
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear CW~.ie~---He~rre-~ ~-~.4_:
I would like to express my appreciation and
commendation to members of your Police Department for their
investigation and assistance to Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
On May 21, 1996, Robert Schumack (dba Shoreline
Automotive) pumped hazardous liquid from an underground fuel tank
into the sewer system. This resulted in a very high explosive
gas reading and the evacuation of buildings and road closures.
Your department acted quickly to identify the source of the
hazardous substance and to collect evidence necessary to charge
Robert Schumack.
A joint investigation was initiated between the Mound
Police department, Environmental Protection AgEncy (EPA) and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, which resulted in a guilty plea
by Robert Schumack.
Robert Schumack was sentenced to one misdemeanor count
of negligently operating a source in violation of a pretreatment
standard, Title 33, U.S. Code, Section 1319(c) (1) (A) and 1317(d) .
Schumack was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle
to three years probation, 120 day's of home detention, $2,500
fine, 100 hours community service, and restitution in the amount
of $39,055.90. Restitution will be paid to the individual
agencies which incurred the cost of the clean-up.
Please express my sincere thanks and appreciation to
all the members of your department for their professional
response and thorough investigation into this incident.
sinc~,~y, /
'----~p'ecial Agent in Charge
04/14/98
09:09 FAX CIT~ O'F"MOUND 4~ JOHN DEAN
~002/004
Dear Council members,
This letter is in regard to the proposed multiple dock at Roanoke Lane.
We axe abbutting home owners of nearly 11 years at 4657- lslandview Drive.
The first thing we would like to say is that we are in favor of the multiple
dock system, but not if it is placed in front of someones home, certainly there
are enough parks and open spaces to choose from here in Mound.
Our biggest concern is that we simply cannot let this go any farther
without shedding some light on the dynamics of the situation. Since we have
lived here we have seen and heard the outrageous and vulgar manner that
Andrea Ahrens has displayed when coming in contact with commons dock
holders.
The last family that had a commons dock near the Ahrens home was
subjected to constant verbal abuse each time they walked to their dock. The
most offensive and rude display happened when this family came down to
use their boat and spent a little time at the dock cleaning windows and things
of that nature. Andrea came storming off her dock and onto their dock
screaming at them to "get the hell out of here" and then yelled at them,
"you're no better than a bunch of niggers loitering". We were shocked as we
sat on our deck and witnessed this, just as I'm sure their two children were. ·
Andrea would also put milfofl on their dock and throw fish guts and chewing
gum on the families boat. She would olden call them "inlanders" as they
walked to their dock. Andrea was relentless when it came to giving this
family a hard time. It became so unbearable for them that the dock inspector
and the mayor had to intervene. Their idea of a solution was to move this
family to a different site, there has not been anyone at this site since.
When hearing that her next door neighbor was selling his home she
simply said,"you better not sell to any blacks or niggers". Is this the kind of
person we want representing our community? I don't think anyone of color
would be comfortable standing before her at the city council.
In yet another incident with her next door neighbor, Andrea accused him
of having his dock in the wrong place. He had been putting his dock in the
same spot for fifteen years. After five trips to investigate, Jim Fackler and
Tom McCafferty came to the conclusion that the dock should have been even
closer to Andrea. It seems that this was about when she began her quest to
get rid of the commons docks. I received a phone call from Andrea and
listened in disbelief as she told me, and I quote, "I'll put a goddamn buyer
beware sign across his garage door and I'll fix it so the city puts a goddamn
marina in front of your house".
04/14/98
09:10 FAX CIT~ O'F~'MOUND JOHN DEAN
~003/004
Another interesting fact relates back to when Andrea ran for city council.
She composed a number of editorials to the Laker and signed four or five of
her neighbors names to these without their permission. She wrote at great
length about how right she was for the job and how good she would be at it.
These people never even laid eyes on the letters that they had supposedly
written until they were published in the Laker.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, any number of people could tell stories
of Andreas offensive behavior. It certainly was big news when Marge Short,
owner of the Cincinnati Reds was banned from running her own baseball
team for making racial slurs. How many times have we all seen the news
clip of Fuzzy Zoeiler's comment about Tiger Wood
serving fried chicken and collard greens at the Masters Golf Tournament. I'm
sure you are all familiar with the Star and Tribune account of our own Gert
Olson making reference to a cashier as a "wetback". And how about the
Mayor of Minnetrista, stealing the license tabs off cars. I'm sorry to say we
have our own Marge Short-Fuzzy Zoeller right here on the Mound City
Council.
Isn't it ironic that Andrea cast the final vote appointing her husband Frank
to the Commons Task Force, and that he is the one proposing the multiple
dock, the issue that has sparked so much controversy in our neighborhood.
We do have our concerns about Frank as well. Frank has made it a yearly
project to dump lethal chemicals into the lake near his dock. These
chemicals are not DNR approved, and we have voiced our concerns to him
about this on a number of occasions because our children swim in this area
and the neighborhood dogs all drink from the lake. A few years back, the
Laker published an article about dogs who suffered from a form of lynph
node cancer. The study showed that the cancer was directly related to the
lake water and the chemicals put there. This information didn't seem to have
any influence on Frank because he continues to dump the chemicals in the
lake every spring. These are the actions of the person who is representing the
entire Mound commons dock program.
Council member Andrea Ahrens has made a career out of her efforts to
elliminate the commons dock sites. She and Frank are clearly using their
seats on the city council and dock commitee for self serving purposes. We
simply ask that you take a long look at what motivates those involved and see
the situation for what it is, a council member using her position to manipulate
the system for her own personal gain.
04/14/98
09:11 FAA. CITY' oF MOUND ~ JOHN DEAN
~]004/004
In closing, we would like to thank you for your time and careful
consideration in this matter. Our hopes are that you can reach a fair and
impartial decision that would benefit everyone involved.
Sincerely,
Scott and Linda Mack
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 14, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, April 14, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens:
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
PRESENTATION TO MOUND WESTONKA BOYS HOCKEY TEAM .......... 938
APPROVE AGENDA. ~It this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or
items can be removed from the Consent/Igenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has
been approved.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 0PPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
939-946
*1.1
947
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1998, JOINT MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD.
'1.2
CASE//98-17: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA,
HARDCOVER. KEN & KRIS LINOUIST. 2379 CHATEAU LANE,
LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L.P. CREVlERS SUB LOT 36 948-
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#12-117-24 43 0096,
948-958
(THIS CASE WILL BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING
cOMMISSION ON MONDAY EVENING, APRIL12) (HAND OUT TUESDAY)
'1.3 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES; AMENDING SECTION
350:00 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 350:1300, ENTITLED,
"TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES".
959-965
'1.4
966
*1.5
967
'1.6
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, LITTLE
LEAGUE, BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL SIGN-UP ADVERTISEMENT.
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, WESTONKA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ECFE FUNDRAISER.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT CKLAIR HASSE, 6627 BARTLETT BLVD.,
TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
968-971
'1.7
972
SET BID OPENING FOR ANNUAL SEALCOAT PROJECT - SUGGESTED DATE:
APRIL 30, 1998, 11 A.M.
'1.8
LICENSE RENEWALS:
GAMES OF SKILL, POOL TABLES, BOWLING,
AMUSEMENT DEVICE, RESTAURANT, TREE
REMOVAL.
97~
.1.9 RF-qOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE
STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS.
974-976
*1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
977-997
1.11 ONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON BLUFF
PDA.
998-1085
1.12 RECOMMF~NDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMIRSION REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIPLE SLIP
DOCK ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED AT ROANOKE LANE ACCESS.
1086-1145
1.13 RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION REGARDING A PROPOSED FISHING SITE OFF WILSHIRE
BLVD.
1146-1163
1.14 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
1.15 1998 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSEN,
R.L, YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES.
1164-1171
1.16 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 (WESTONKA SCHOOl,
DISTRICT) CREATING THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD AND
APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY
CENTER BOARD FROM THE CITY OF MOUND.
1172-1184
1.17 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOUND AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE USE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON
A PERMANENT BASIS.
1185-1187
1.18 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY
CODE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND' PUBLIC UTHJTIES, BY ADDING
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM.
1188-1195
till
1.19 INFORMATION~MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Repo~sforMarch 1998.
1196-1223
B. LMCDMallings.
1224-1234
C. Dock and Commons Advisory CommissionMinu~s of March 19, 1998.
1235-1238
D. Letter from the Mound City Days Committee regarding your participation in the 1998
Parade. If you are interested, send in the registration form as soon as possible.
1239-1240
E. Letter from Hennepin County regarding the questions you had on the study of a possible
traffic signal at County Road 15 and Wilshire Blvd. and at County Road 15 and Cypress
Lane. Does Mr. Johnson's letter answer your questions? Should I do anything further?
1241-1244
F. Packet from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) for next Wednesday's meeting.
Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to the SRA.
1245-1259
G. Packet from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the Rule B
Task Force. Mayor Polston is the City's representative to this Task Force.
1260-1277
Lake Restoration will be starting the alum treatment of Lake l_atngdon next week with
an estimate completion date of May 1. You will begin seeing activity around Veteran's
Park by this company so if you receive any calls, this is the project that is being done.
You can refer those calls to me and I will refer them to the MCWD or their Engineer.
Caribou Coffee will not be moving to Mound as expected. Decisions by the Board of
Directors regarding the move have been made and they will be remaining in Minneapolis
until at least August, 1999. They will also be moving, on a short-term basis, to a 15,000
square foot facility, somewhere in the metro area to accommodate their Delta Airlines
contract. This is unfortunate but there is still a possibility that they could move their
entire operation next year out of Minneapolis and maybe it could land up in Mound.
REMINDER:
MONTHLY HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY,
APRIL 14, 1998, 7 P.M., CITY HALL.
MONTHLY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS
SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
MOTION made by , seconded by to adjourn at
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
P.M. The vote
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 14, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, April 14, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, CouncilmembersCndrea Ahrens,~)Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens:
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
PRESENTATION TO MOUND WESTONKA BOYS HOCKEY TEAM .......... 938
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or
items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has
been approved.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 0PPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
939-946
*1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1998, JOINT MEETING OF
J ~h
947
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE WI~qTONKA SCHOOL BOARD.
'1.2
CASE ~98-17; VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA,
HARDCOVER, KEN & KRIS LINOUIST. 2373 CHATEAU LANE,
LOT 13, BLOCK 4, L.P. CREVIERS SUB LOT 36 948-
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#12-117-24 43 0096
948-958
(THIS CASE WILL BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING
cOMMISSION ON MONDAY EVENING, APRIL12) (HAND OUT TUESDAY)
*1.3 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES~ AMENDING SECTION
350:00 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 350:1300, ENTITLED
"TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES".
959-965
'1.4
966
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION,
LEAGUE, BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL SIGN-UP ADVERTISEMENT.
LITTLE
'1.5
967
APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT, QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION, WESTONKA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ECFE FUNDRAISER.
'1.6 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT CKI.AIR HASSE, 6627 BARTLETT BLVD.
TO FILL n VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
968-971 q ~' 9 ~
*1.7 SET BID OPENING FOR ANNUAL SEALCOAT PROJECT- SUGGFSTED DATE:
APRIL 30, 1998, 11 A.M.
972
2
'1.8
973
LICENSE RENEW ALS:
GAMES OF SKILL. POOL TABLES, BOWLING
AMUSEMENT DEVICE, RF~qTAURANT, TREE
REMOVAL.
'1.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE
STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS.
974-976
*1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
977-997
1.11 ONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON BLUFF
PDA.
998-1085
3
1.12 RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIPLE SLIP
DOCK ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED AT ROANOKE LANE ACCESS.
1086-1145
'-'t ¢"7: "'¢'"~'¢' ""
4
1.13 RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
COMMISSION REGARDING A PROPOSED FISHING SITE OFF WILSHIRE
BLVD.
1146-1163
1.14 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRF~$ENT
1.15 1998 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSEN,
R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES,
1164-1171
5
1.16
1172-1
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, 277 (WF~qTONKA SCHOOl.
DISTRICT) CREATING THE WFSTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD AND
APPOINTING REPRF~qENTATIVES TO THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY
CENTER BOARD FROM THE CITY OF MOUND.
184
1.17 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOUND AND THE WFSTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE USE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON
A PERMANENT BASIS.
1185-1187~-P-~r~b9''n~ c~ ~ ~
1.18 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY
CODE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING
6
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM,
1188-1195
1.19 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1998.
1196-1223
B. LMCD Mailings.
1224-1234
C. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of March 19, 1998.
1235-1238
D. Letter from the Mound City Days Committee regarding your participation in the 1998
Parade. If you are interested, send in the registration form as soon as possible.
1239-1240
E. Letter from Hennepin County regarding the questions you had on the study of a possible
traffic signal at County Road 15 and Wilshire Blvd. and at County Road 15 and Cypress
Lane. Does Mr. Johnson's letter answer your questions? Should I do anything further?
1241-1244
F. Packet from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) for next Wednesday's meeting.
Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to the SRA.
1245-1259
G. Packet from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the Rule B
Task Force. Mayor Polston is the City's representative to this Task Force.
1260-1277
l.ake Restoration will be starting the alum treatment of Lake Langdon next week with
an estimate completion date of May 1. You will begin seeing activity around Veteran's
Park by this company so if you receive any calls, this is the project that is being done.
You can refer those calls to me and I will refer them to the MCWD or their Engineer.
Caribou Coffee will not be moving to Mound as expected. Decisions by the Board of
7
Directors regarding the move have been made and they will be remaining in Minneapolis
until at least August, 1999. They will also be moving, on a short-term basis, to a 15,000
square foot facility, somewhere in the metro area to accommodate their Delta Airlines
contract. This is unfortunate but there is still a possibility that they could move their
entire operation next year out of Minneapolis and maybe it could land up in Mound.
MONTHLY HRA MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY,
APRIL 14, 1998, 7 P.M., CITY HALL.
REMINDER: MONTHLY COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS
SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998, 7:30 P.M.
MOTIONmadeby~)'~~'~rnat //"~i9 P.M. Thevote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk