The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-05-11AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered tn normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. .~ ,,L~.~- ,~t~.,'~,o.~ ~'~ PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. ~" *CONSENT AGENDA *A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 1999, REGULAR MEETING. (THESE WILL BE DELIVERED TO YOU ON MONDAY.) (SEE NOTE) ......................... 1556 *B. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS ......................... 1557 MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PERMITS: 1. TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE, PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT TRANSIENT MERCHANT PERMIT, PARADE PERMIT, FIREWORKS PERMIT FOR MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 18, 19 & 20, 1999. (By ordinance they have to pay $15.00 for Temporary Beer Permit. Please waive the fees for all other permits. The Temporary Beer Permit is for both Mound Bay Park and the Pond Arena. The Temporary Set-up Permit is for the Pond Arena.) o PARADE PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION/VFW FOR THE MEMORIAL DAY PARADE MAY 31, 1999. PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR SILVERADO PRO BASS TOURNAMENT WEIGH-IN - JULY 30, 1999, MOUND BAY PARK. *C. RESOLUTION - CASE//99-10 - VARIANCE, FLOOD PLAIN, LAKESIDE SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, JIM SMITH, PID g23-117-24 34 0079 ......................... 1558-1577 *D. MOTION TO RE-PURCHASE A CEMETERY LOT ........ 1578-1579 *E. MOTION TO APPROVE 1999 SEALCOAT BID - 1554 e ALLIED BLACKTOP - $26,850 ..................... 1580-1581 *F. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT REQIJF.3T - AUDITOR'S ROAD DEMOLITION -JME OF MONTICELLO, INC. - $7,285.75 ................................... 1582-1.584 *G. MOTION TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF BILLS ....... 1585-1610 PUBLIC HEARING P & Z CASE #99-09~. TO REZONE A PROP~TY F~ROM~r~O R-3 LOCATED AT 2033 COMMERC~F E. 251 FEET OF N. 125 F AD, UNPLATrED 14-117-24, PID//14-117-24 41 0001 ............. 1611-1625 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION ................................. 1626-1644 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON FENCE/TRELLIS INTERPRETATION. . . ~,.~ ............... 1645-1658 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION LAKESIDE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES .......................... 1659-1662 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Ao Financial report for April as prepared by Finance Director, Gino Businaro ................................ 1663-1664 Be Letter from the City of Excelsior, thanking the Mound Fire Department for their help in containing a fire on the main street of Excelsior on April 25, 1999 ..................... 1665 C. LMCDmailings ............................... 1666-1679 D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 1999 ........... 1680-1689 Eo Letter from Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church asking that the City consider using the name of Father Francis Jager when renaming Auditor's Road after the improvement .................... 1690 Letter from C. Scott Thomas of Minnetxista, who was appointed to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers ......... 1691 Action Alert from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding levy limits. Letter sent to Gert and Steve regarding this .......... 1692-1699 Notice from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding Tax Increment Financing legislation ................... 1700-1702 H. Update from Subtfi"barCRate Authority on Area Codes. : 1703 1555 Je REMINDER: HRA MEETING, 7:00 P.M. PRIOR TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY I 1, 1999. REMINDER: COMMITrEE OF HE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY lg. 1999, '7:30 P.M., CITY HALL. 1556-~ ~ Tn~l~~ CONSENT AGENDA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL From: Date: Subject: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER May 10, 1999 ADD-ON CONSENT - NEW TREE LICENSE This applicant just came in to get a license. TALL TIMBER EXPERTS, INC. P. O. BOX 836 WAYZATA, MN. 55391 printed on recycled paper Fran Clark From: Deb L Hawkinson <dlhawkin(~allina.com> To: fleisinger~msn.com Subject: Mound City Council Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 7:59 AM I apologize greatly Fran. Since I spoke with you on Tuesday, I have had two other council meetings, an EDA meeting, two deaths of personal friends, a major mishap with my daughter's situation and oral surgery. I was working on the minutes for several hours last night and am close to being done. I will not leave my office today until they are done. I hope these can either be an add-on with notification that they will be there on Tuesday or wait until next meeting. I am very sorry to have caused this inconvenience for you. Deb Hawkinson 612/992-3002 (days) Page I CITY OF MOUND FOR THE MAY 11, 1999 COUNCIL MEETING May 6, 1999 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS The following permits are being requested. Please waive the all fees except for the Beer Permit. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in. Mound City Days - June 18, 19 & 20, 1999. Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit - Mound Bay Park - June 18, 19 & 20, 1999 Pond Arena - June 18, 1999 Concessions Craft Show Entertainment - Pond Arena & Mound Bay Park Fireworks - June 19, 19998 - Rain date June 20, 1999 Merchant Sales Parade Permit - June 19, 1999 Public Dance Permit - June 18, 1999 - Pond Arena Public Gathering - Mound Bay Park Set-Up Permit - Pond Arena - June 18, 1999 American Legion/VFW Parade Permit- May 31, 1999 - 10:45 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. - Memorial Day Parade Public Gathering Permit PERFORMANCE PROMOTIONS/SILVERADO PRO-BASS TOURNAMENT JULY 30, 1999 - WEIGH-IN AT MOUND BAY PARK May 1 I, 1.,°99 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, GRADING, LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION, AND LAKSlDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING SECOND STORY ADDITION, AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID# 23-117-24 34 0079 P & Z CASE #99-10 WHEREAS, the applicant, James Smith, has applied for Lot Area, Grading, Lowest Floor Elevation and Lakeside Setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming second story addition at 3153 Priest Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existinq/Proposed Reouired Va'riance Lot Area 9200 sf 10,000 sf 800 sf Lakeside 34.1' 50' 15.9' Lowest floor elev. 931.3' 933.5' 2.2' 932' Grading 0' 15' 15' ; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, lakeside setback of 50 feet, and 10 feet for side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be built in a conforming location and would meet all required setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the house is setback 50 feet from the lake and a 14' by 18' deck reduces the setback to 34.1 feet; and, May 11, 1999 Smith - 3153 Priest Lane Page 2 WHEREAS,, the existing house is tri-level design that would become a quad- level with the proposed improvements. The proposed building plans show the 24' by 24' addition would be located over the garage. The addition would not exceed out past any of the existing garage walls so setbacks would remain unchanged; and, WHEREAS, the value of the improvements are less than 50 percent of the value of the home; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations and additions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance for the second story addition as stated below: Existinq/Prooosed Required Variance Lot Area 9200 sf 10,000 sf 800 sf Lakeside 34.1' 50' 15.9' Lowest floor elev. 931.3' 933.5' 2.2' 932' Grading O' 15' 15' As recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming second story addition with the following conditions: a. The approval is conditioned on a favorable review by the DNR. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in the resolution 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: Construct a conforming second story addition to the existing dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. May 1 I, 1999 Smith - 3153 Priest Lane Page 3 5. 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. 6. 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused). Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207 Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE # 97-10: VARIANCE, FLOOD PLAIN, LAKESIDE SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, JIM SMITH PID # 23-117-24 34 0079. Gordon presented the case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of a second story addition. The variances requested are: 800 square feet variance from required lot size of 10,000 square feet; 15.9 foot variance from lakeshore setback, 1.7 foot variance from required lowest floor elevation; 15 foot of setback variance to meet 932 foot grading around the house. The house itself is set back fifty-two feet, however, the deck reduces the setback to 15.9 feet. The existing house is a tri-level design and it would become quad level with the proposed improvements. A new master bedroom would be constructed in this addition. The value of the improvements are less than 50% of the value of the house. The applicants sites these improvements as needed to make the home marketable and to solve a roof problem over the garage. The roof is sagging because the trusses were Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 cut during the installation of a garage door opener. As a result, water is leading into the garage over the electrical box. Staff notes the difficulty of this case because of the number of jurisdictional issues and bodies involved. If the house were to be built today, the basement would be required to be above 933.5 feet and the deck would not be allowed at its current size. The grading work that occurred would need a permit from the MCWD. The current flood plain ordinance allows the existing basement to remain as is unless the improvements are greater than 50% of the home's value ($60,000). The DNR has a flood plain regulation that is somewhat different than the City's. The language generally states that when improvements are proposed over a foundation that does not meet the flood elevation standards, the floor elevation must conform. The DNR is consulting their staff to make a ruling on this standard. Staff expected to have a letter that addressed that issue at the meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance requests with the following conditions: 1. The approval is conditioned on a favorable review by the DNR. The variance does not recognize the existing lakeside setback for the deck. If structural work were needed to the deck, a deck with a 10-foot depth would be allowed. The new lakeside setback would be limited to 42 feet. Voss asked why Staff was attaching deck conditions to the proposal for the addition. He feels that the Planning Commission hasn't addressed other conditions and issues on other properties. Burma asked if the improvements could be up to $60,000, does that make the house worth $120,000. He also feels as Voss does that by attaching the deck conditions to the application for an addition, a potential mess would be opened up. Voss asked why they were considering this without the DNR information. Gordon stated the anticipated information but it did not come. Suthedand stated that Staff was comfortable with DNR's ruling. The applicant can fill in a couple of inches of soil if needed to raise the level to meet the requirements. Mueller asked why Staff did not recommend fill to alleviate one variance request. Gordon stated that it was graded in 1968 prior to current standards. Gordon also feels 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 that 9200 square feet is much closer to compliance than the previous case. Mueller also suggested that the deck not be attached to the recommendation. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend Staffs recommendation. Voss wanted condition number 2 to be eliminated, however. Weiland accepted this change but wanted the file tagged should the application come back for deck improvements. Mueller also asked that the "findings of fact" as outlined on page 121 of the packet to be added to the motion. Weiland accepted. Ayes: 7-0. Motion carried. This will come before the City Council on May 11, 1999. 3 Affidavit of Publication State otMin~esota, County ol Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPRQVAL OF REZONING UNPLATTED 14 117 24 FROM R-2 TO R-3, AT 2033 COMMERCE BLVO PlO # 14-117-24 41 0001 P & Z 99-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tv_esdav. May 11. 1999 to consider the approval of Rezoning a portion of Unptatted 14 117 24 from R-2 to R*3 at 2033 Commerce Blvd. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Kris LinquisL Planning Secretary (Published in The Laker April 24, 1999) A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed puh~ i~ H~arin9 Rezone R2 to R3 2033 Commerce which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once eachweek for I successive weeks: It was first published Saturday the 24thdayof April 19 9__~9, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the day of~,/~,~ent; Blvd. Subscribed and sworn to me on this 24th day of, April ,19 9__9 By: I t _ ~ rn%T~a~ro-~ .... -JJ (t) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $12.90 per inch, (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12,90. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.19 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.14. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound,-MNf 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER City Planner City Engineer Public Works Address Lot Block Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT ~-1~ R-lA R-2 Name ~ Address ~i55 Other Phone (H) R-3 (W) ~- q~g B-1 PAID /___j~ . t 8 0/4. //-//, , CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 DNR Plat # B-2 B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) OWNER) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~1~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (H~. 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: Side Yard: Side Yard: /Rear Yard: ~' Lakeside: ((~ S E W ) ~o ft. H/o * ft. ft. ( N S E~)) to ft. to * ft. ft. ( N S(~)W ) I O ft. I~ ~ ft. ft. ( N S E W ) ~ =~ ft. _5-0 ft. ft. ( N (~Vy) So ft. b-o ft. ft. (N~) E ~)) ~o ft. (~ ~ + ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ,~,.ooo sqft ,zooo sqft sqft sq ft 2-~1~ sq ft sq ft Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ~-= 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 ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (~,) other: specify Variance Application, P, 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted {1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. 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. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING INC, ;¢1 RECEIVED APR 2 0 1999 I hereby certify that this plan, survey, or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registemcl Land Surveyor uncler the laws of the State of Minne~~ Date: ~/~/~, ~ ~ /~1~ Registration No. 14700 JOB # Book - Page Scale RECEIVED APR 1 3 1999 ,.. TOTAL HOUSE WID'rH:SO FT ,,..4. e,, , ¢'.~. TOTAl. HARDCOVER I IMfIERVlOU~ SURFACE James H. Smith 3153 Priest Lane Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED 18 1999 C¢IOUND '-'LANN!NG & INSR City of Mound 5341 Maywood Mound, MN 55364 att. John and Ed March 17,1999 Dear John Sullivan and Ed Shukle Attachment to V'arinnee Request We have a major problem existing over our garage. Our garage roof is supported by trusses. Several years ago when they built this house they installed trusses that would not accomodate the opening of the garage door. When they did the installation of the garage door they cut and modified five trusses to accornodate the opener and door. By doing this they destroyed the engineering of each truss. Two of the trusses have now failed and the roof is sagging. It is only a matter of time until others fail and the roof will then collapse. We are now experiencing water leakage which is destroying our sheetrock. The existing trusses drop to a point of less than seven feet leaving a low ceiling that will not accomodate a door. So even if we replaced the existing trusses with new trusses we would have to cut them if we wanted to open the garage door just as the builder did. We have a major design flaw in this house. We also have another problem with our near perfect home. The master bedroom is in the basement. Before we purchased the house they had more than 200 showings and no one would buy the house because of this design flaw. Our desire is to remove the roof and trusses over our garage and install new floor trusses over the garage which will give the garage an 8' ceiling like all normal garages. Then build a bedroom suite over the garage. This will allow us to install a gabled roof perpendicular to the existing roof. We will not be adding hard cover to the property. Time is of the essence here. I have already had water dripping on our electric circuit breaker panel in the garage. I have since tried to rectify the problem by adding some new shingles over that area so that the house does not burn down, however the roof does still leak and I need to move on this. Danberry Construction was ready to start now and do this before our rainy season. You really caught us on a small rediculas technicallity. I really feel that this property should not require a variance. Our home was built in 1968 vet meets all of the set back r~uirements of present zoning. We are not trying to exceed any of those requirements. We have a four level split house and a small part of our basement drops down below the elevation of 933. However, our basement is above the 100 year flood elevation of 931. Our house is not in the 100 year flood plain. I am now submitting a variance request, however I am asking if there is any way you could hurry? Sincerely James H. Smith rI 1 4/12---3/12 5/8' S'~EETROCK 4 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER R-19 INSULATION 2X6 R-38 TJI TRUSS JOISTiNSULATiON EXISTING GARAGE 5~8" SHEETROCK ADDED 2X6 ADDED R-19 INSULATION ADDED ADD 4 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER EXISTING BASEMENT 241 Smith--4 SMgarage 18070 24'0 walls 2"x 6" 16" O.C. 6" fiberglass Insulation 5/8" firewall sheetrock Lakeside 24'0 SMfloor Typical Floor Truss 14"(to be sized) 23'8 Lakeside Smith-2 hot tub LIVING AREA 644 sq ft ADDRESS: CITY YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIRECTION NS E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W OF MOUND ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~ ---~.o, eoo/6o~ 131 7, .500/0 R1A 6°000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/i0 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/t0 R3 SEE ORD. 11 30,000/100 REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTlt: LOT DEPI'tI: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DET^CHED BUILDINGS 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 LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning Informatio. Sheel oulv summarizes a ~rtion of O,e tcquiremenm outlined in O,e Cily of blound Zoning Ordinance. For furamr information, contact ~e City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. ~ ,,~ ,A~a..,~ /677 I CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER MAY 5, 1999 REPURCHASE OF CEMETERY LOT Attached is a request from Ms. Dorothy F. Norgard asking us to repurchase a lot her husband purchased in 1979. Here's the whole story. In 1979 Mr. Helge A. Norgard purchased two cemetery lots (Div. A, Lot 93, Graves 1 & 2). In 1980 Mr. Norgard's first wife Vera died and she was buried in Grave 2. Since that time, Mr. Norgard married Dorothy F. Norgard. Since then Mr. Norgard has died and was buried at Fairview Cemetery. Now Ms. Dorothy F. Norgard would like the City to repurchase Grave 1 which is not going to be used. We can buy this back from her for $100.00 which is what her husband paid for it in 1979. Please pass a motion authorizing the City to repurchase Division A, Lot 93, Grave 1 for $100.00. Thank you. printed on recycled paper I I I I I I IIII II I Inn Engineering ' Planning ' Surveying _RECEIVED.. May 4, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1999 Seal Coat Program MFRA #6173 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Wednesday, April 28, 1999, for the 1999 Seal Coat Program. Only two bids were received with the low bid of $26,850 submitted by Allied Blacktop, Inc. The other bid amount was $33,750. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $33,000. Public Works is pleased with the work done in the past by Allied Blacktop, Inc.; therefore, we are recommending that Allied Blacktop, Inc. be awarded a contract in the amount of $26,850. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure e:Lmain:\6173\mayor5-3 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com / So zz uJz >~ er >. L1 ....1 Z 0 I I I I Engineering ° Planning Surveying May 4, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Auditors Road Building Demolition SAP 145-108-04 MFRA #9968 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is JME of Monticello, Inc.'s Final Payment Request for the subject project. The amount of this request is $7,285.75. The final cost of the building demolition phase of the Auditors Road project is $50,050. The revised contract amount was $52,865, which included a change order in the amount of $5,050 for asbestos abatement. We have reviewed the project and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure eSmain:\9968\mayor54 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com qqqqqqqqq ~0000~ 0~ ........ o 000~00000 888888888 8 000 00000 0000~0000 BILLS May 11, 1999 Batch 9041 93,941.36 Batch 9042 153,602.60 TOTAL BILLS 247,543.96 0 0 0 ZZZZZZ~ZZZZ~ .I ~oo~oo~oo~oo~ z 0 r- ;:om m g r-z Z -'H · ..q ,o 0 ,o 0 ,0 ,0 CD ,0 0 0 ~? ~ ~? ~? ,,o .-I ,o ,,o ,,~ m ,o [11 o r'tl Z '11 m 0 [-nm :::om i"'~ n~,,, 113 7 7. oo ,0 ,,~ Z .-:.1 m X n Z Z -,ir. o z o z r'" :;OF' n-o c~rrl -~, ..~ -~, -~, .-~ Z ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ ;;0 0 Z (30 ~:~ rtl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z o. ,.,,o~ LL o o o~ oo L::, oc Fn Z 0 r- ZZ . C ,;;;0 I 0 0 0 Z ;0 Z m C 0 c z c 0 'r ,0 I ,,0 o O0 O0 0 IIIIII c~ ? n I o , m zz · Z 0 12> Z --I 0 "fl ~. ,,,-z, L,~ 0 CD r-' zm ~ zm Zm o o , .....· .,. . .,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o oo °° ~ Z o Fa. 0 ,~ ZZ 0~::~ · 0 ::;0 Z z o o o ,o M ,o m IIIIII ZZ I 6'~ ',.~ C: mr'r1 ~,n -r- --I0 3:,.1'- 7 0 ~, ,~ ? ? o ~o ~o~Zo ~m Z Z ! C ~r 0 ~m z Z m o m 777~, ~ I I I I 0 z 0 r- C Z I 7.° oZ m~ n m m n Z 0"0 0 'TI ~,. 0 Z Z I-- ,Z m 0 z ~ C~ § o° g ° . ,~ o § o° o ¢::,o c;>o °~ ~i ~' °°°°° Z~. r-r- I 0 0 :;DO / ~1 --~ ,,-¢ ,-t ,--I -.I --I --,I(~ ~ ~ ~ .. oo o~o~ r,,.. o3 (_..:;3: I '-~ i'rl ;om zm Z~ hr- ;:DC:: I 0 0 n z ...,,. <2* 0 e- 0 0 Z CD ZZ Oo · 0 0 0 ~m Z Z 7.° oo O~ ~l 0 C 0 Z z 0 0 n o Z z l nm o I 0 Z (DO Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Public Present: Steve Stortz (3770 Enchanted Lane), Bob Steele ( 8515 Wood Lane, Germantown, TN), Rhonda Eurich (5585 Sherwood Drive), Jeff Dilliner (2037 Commerce Boulevard), Tom Higus (2032 Bellaire Lane), Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS: PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-09: REZONING, TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM R-2 TO R-3 LOCATED AT 2033 COMMERCE BOULEVARD TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWINHOMES, STEPHEN STORTZ, 3770 ENCHANTED LANE, MOUND, WEST 218 FEET OF EAST 251 FEET IF NORTH 125 FEET OF NORTHEAST 1/, OF SOUTHEAST 1/,~ SUBJECT TO ROAD, UNpLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0001. Chair Michael gave the public the normal instructions for a public hearing prior to opening the public hearing. He opened the public hearing for purposes of reviewing Case #99°09 at 7:50 p.m. In his planning report to the Planning Commission dated April 12, 1999, Gordon has the following comments. The lot is located between Grandview Boulevard and Balsam Road on the west side of Commerce Boulevard. The applicant is interested in developing the site as a four-unit townhouse building. Only rezoning is being sought at this time. If approved, the applicant will apply for a major subdivision and conditional use permit for the townhouse. However, the applicant wants approval of the rezoning prior to continuing with the project. Zoning in the immediate area consists of a mix of R-l, R-2, and R-3 Districts. Two apartment buildings to the north have 10-12 units each for a density of 24 units per acre. To the east, there are a mix of single-family residential and an assisted care facility. South and west of the site is zoned R-2 and is primarily single-family residential Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apd112, 1999 with some multifamily apartments. A townhouse would require a conditional use permit and minimum lot area of 4500 square feet for the four units. The hardcover is under thirty percent. The proposal to rezone to a higher density is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan since the Commerce Boulevard corridor has been designated to accommodate higher residential densities because of the good roadway access and its proximity to downtown. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the rezoning from R-2 to R-3 as requested. DISCUSSION: Weiland asked if the preliminary plat as shown on page 16 of the handout would fit on the lot as is or would variances be required. He also wondered if the existing garage would be taken down. Gordon stated that the proposed building would fit and that probably the garage would be taken down. Weiland had some other clarify questions regarding surrounding zoning and existing structures. Weiland's next question was the about the manner that this townhouse would contribute to Parklands. Gordon stated that there were two options, one they could either dedicate land for parks or pay a "fee in lieu of parklands." Currently that fee is $500 per unit. Finally, Weiland wanted to know about the drainage for the neighboring properties. Gordon stated that a plan would be required and the planners would evaluate the plan. Voss stated that this development looked similar to the Norwood project. He wanted to know if the homes would be big enough and would there be room for patios, and so forth. Gordon stated that the foundation was 36 feet by 32 feet for each unit and that this was a fair size. They could have a lower level walkout or a deck or a patio. Voss then asked about the traffic access to Commerce Boulevard. Gordon stated that there was some concern here, but that it impacted many of the lots around there not just this one. There would only be one driveway for the four units as the rest of the property is land locked. Brown asked if R-3 allows apartments also should this plan not work. Gordon stated that this zoning does allow for apartments or other multifamily structures such as: twin homes, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc. However, most of these would require a conditional use permit, so they would come before the Planning Commission. Brown stated that the existing apartment building was "one too many," and that he is 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apd112, 1999 opposed to anymore at this location. This is because that is what "greets" people driving into Mound on Commerce Boulevard. Clapsaddle asked some clarifying questions around R-3 zoning on this lot and apartment buildings. He stated that he "wasn't prepared to pass judgment without more information than the preliminary plat." He stated that he was not automatically opposed to the plan, but wants more detail. Brown stated that if it was not made into townhouse, the property would not need a major subdivision and that was one less procedure for the Planning Commission to be able to review the issues. He has a hard time recommending this rezoning without more documentation that specifies townhouse. He doesn't want more apartments. Mueller stated that he felt this property would be more suited to two families than to four. He feels this is spot planning and would rather see a more regional planning approach. He asked if this was premature. Gordon stated that it was consistent with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Sutherland gave the greater background on this application. He stated that the current structure is "old and dilapidated" and the Staff felt it would be a good location for development. The applicant wanted support of the Planning Commission prior to putting any more money into planning since he does not own the land yet. Clapsaddle stated that since the amount of land in Mound for development was so scarce, the Commission needs to carefully consider any plans affecting those areas. He stated again, that this was not sufficient information from which to make a decision. Without additional plans, he stated he doesn't see any commitment from the developer. Rhonda Eurich (5585 Sherwood Drive) stated from the public that when the notification about this came out, it stated twin homes. Now she is hearing discussion about townhouse (four units) or even denser apartment buildings. This raises major concerns with her. The average citizen does not know the definition of R-3, she stated, nor what a Comprehensive Plan is. She wanted to know what the zoning for this was and if there was a map to designate and show that. One of her major concerns is traffic. Currently, a person cannot cross Commerce Boulevard. She also takes exception to the comment that the house is "old an dilapidated"." Chair Michael asked Sutherland to obtain a map for her. Brown apologized about the crosswalk situation, but stated that the County owns the road and even though Mound City has asked for crosswalks, they have not seen a need to put one in. 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apd112, 1999 Tom Higus (2032 Bellaire Lane) has a concern about privacy and the impact that another multifamily structure will have on their property values. He owns the lot directly to the west. He brought in a petition from the neighbors to this property stating their wishes for single family homes, up to two of them. This petition states: "1, being a close neighbor the 2033 Commerce Boulevard oppose the rezoning from R-2 to R-3. I am concerned that the construction of twin homes would reduce our privacy and negatively affect our properties' value. I prefer this lot the remain a single family dwelling." The following people signed the petition: Thomas R. Higus (2032 Bellaire Lane), Jean Krause (2026 Bellaire Lane), Rob Throwty (2020 Bellaire Lane), Jiff Dilliner (2037 Commerce Boulevard), Carl Cook (2038 Bellaire Lane), Pat Murphy (2044 Bellaire Lane), and EIvera Johnson (2625 Grandview Boulevard). Jeff Dilliner (2037 Commerce Boulevard) is also concerned about the noise levels. He lives directly across from the proposed structure and the building would only be about 10 feet away from his back yard that is how his bedroom faces. It would lose the back yard "serenity" that he now enjoys. The current house sets back over 50 feet. He feels that it is too high of a density for this lot that is only about ¼ acre. Too many units, too many cars, too much noise. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. DISCUSSION The applicant, Mr. Stortz was available to the Commission members for questions. Brown told the applicant that he was strongly opposed to another multifamily dwelling on the edge of town. He has a hard time with the R-3 rezoning. He is okay with the developer, but concerned about what would happen if the townhouse did not go in. He asked Mr. Stortz if he had looked at twin homes or a duplex. The applicant stated that a duplex will not break even financially and thus, not be what he would propose. Voss asked for more detail about the town homes. The applicant stated that they would be two story with a tuck under garage and be approximately 1200 finished square feet between the two levels. He would like them to be affordable at about $145,000 each. He understands the Commissioners' concerns about lack of information on the plan, however, since he doesn't own the property, he doesn't want to spend anymore money on it until he has their approval. 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Mueller asked if each unit would be singly owned. Then the property underneath the home would be owned also. If they were to be rented (an expressed concern), and then one owner would have to purchase all four units. He asked if there were plans for a town home association and all the associated covenants. The applicant stated that yes that would be in place. Mueller also realizes that two single-family homes would not recover the cost necessary. He asked the developer if he was familiar with other multifamily structures such as twin homes and duplexes. Mueller is not opposed to a multifamily structure if the area is properly zoned. He realizes that Commerce Boulevard is busy and feels that the citizens also realize this. This doesn't necessarily say that he is in support of the rezoning, he is not sure the correct path is being pursued. He also expressed a concern about the property values. The applicant stated that his plan was not his original plan to come in for rezoning and a townhouse. He originally looked at two duplexes. Staff suggested the townhouse that gave more room on the lot. The hardcover works best with the townhouse. A member of the public wanted to speak and Chair Michael allowed her to, but with the statement that the reason he explained the public headng process and asked several times if there was any additional comments was simply because of this process. Rhonda Eurich asked if she could comment. Two things: someone could purchase all the units and rent them and secondly, this meant greater traffic in an already bad situation. Voss stated that he realized the additional traffic and noise, but that there isn't any information to verify that property values would go down. Until he has that answer, he doesn't feel he can make a informed decision. Gordon stated that in general, the Commerce Boulevard is targeted for greater densities. There are certain things that come with a larger number of units, traffic and noise is part of that. Clapsaddle stated that he doesn't know how to put a positive spin on this situation. He isn't opposed to development or this developer, he is opposed to the rezoning. He feels that the area isn't being planned properly. He has a concern that two acres for a PUD is too large in Mound. He feels the Commission needs to address this issue. He does not see that this is a good project. Mueller stated that if a town home is built, it needs to come back before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. If this were a PUD, the Commission would 5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 12, 1999 have less control on it since it wouldn't necessarily have to come back. A high traffic corridor like Commerce Boulevard is not necessarily conducive to single family homes, so he wondered if a variance was a better way to go. Burma stated he had problems with the discussion that was going on. The Comprehensive Plan calls for greater density along the Commerce Boulevard corridor. Second, they have chastised applicants for not getting involved with the Planning Commission early on in their process. Now we have an applicant here early on and we're asking for more information. He stated that the two concepts do not make sense. Voss stated that he simply wanted more information. He isn't opposed to this type of dwelling here. He sees this as a good development move, therefore: MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller to accept the Staff recommendation as presented. Mueller asked if they could tie an amendment to this motion that would tie it to the townhouse plan. Voss would not change his motion. Mueller still seconds the motion for discussion purposes. Brown reminded the Commission that if rezoned, apartments could be constructed. Weiland asked the applicant to clarify his desires. He stated that he was not interested in apartments, but would like to see this project work. Single family will not give him the return he needs to go forward and develop this property. Weiland asked if this applicant could be tied into the motion. Gordon stated that a rezoning that conditioned the use of the property is not legal. This is why the code specifies uses that are allowed within each district. Mueller asked if a variance would be better solution. Chair Michael is against rezoning. Clapsaddle called for the question. The motion to rezone this property failed. Voting Aye were Burma and Voss. Voting Nay were Brown, Glister, Mueller, Michael, Weiland, Hasse, and Clapsaddle. Brown asked what it would take to have a good proposal and if a variance would work. Clapsaddle stated that he was not opposed to two duplexes or twin homes, but not tonight. Mueller asked the client if he would table the discussion. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Michael to send the applicant back to staff to work to develop a proposal that would not require rezoning. Motion carried: 9-0. Gordon stated that they would work with the applicant to probably design two town homes. However, this would require a variance. Michael stated that he would not vote for a variance. Sutherland asked then, do we work with the applicant to come up with a plan that won't fly. Michael stated that the applicant is responsible to bring in a reasonable plan that will work. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #99-09 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF REZONING UNPLATTED 14 117 24 FROM R-2 TO R-3, AT 2033 COMMERCE BLVD PID # 14-117-24 41 0001 P & Z 99-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, wil! meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 11. 1999 to consider the approval of Rezoning a portion of Unplatted 14 117 24 from R-2 to R-3 at 2033 Commerce Blvd. I "~-~--/ .!~;~ , ¢~i,:~7)~ -'~ ----4'----~--_~-_~ ~_ 2~ ..... .___~ (?~ oJ:' ::::'::: ::: ~"' :'::: :': :':::::: ' ..... ~ (27~ ZOO ~ ~ r~ X.~ (29, All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to th~ will be ~iven the opport.nitg to be heard at this m~~~ ~Kri~ reta y Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on April 20, 1999 Published in the Laker, April 24, 1999 printed on recycled paper 1615 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Rezoning request APPLICANT: Stephen L. Stortz OWNER: Christopher and Sarah Geiger- 2033 Commerce Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 99-09 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-05h LOCATION: 2033 Commerce Blvd. EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) PROPOSED ZONING: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Medium Density Residential BACKGROUND: An application has been submitted to rezone the property at 2033 Commerce Blvd. fi.om its current R-2 Two Family Residential to R-3 Multiple Family Residential. The lot is located between Grand View Blvd. and Balsam Road on the west side of Commerce. Current use of the property is a single family house. The applicant is interested in developing the site as a 4 unit townhome building. At this time, only a rezoning is being sought. Upon approval of the rezoning, the applicant would apply for a major subdivision and conditional use permit for the townhomes. The applicant wishes to secure the zoning for the property first before proceeding with the project. The current Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel as medium density residential. The proposed 4 unit townhome building would be within the density range for medium density residential areas. Current discussions on the Comprehensive Plan update indicate that this area should remain as a multiple family residential area. Zoning in the immediate area consists of a mix of R-I, R-2, and R-3 districts. The apartment complex directly north of the site is zoned R-3. The two buildings have 10 - 12 units each for an overall site density of approximately 24 units/acre. Zoning on the east side of Commerce is R-1 and R-2. There are mixed single-family and assisted care facility. South and west of the site is zoned R-2. Uses here are primarily single-family residential. The R-3 zoning district allows a range of housing types from single family to multiple family 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-09 - 2033 Commerce Rezoning April 12, 1999 apartment buildings. Depending on the type, they are either outright permitted or permitted by conditional use permit. In this case, a townhome development would operate with a conditional use permit. Minimum lot area required for a 4 unit structure is 4,500 square feet. DISCUSSION: The proposal to rezone the property to a higher district is in keeping with the current Comprehensive Plan and is also consistent with the current thinking for the update. The Commerce corridor has been designated to accommodate higher residential densities because of good roadway access and its proximity to downtown. Upon approval of the rezoning, a minor subdivision and conditional use permit would be reviewed. At that time, a more detailed review of the design will be made including building plans, utilities, drainage, traffic, circulation, pedestrian access, and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the rezoning from R-2 to R-3 as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4,72-0620 Planning Commission Date: .~r~ I~% City Council Date: ~l Cry / J~ Case No. Distribution: Zonin~t~r~dment Fee: $250.00 .~-I~d~ City Planner¢ ,~- I~o~Public Works I,/ '~,~ iC~-[71Ci City Engineer¢ ~-~ DNR ¢ .................................................................................................................... n~V'OF' ~IO1UN~) ............................... Applicant Name ._~'~fJrl~ ~_.. Address Phone (H)~IZ47~-~6 (W)~/~- I I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE It is requested that Section 350: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for amendment: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP / ZONING DISTRICT It is~equ~:~ted that the ~_.,o_pe...~ described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from_ to Address & Legal of Subject Property Owner of Subject Site Lot O~PJ~O ]q //~ ~q Block Addition~ ~lg ~of ~j ~ o~ ~/~ FF OF~q o~5&-~q 5uCFgcT ~ PID~ 1~//7g~jO~J Plat Address~'~ ¢~~( h}u~ ~~ Phone (H) ~7~-~E~b (W) (M) Present Use of Property Reason for Amendment Applicant's STORTZ HOMES 3770 Enchanted Lane Mound, Mn 55364 Lic. # 20131493 We are interested in purchasing the property located at 2033 Commerce Blvd., removing the existing buildings, and building a Four unit Townhome. The floorplan, and driveways we are considering meet the 30% hardcover requirements. There would need to be, as I understand it, a zoning change necessary to build this type of structure on this property. CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~ o ~--~-3 ~c~ h~ ~v~ ,~.d-r,-T- ~c.~ / LOT AREA 2~,¢ SQ. ~. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. ?~Z,7~- LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... 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 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 hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... x : X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .......... · ....... /~' x /74, = /2Go x = ,3 x 4~r : / ~-z.- TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... X = X = TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I 'UN~'I OVER (indicate di~'ference) .... ././. ....................... [ 75' ---.12~.l&"- ~ COMMERCE : BLVD. COUNTY ROAD. ..... NO. <2 n, 0 3: -- 0 x CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 7, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor, City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director SUBJECT: Possible Purchase/Use of Mr. Ahlbrects Dock. As directed by the City Council I have looked into the purchase of Mr. Ahlbrects dock. The dock is "U" shape and was manufactured by Water Free, which is no longer in business and is not compatable with the Crepeau system the city currently uses. Also it is not rated in its manufacturing specification to the Crepeau system. There is a 144 lineal feet or approximately 18 sections. That when new the cost was about $250.00 per section or $4,500.00. Mr. Ahlbrect has provided me with receipts from a private party that shows $2,095.00 as his final cost for the used system. I have looked into the value of Mr. Ahlbrects dock and have been advised from the dealer that the city is currently purchasing two docks for Highland and Carlson Parks a credit of $90.00 per section or $1,650.00. So a final cost to the city would be $445.00. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status /~1~ in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 2, 1999 To: Subject: Dock Site Holders & Abutting Property Owners Pembroke Multiple Dock Configuration Dear Resident, At the April 27, 1999, City Council meeting a plan was presented to change the location and the configuration of the city multiple slip dock at the Pembroke Park access (Note Plan "A & B"). Prior to any change to the dock the City Council would like to have your input. This matter will be discussed at the next regular City Council meeting on May 11, 1999, at Mound City Hall Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 pm. For your information I have also enclosed copies of the configuration for 1997-1998 and the original 1996 plan. Your attendance at this meeting will enable your concerns to be addressed. If you can not attend, you may provide a written response if received no later than May 11, 1999 which can then be presented to the council that evening. e y, .//" Parks Director cc. Mayor & City Council Fran Clark, Acting City Manager Park and Open Space Commission Dock and Commons Advisory Commission _J P[TiTiON WI,/iS RESIDENTS OF THE PEMBROKE 8EACii AREA, FEEL TiiAT THE PROPO$£O DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A HAZZARD AND INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS RS WE SEE THEM ARE: I! AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE R HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. 5) THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS ~"7- 'r~/,.~o z~,,,~ PHONE ._:--xq o% PF. TiTiON WE, AS RESIDENTS OF THE PEMBROKE BEACH AREA, FEEL THAT THE PROPOSEO DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A HAZZARO AND INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: I ! AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PF. TiTiON WE, AS RESIDENTS OF THE PEMBROKE BEACH AREA, FEEL THAT THE PROPOSEO DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R HRZZARO ANO INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: I) AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETiTi ON WE, AS RESIDENTS OF THE PEMBROKE B£A£ii AREA, F££L TH~tT Tii£ P~iP{IS£B DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R HAZZARD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: 1 ) AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TD PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # , PETITION W£, AS Rt31DENTS Of THE PEMI~ROKE REACH AREA, I~EEL THAT THE PRO?OSEO, DOC~ £ONFIGURRTION WILL OFFER fl HRZZflRD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE [lEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: 1) AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. CHILDREN CAN 2) THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. 3) THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. PHONE # 19 PETiTi ON WE, AS iiEStDENTS OF THE PEMBROKE B[ACii RHEA, FEEL TART Ti~E PRO[~OSEG DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A HAZZRRD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HA:7ZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE-' I ) AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # // PETiTiON WE, ils RESIOENTS OF THE PEMRROKE REACii RHEA, FEEL TH~IT THE PROPOSE[I DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL DFFER R HAZZRRD AND iNCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: I) AN ATI"RACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. §t THE DOCK WILL EXTEND iNTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NFiME ADDRESS PHONE # PETiTiON WE, RS RESIDENTS OF THE PEMBROKE BEACH AREA, FEEL THAT THE DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A HAZZRRD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: I} AN ATTRACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 2) THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. 5) THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. ADDRESS PHONE # PF. TiTiON WE, AS AESiOENTS OF THE PEMBROKE 8EACii AREA, FEEL TART THE DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A HAZZARD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: I) AN A'I'[RACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. 5} THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE flREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. PHONE # P£TiTi~t~ W£, AS R£SIO£NT$ OF Tlt£ Pi~MBROK£ B~.A~;ii AR£A, F£EL Tii~tT T~i[ P~IOP[i~£[I DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A HAZZARD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: ii AN AI'I'RACTIVE NUCANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WiLL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # -fO ALt Fl' ! t I I t I I I I I FEET F£O ~ ?Z~I. 'i I~/1~, !0 ' I 05/07/1999 10:34 6124796445 CREPEAU DOCKS PAGE 82 I I I I i I _/ ! I~;~ NOT' Exf. EE~ 1997 - 1998 DOCK CONFIGURATION ~3 it+ ~5 ~6 ORIGINAL 1996 -~ .- DOCK CONFIGURATION , H ROD PLAZA 4539 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 DON SCHERVEN 4528 ABERDEEN ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 TIMOTHY MAYEK 4547 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 BILL & BARB DAHLEN 4555 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 RAY SALAZAR 4559 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 CRAIG WATSON 4610 TUXEDO BLVD. MOUND, MN 55364 JON HELGASON 3124 TUXEDO BLVD. MOUND, MN 55364 MARGARET KENNIE 4751 ABERDEEN ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 DEAN SULANDER 2524 EMERALD DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 STAN STRALEY 4501 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 JOHN MUNDT 4517 TUXEDO BLVD. MOUND, MN 55364 TIM WILLIAMS 3135 AYR LANE MOUND, MN 55364 TODD RASK 5109 DRUMMOND ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 JAMES ALBRECHT 4701 ABERDEEN ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 137 August 22, 1989 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK COMMISSION ON THE CLOSING OF PEMBROKE PARK ACCESS/VACATION OF A PORTION OF ABERDEEN ROAD Councilmember Jessen, Council Liaison to the Park Commission, ex- plained that the Park Commission has recommended closing the Pembroke Park motor vehicle access and asked that that portion of Aberdeen Road that abuts the park be considered for vacation. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to close the Pembroke Park motor vehicle access to Lake Minnetonka and start vacation proceedings. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak. The following persons spoke against the closing of the access: Duane and Beth Van Poll, Tim Williams, Bill Kullberg, Gene Garvais, Clayton Olson. The following persons spoke in favor of the closing: Claudia Miller, Jan Cheisl, and Lorrie Stanton. The Council discussed other accesses, the danger to children using the park, noise from vehicles using the access. The vote on the motion was 3 in favor' with Jensen and Johnson voting nay. Motion carried. The City Clerk advised the Council that if they are considering vacating this access they will have to notify the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources 30 days before the public hearing to vacate. This is new legislation that took affect August 1, 1989, for all vacations of public land abutting public waters. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to reconsider the above motion and start working out details for the vacation of that portion of Aberdeen Road abutting Pembroke Park. This to be brought back to the Council for setting a date for a public hearing. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 148 Septelt~er 12, 1989 DISCUSSION: RECONSIDERATION OF CLOSING PEMBROKE PARK ACCESS TO WINTER MOTORIZED VEHICLE TRAFFIC The Mayor stated a petition with 421 names has been submitted op- posing closing this access to the lake during the winter. Councilmember Jessen stated that she has spoken with the members of the Park Commission and had almost unanimous support for a compromise on this item. The compromise would be to erect a bar- rier of some kind along the edge of the park so that vehicles would be restricted to the roadway only to enter and exit the lake. The access would be open only during the winter months. She also suggested signage to alert people that no motorized vehicles are allowed in the park and people cannot leave their fish houses in the park when they are pulled from the lake. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to continue to allow motorized vehicle access to Lake Minnetonka on unimproved Aberdeen Road adjacent to Pembroke Park during the winter months; install some kind of barrier to restrict the traffic to the roadway portion; and install signage stating the penalty for motorized vehicles in the park area and storage of items in the park area. The vote was unanim- ously in favor. Motion carried. August 23, 1994 1.11 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: WINTER DOCK STORAGE/REMOVAL: REVIEW OF "NOTICE" - APPROVAL OF NOTICE. The City Manager explained that this was discussed at the POSC meeting. The Park Director suggested that this notice could be utilized to enforce the existing ordinance, and if a problem was found to exist this winter when the Dock Inspector does his rounds, the violator can then be given a second notice and then a third, and if compliance is not accomplished, their dock license can be revoked. Councilmember Ahrens stated that her concern is with the docks left in during the winter that receive damage from the ice and wind. Some of these float out in the spring or sink to the bottom and can be hazardous to all persons using the lake and the environment. She stated the Dock Inspector has prepared a list of where docks should and should not be allowed to be stored in the winter. She stated she feels the city should regulate where docks should be removed because they are polluting the lake. The City Manager stated that the POSC agreed to work with the notice they have on page 3472 which would be sent out this year and then monitor the number of problems they have this winter. That was their recommendation. Rim Peterson, Halstead Lane - representing several residents who live right across the street (level with) from Commons voiced concern about how they have to look through the docks and boat lifts that are stored in the Commons. The Council explained that according to the ordinance there is winter storage on most of the Commons. Mike Dupay, 5420 Breezy Road, stated that someone has a roll out dock and boat lift in front of his house. Mike Kohler, 1744 Avocet Lane, stated that he feels that the Commons has been there a lot longer than some of the people who chose to live in that area and people should be allowed to store their docks and boat lifts on Commons. The Council discussed how times have changed on the Commons i.e. bigger boats, boat lifts, etc. The Council asked the POSC to look at the winter storage section (Section 437:10, Subd. 10, a.4.) of the ordinance at their meeting in September and maybe have a hearing on this so that something can be done this winter. They also asked the Park Director and the Dock Inspector to see if the storage of dock, boat lifts, etc. can be done to the side of an area so that abutting properties do not have to look at it all winter. This may have to be done on a case by case basis. Minutes - Mound City Council April 9, 1996 1.3 PRESENTATION OF A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENq'ING COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS IN TIlE AREA OF PEMBROKE PARK/DEVON COMblONS - MARK GOLDBERG. COMMONS TASK FORCE CIIAIR. Mayor Polston introduced Mark Goldberg. Chair of the Commons Task Force, and Bev Botko, Gordy Tulberg, Marilyn Byrnes, Rodrigo Plaza as members of the Commons Task Force. Mark Goldberg shared with the Council their recommendations thus far. The task force wished to recommend changes at Pembroke Park on Devon Commons and to use this recommendation as a pilot project for future use in reducing the congestion created with several docks along a commons area that create problems for the abutting property owners whose homes are close to the shore and at eye level. Their suggestion was to have the City install a multi-boat dock complex at the north end of Devon Commons just south of the swimming beach. He discussed with the Council the costs of installation and how the project could work. The task force will schedule a meeting of these dock holders involved and work out the details with them before construction begins. The City would own and install the dock, funds would be used from the dock fund and not from tax dollars. The Council concensus was that the concept sounded workable. MOTION by Polslon, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the conceptual plans of the Commons Task Force for a mulli-boat dock complex and to set up a meeting with the commons dock holders at Pembroke Park on Devon Commons to dlscuss the possibilily of a multi-dock complex to be built by the City at thls Iocatlon to eliminate dock and boat congestion from abutting properties along this common. The date of this meeting was set at April 20th or 21st. Goldberg stated place and time would be set by the task force. Mark Goldberg also discussed briefly with the Council encroaching structures on the commons. Ownership and responsibility of structures was discussed. Rules were discussed regarding the encroachments. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated there would have to be agreement among the owners, an inventory needed to be made as m what is encroaching and where, define the life time of them structures, work out a program to accept and acknowledge ownership and responsibility, and the costs. MOTION by llanus to direct staff to work with the risk'management organization wilhin the LMC and to have the CRy Attorney infor~ned and the City Attorney then detail what the Council would need 1o do. The motion died for lack of a second. ] Hanus suggested the Task Force needs to be more specific as to exactly what their proposals for structures on commons involves. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, stated there were records indicating the encroaching structures. The Task Force will return to the Council with a plan and proposal for the caring of encroaching structures on the Commons at a future date. Goldberg stated the task force still had much to do regarding this issue. The Council applauded the Task Force on their work up to this date and encouraged the Task Force to continue working on the several commons issues. 1.4 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Reaardin~ the proposed multi-dock at Pembroke Park. Peter Meyer, member of the Parks and Open Space Commission, questioned the beach safety at Pembroke Park if a multi-boat dock was created. He also stated that this dock proposal has not been brought to the Parks and Open Space Commission for review. He mentioned a storm sewer at the north end of the park. Hanus stated the dock is proposed on the Commons not at the beach. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, stated the configuration of the beach boundaries could easily be changed. Minutes -'Mound City Council ~-' '- April 23, 1996 1.19 ADD ON - COMMONS TASK FORCE - PEMBROKE PARK DOCK Mark Goldberg was present from the Commons Task Force and requested approval of funds to come from the Docks Fund, to purchase and install a multiple dock configuration at the Pembroke Park Commons. The amounts needed are up to $11,000 for the dock and $930 to install and remove the dock this season. He asked the Council agree to a one year pilot program with this type of dock plan for this area, the most congested dock area in the commons program. MOTION by Poiston, seconded by Jensen, to authorize spending up to $11,930 from the Dock Fund for the purchase, installation and removal of a multi-boat dock to be located at Pembroke Park Commons for the 1996 boating season. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 189 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRlL 14, 1998 1.12 RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING THE.IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED .S,T ROANOKE LANE ACCESS. The City Attorney made the following statement: "I have been asked by Councilmember Ahrens to make a statement at this time. Councilmember Ahrens has elected to absent herself from consideration of this matter. She has elected not to participate in the discussion and elected not to participate in the vote on any matters here with respect to which there has been an assertion that she may have a conflict of interest. That is point number one." "Point number two. She has asked me to stress to you that her decision to do so is voluntary. It is her choice and by making that decision she wants it to be made clear that the decision should not be viewed as an admission of truth of any of the assertions that there may be a conflict of interest nor is it a consent by her that there is, in fact, the admission of a conflict of interest in that matter. That's the extent of the statement. Based upon that statement it would appear that there is no issue for the Council to consider regarding a conflict of interest here. As a result, the City Council is free to proceed to discuss the substance of the issues before it." The Mayor made the following statement: "We, as a Council are here to find solutions to problems. We are not here to create solutions for problems. We want to hear everyone who wishes to be heard, but the ground rules for the City Council, the Staff, and those participating in the discussion here, is that we will not allow any personal attacks on any members of the audience, the City Council, or Staff. All comments or discussion will be directed to the Chair. We will recognize those who wish to comment or speak. I insist that City Councilmembers, Staff and members of the public treat each other with the utmost respect and dignity. We will, in fact, try to answer any questions that you have. And from there, I will ask if anybody on the City Council has anything they would like to add at this point?" There was no response. The Mayor continued. "I know there are a number of people here on this item. Are there any questions or comments or statements that you would like to make at this time?" There was no response. The Mayor continued. "Over the past three years, there has been a Commons Task Force that was appointed by the City Council to address the issues of improving the level of comfort that both abutters and non-abutters could achieve on the Commons as it relates to docks. As a result of the Task Force's work, there was a Docks and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) was established. There have been a number of areas where the Docks and Commons Commission have addressed the use of multiple docks to help alleviate congestion on Commons. There was a survey of this particular area done by the Task Force and reviewed by the DCAC that addressed the level of dissatisfaction by abutters and non-abutters alike. There was something like 75 % dissatisfaction in the Roanoke Access area." The Mayor related that the DCAC has done other multiple slip docks in other areas and it has been working out just fine. The DCAC addressed multiple slip docks on Roanoke Access. Over the past month, it has become increasingly clear that there are, in fact, a number of people who are not necessarily opposed to multiple docks, but they are opposed to the particular location on the Roanoke Access where this is being proposed. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRlL 14, 1998 The Mayor stated that he has tried to meet with the people who are affected by any decision that the City Council would make to try and find a level of comfort that everyone can live with. "Realizing that there is nothing that we can do, as a City Council, or a society, that will make everyone absolutely happy and give them everything they want as it relates to Commons Docks and our Dock Program, but.trying to give everyone some of the things they want to improve the level of comfort they have with what's taking place. There was a proposal by the DCAC to install a multiple slip dock up to 100 feet long and to provide for 4 or 5 slips. That raised the discomfort level of a number of people, particularly those who live immediately within the area. As an individual in going out to discuss this with some of the abutting homeowners and some of the non-abutting dockholders, and asking what would be acceptable, there was a proposal made that I indicated I would bring back to the City Council and discuss which involves moving 2 of the docks,//42886 and #41477 (Mr. Stead), to the Pembroke Park multiple slip dock. Mr. Stead was, in fact, in favor of that because it would be closer to his home. This would be easier for him to access and it would also be easier for who ever gets #41886 to get access because they wouldn't have to traverse across a very small Commons. //41886 has not been used for the last few years. This proposal would also free up another dock for a non-abutting property owner that hasn't been used, that will probably get some use. The other proposal that I made to the two dockholders, Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt, was that in fact the City is willing to put in a City owned dock at Roanoke Lane Access fire lane which would facilitate 2 boats for each user on each side of the dock, which would decongest the Commons further and would take away what is considered a very unsafe Commons to traverse across in order to get to the dock. All but one of the people that was affected was a non-abutter. One was willing to, the other was opposed to it. So we come here tonight with an open mind to find a solution that is beneficial to everyone, if that's possible. The Mayor suggested only putting Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt on the City owned multiple dock at the Roanoke Access. The City Council could prohibit any further expansion of that multiple dock to any other people." The Mayor asked for comments from the people present. BARB CASEY stated she has had her dock for 12 years and has never had a problem accessing her dock. She stated she does not have a problem with moving//41886 or//41477, but would prefer to have her dock and Bob Schmidt's dock left where they are. The Council discussed having Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Casey share a City owned multiple dock or a privately owned dock at the Roanoke Access. Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt do not want this because of congestion in the area. The Council discussed the word 'congestion~. Some people feel docks are congestion and others feel boats are congestion. Councilmember Hanus stated that he believes the number of docks cause congestion not the number of boats. Councilmember Weycker expressed concern about increasing the size of the Pembroke multiple slip dock to accommodate the two extra boats (Stead and dock site 41886). GENE SMITH, 4705 Island View Drive, stated he is directly affected by this proposed multiple slip dock on Roanoke Access and he was never notified that this was even proposed. He felt putting two more boats between Schmidt's and Gabos' dock and two more boats on the opposite side of that dock would create congestion. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AP-RILd4, 1998 The following persons would like to leave this area of Devon Commons the way it is with no multiple slip docks on Roanoke Access. They were also against moving the 2 docks (Stead and //'41886) to Pembroke because they are losing 2 docks that could be used by two people in their neighborhood. Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive. Cathy and T6m Latchum, 4711 Island View Drive. Bob Schmidt, 4708 Island View Drive Barb Casey, 4704 Island View Drive John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive The Mayor stated that when the Roanoke area was opened for 14 docks in 1977, 7 for abutters and 7 for non-abutters, there was a safety issue, the narrowness of this Commons. He is concerned about safety issues on this portion of the Devon Commons because of the narrowness and difficult terrain to access the docks. There was discussion about trimming some of the trees on the Commons. The Mayor stated that the following petition was received by the City and signed by 9 persons: 'We the undersigned, petition the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission to proceed with the plan to place a multiple dock for current non-abutter dock site holders on the end of the fire lane at the Roanoke Access on the Devon Commons. The multiple slip dock at Roanoke should not exceed 100 feet in length. All other non-abutting dock sites at Roanoke Access should be eliminated.' Also received was the following petition signed by 14 persons: '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.' RENEE LA FORTUNE, 4649 Island View Drive, agreed that there is a safety issue for this narrow Commons area. JOHN GABOS, 4687 Island View Drive, thanked the Mayor for doing all he has done to try to resolve this problem. He further stated that in the 10 years he has lived here, he has never had a problem with the people who have their docks abutting the Commons in front of his home. He stated that he feels the multiple dock idea is a good idea, but the locations for these multiples needs to be evaluated. He stated he does not like to see the micro-managing of the dock program. Don't try to fix the dock situation one or two docks at a time. MARK SMITH, 4665 Island View Drive, agreed with Mr. Gabos. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 14, 1998 The City Attorney read the proposed resolution as follows: RESOLUTION//98-37 RESOLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF DOCK LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF CONSIDERATION OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ON DEVON COMMONS 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 (DCAC) 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 motion: "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 41886 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 multiple dock. Dock site holder Schmidt would have the f'wst choke of dock slips on the multiple dock. Dock site #41956 (Casey) will remain in its current location. This is the DCAC motion." 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: 1. Dock site locations 41477 (which is the Stead location) and 41866 (which is shown as the open location) are hereby eliminated and the City is directed to establish two permanent sites on the Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations. 2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is hereby discontinued and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested to do so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property abuts Roanoke Lane. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 44, 1998 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. 4. Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location area, if such location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe as the existing location. 5. With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open location), and the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon Commons will remain unchanged and unaffected by this action. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus adopt the above resolution. Councilmembers Jensen and Weycker stated they were not comfortable moving the 2 dock sites to the Pembroke Park multiple slip dock without notifying the property owners who abut Pembroke because the two extra sites there were to be eliminated as people when from two boats to one. There was also a concern that the Pembroke site might not be deep enough. The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion fails. The Council discussed notifying the abutters at Pembroke Park of the proposal before taking action and checking on the shallowness at Pembroke. PETER MEYER, member of Mound Park & Open Space Commission - stated that he would like to have the POSC review moving the 2 dock sites to Pembroke Park. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to adopt the proposed resolution above subject to the approval of the existing users of the Pembroke dock as well as all others who were. originally notified of the multiple dock site at Pembroke; also notification of Mr. Stead about the limitation on the size of his boat. RESOLUTION98-37 RESOLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF DOCK LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF CONSIDERATION OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ON DEVON COMMONS AT THE ROANOKE LANE ACCESS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused). Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207 Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. DISCUSSION FENCE DEFINITION Gordon stated that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the ordinance to remove the definition of a fence. The Planning Commission suggested that staff use common sense when it comes to fences. Mueller stated not to change codes, but to grant variances if something is needed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland to leave fence code as is. Ayes: 7-0. Motion carried. Brown spoke with Hennepin County regarding using the old community center as a service center. They stated that at this time, the centers were distributed according to population. They did not see a practical need at this time to open one in Mound. He stated that there is other discussions regarding its use. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [lll TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner April 19, 1999 Fence definition The Council reviewed the Planning Commissions motion to keep the existing fence definition at their last meeting. The Council had a lengthy discussion about wanting to keep flexibility in the enforcement process and suggested the definition be removed. This discussion was spun off from our review of other communities that don't have a definition for fence. They have asked the Planning Commission to consider this as an amendment to the ordinance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound City Council Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner April 7, 1999 Review of the zoning definition - fence As directed by the Council, the Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning code definition for a "fence." After much discussion and debate about enclosure of yard space and sight lines, the Commission made a motion to keep the definition as it currently reads. They felt that the definition was generally good and was a good fit for most situations. For those situations that were in the grey zone, they felt staff needed to use a "common sense approach" for enforcement. Minutes from the two Commission meetings as well as staff reports are provided as background for your review. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister; Council Liaison Bob Brown Public Present: Joyce and Marvin Nelson (2025 Shorewood), James Peterson (2561 Wexford Lane), Jim Gefre (4800 Carrick Road), Sandy Hayward (4792 Carrick Road), Leroy Byan (2544 Wexford Lane), Dan Swenson (2560 Wexford Lane), Tracy Sirny (2560 Wexford Lane), Judy and Maria Wartman (4816 Longford Road), Bernie McVey (4807 Longford Road), Thomas Stokes (4363 Wilshire Boulevard, #207), Dick Oliver (4824 Longford Road), Mark Hanus (4446 Denbigh Road). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to accept the minutes as presented. Motion carried: 7-0. DISCUSSION ON CONTINUATION FENCE/TRELLIS: Gordon did some study of other city ordinances, and concluded that Mound was the only city to define a "fence." Unless the Planning Commission would like to "enforce" the definition of "barrier/partition," these words should be removed. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Michael, that the ordinances should remain the same and leave the implementation up to the enforcer. DISCUSSION: Weiland stated that if that was the case, then the trellis should be defined as barriers and have the same guidelines. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Hanus stated that he felt it would be appropriate to get the Staff to have a 'more open mind and common sense" approach in enforcing these guidelines and not to create non-conforming property use issues. He doesn't believe the ordinances should be changed either. Motion carried: 6-0. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-'4n TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Loren Gordon DATE: March 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Fence/Trellis issue As a follow up to this item, I have reviewed a number of City zoning codes and found little in the way of assistance with a definition for a fence or trellis. All of the communities I reviewed including Orono, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Bloomington, and Minnetonka, did not have a fence or trellis definition. All have specific standards for height, materials, and finish similar to ours. I would suggest we continue the discussion on the definition and purpose of a fence. I'll continue to look for additional information that could help with discussions before our meeting on Monday. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Council Member: Andrea Ahrens; and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Orv Burma Absent and excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss. Public Present: None Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to approve the Minutes of the February 8, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting as written. Motion carried 6-0. WORKSHOP ITEMS: DISCUSSION: TRELLIS/FENCES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: MARCH 9, 1999 City Planner Gordon brought to the Planning Commission an item brought to the City Council last November by a citizen complaint. Included in the packet for this meeting are pictures (page 33) of a trellis located at 4673 Island View Drive. He explained an anonymous resident filed the complaint claiming that it should be regulated as a fence under the definition of fence in the Zoning Code. Staff investigated the case and determined that this trellis did meet the definition of a fence and should be regulated under the Zoning Code and that because the trellis is in a shore land impact area, it would not be allowed. Rather than acting on the complaint at the meeting, the City Council felt it appropriate to send the issue to the Planning Commission after the first of the year for review. City Planner Gordon suggested considering the things that could be located in a yard and if the Commission feels they should be regulated. Current accessory building/structures that are regulated are those that exceed 120 square feet, detached decks/patios, lock boxes, and fences. Many typical things found in yards such as lawn ornaments, benches, bird feeders, planter boxes, basketball hoops, etc. are not regulated under the Code. As Staff has found, there are many types of trellis structures around the town. Those that may lean up against Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 the wall of a house or garage probably wouldn't be regulated. An arched trellis over a sidewalk probably wouldn't either. Staff would like to avoid regulating, as much as possible, any item on residential property unless it doesn't have a residential character or is an obstruction. He stated it seems the approach to this issue is to revisit the definition of a fence to see if it needs to be modified. The definition reads: .Fence: A fence is defined for the purpose of this Ordinance as any partition structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fence as, "1. An enclosure, barrier, or boundary made of posts, boards, wire, stakes, or rails." and a trellis as, "An open lattice work used for training climbing plants. Discussion at the November 24, 1999 City Council meeting included the following highlights: The City Manager reported that there have been several recent cases relative to interpretation of what a fence is versus some other type of structure and what is covered under the fence ordinance. The Staff desires that this item be sent on to the Planning Commission for review and study to give a clearer definition and interpretation of what a fence really is. The City Planner submitted pictures of some problem areas that many people call trellises, but what appear to be fences for lack of definition in the Zoning Ordinance to clearly define it as something other than a fence. Council Member Hanus asked that another item to be looked at in the Zoning Code is acceptable materials for fencing which are specifically listed as wood and chain link. With those items in mind, wrought iron fencing, and PCV fencing would be excluded. It the City agrees with the Staff's interpretation, building permits would have to be issued for all trellises, arbors, archways, etc. and if these structures are within 20 or 30 feet of the street, or within 50 feet of the Lake, they are nonconforming which would then require variances. · The Council also discussed the size of a fence or trellis that could also be a problem if it becomes a barrier. A motion was made, seconded and approved to have the Planning Commission study, and redefine the fences versus the trellis in the Zoning Code. Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 DISCUSSION: Weiland wanted to know what the difference was between a trellis or a fence. He suggested limiting the height in front and back and calling them the same. Glister put together a group of pages from a Time Life Book - The Big Book of Garden Design. In this collection of data, she had definitions of both fences and trellis, and the differences. The information included a list of common fence styles and trellis was one of those styles if it was on the boundary between properties. Gordon also indicated that the ordinances on fencing were fairly inclusive. A fence is a barrier or an enclosure as opposed to decoration or ornamental purposes. Glister referred to her information indicating a fence can serve as a trellis. Mueller asked if it would still be considered a fence if it was plant material or only on one side. He feels that the Planning Commission is over regulating things. Different ways of approaching this were discussed among staff and Commissioners. Brown suggested that sometimes this becomes an issue because people like to use it as "ammunition" against their neighbors. It becomes a control issue for some. Mueller suggested that rather than regulate fences, the Planning Commission should regulate "line of sight" issues instead. This would eliminate the need to be conclusive about "what is a fence and what isn't a fence." Sutherland pointed out that a few variance requests for inheight in the front yard have been denied. Ahrens stated she has a trellis and the packet has some pictures. She commented that the ordinances concerning fences make this a fence. She has four trellises separated by several feet but they are not a line of sight issue because of the slope of the street. However, according to some, it is a fence per the ordinances. Ahrens wants to know where in the ordinances is she prohibited from having a trellis, which is what she sees it as, not a fence. She stated there needs to be some logic in the City's approach to planning and she likes the "line of sight" concept. Hasse feels there should be nothing but grass within 50 feet of the lake. Per Mueller, Spring Park, Minnetrista, and Orono all have "line of sight" ordinances. Ahrens feels the Planning Commission should get copies of these ordinances, take the best from them, and be as creative as necessary. Weiland pointed out that fences could ruin a beautiful city and particular site. As an example, he cited some fences around Andrews Park in Champlin. He discussed perhaps taking the height and making sure that there was a separation equal to this height in the placement of trellis. Brown noted that often it is an issue of "neighborly vendettas." Mueller feels it is a good idea to seek out other communities' ordinances and be creative with one for Mound using "line of sight." Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 Sutherland distributed a handout about Building Permit Exemptions with respect to this topic. Gordon will get copies of the different communities' ordinances to work from. Glister asked about tennis courts and how high the fences should be. Gordon advised it is ten feet to prevent the ball from going over the wall but she doesn't believe that is high enough from her experience of getting several tennis balls in her yard and would like it higher. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. t'4H TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Loren Gordon DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Regulating residential accessory uses This item is regarding a situation that was brought before Council last November by a citizen complaint. Included in the packet material are pictures of a trellis located at 4673 Island View Drive. An anonymous resident filed the complaint claiming that it should be regulated as a fence under the definition of fence in the Zoning Code. Staff investigated the case and determined that this trellis did meet the definition of a fence and should be regulated under the zoning code and that because the trellis is in a shoreland impact area, it would not be allowed. Rather than acting on the complaint at the meeting, the Council felt it appropriate to sent the issue to Planning Commission after the first of the year for review. To start the discussion on this item, we should consider the things that could be located in a yard and if the Commission feels they should be regulated. Current accessory buildings/structures that are regulated are those that exceed 120 square feet, detached decks/patios, lock boxes, and fences. Many typical things found in yards such as lawn ornaments, benches, bird feeders, planter boxes, basketball hoops, etc. are not regulated under the code. As staff has found, there are many types of trellis structures around town. Those that may lean up against the wall of a house or garage probably wouldn't be regulated. An arched trellis over a sidewalk probably wouldn't either. Staff would like to avoid regulating as much as possible, any item on residential property unless it is doesn't have a residential character or is an obstruction. It seems that the approach to this issue is to revisit the definition of fence to see if it needs to be modified. The definition reads: Fence. A fence is defined for the purpose of this Ordinance as any partition structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fence as, "I. An enclosure, barrier, or boundary made of posts, boards, wire, stakes, or rails." and a trellis as, "An open lattice work used for training climbing plants." 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 24, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, I-Iennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 24, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon and the following interested citizens: Bob & Anne Hunt, Dale & Lorell Becker, Tim Becker and Councilmember Elect Bob Brown. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 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. The City Manager stated he would has and item to add to the Agenda regarding directing the Planning Commission to look at the fence ordinance and do a study on it. This will become Item 7.A. The City Manager advised that the Planning Commission tabled Case//98-64, the Conditional Use Permit for the Community Center at their meeting last night. Therefore, this Public Hearing will need to be scheduled for the December 22nd City Council Meeting, not the December 8th Council Meeting. Councilmember Weycker asked that the Minutes from November 10, 1998, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hanus asked to discuss the Public Lands Permit, briefly. 1.9 ADD-ON - FENCE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Acting Mayor Ahrens excused herself from the Council for this discussion. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to have Councilmember Jensen take over as Acting Mayor. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager reported that this came about as the result of several recent cases relative to interpretation of what a fence is versus some other type of structure and what is covered under the fence ordinance. It is the desire of the Staff to send this on to the Planning Commission for review and study to give a clearer definition and interpretation of what a fence really is. 582 t MOUND CITY COUNCIL MIN~F.~- NOVEMBER 24, 1998 The City Planner submitted some pictures of some proble~m~ areas that many people call trellises, until the Staff applies the Zoning Code to it and the ~oning Code would say that what appears to be a trellis is indeed a fence, for lack of another definition within the Zoning Ordinance to classify it as anything other than a fence. He further explained that the trellises that we would be called fences in the pictures, would not meet the requirements that the Code lays out for fences. Some of the trellises may appear not to be fences, but they are fences and the requirements for those would apply. The Planner explained that the fences or trellises in the pictures have also not received permits, which is another issue. He recommended that this section of the Code be reviewed because the fence definition seems to be a blanket for structures within a yard that are not fences. He asked that the Council refer this to the Planning Commission for further review to see if there is a more acceptable way look at this trellis issue and other types of structures that are similar. Councilmember Hanus stated that another item to look at in the current code is the acceptable materials for fencing, which are listed specifically as chain link and wood. This would exclude wrought iron fencing, and the new PVC plastic fencing. He stated he does not necessarily agree with Staff's interpretation, but if the City goes with the current interpretation, we will have to issue building permits for all trellises, arbors, archways, etc. and if these structures are within 20 or 30 feet of the street, or within 50 feet of the lake, they are nonconforming which would then require variances. The Council also discussed fence or trellis size which could also be a problem if it becomes a barrier. Councilmember Elect Bob Brown stated he has done a little checking on the trellis versus fence concept. He stated he stopped at Home Depot and what they call the lattice type fencing is used for a trellis for ivy or growing things. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to refer the fence portion of the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission for study, and redefinition of fence versus trellises. The Council asked that this be completed and back to the City Council by March of 1999. Councilmember Weycker stated that she knows letters have gone out to people who are in violation, or questionable on whether it is a trellis or a fence and she asked how these will be handled in the meantime? The Building Official stated he will take a relaxed approach on these until the Planning Commission makes recommendations and the Council decides on the ordinance. The Council asked that the Building Official notify these people of this action. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Acting Mayor Ahrens returned to the Council. ~83 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 26, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma,, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused). Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207 Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. DISCUSSION LAKESIDE ACCESSORY USES The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the lakeside accessory use provisions of the zoning codes. An earlier recommendation forwarded to Council was to not allow any further repairs and to remove any improvements that were structural in nature as prompted by the Hunt case. After discussion with the DNR Hydrologist, Ceil Strauss who indicated that changes to the provisions to permit something not currently allowed would probably require the City to give up something elsewhere or provide additional flexibility. Changes in policy would probably change the course that has been set over the past few years. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to keep the Shoreland Management Ordinance as is concerning boat houses/accessory buildings. Ayes: 6-1. (Nay: Mueller). Motion carried. Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 26, 1999 Burma felt that as an advisory panel to the City Council, it didn't make sense to have the City Council advise the Planning Commission. Mueller stated that variances should be granted on lakeside sheds. Weiland stated that should go according to ordinances. The Planning Commission should uphold these. If the City Council changes, then that is their move. Mueller stated that he would like to see the codes changed then. 2 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. l ln TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner April 19, 1999 Lakeside accessory uses The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the lakeside accessory use provisions of the zoning code. This was prompted by the Hunt case which was brought to the Planning Commission on two occasions. The recommendation the Planning Commission forwarded to the Council was to essentially not allow any further repairs and to remove any improvements that were structural in nature. The Council heard the case and motioned to table the case until the Planning Commission completed a further review of the lakeside accessory uses. The Shoreland Management Ordinance has precedence over the regulation of accessory uses within 50 feet of the shoreline or the shoreland impact area. The DNR has review and approval authority of shoreland management issues. As adopted, the code allows essentially the following structures within this setback: stairways, landings that are less than 250 square feet, a 4' by 8' lock box, and patios that are no more than 250 square feet and are at least 10 feet from the shoreline. Any structure such as a "boat house", "beach house", or storage shed is considered nonconforming and work that is structural in nature is not permitted. Mound adopted its Shoreland Management Ordinance in 1996 after most of the lake communities had adopted their own ordinance. Each of the 14 communities on Lake Minnetonka, has a code that is a blend of standards that came from the State model ordinance, a task force of Minnetonka communities, and individual community needs. Of the 14 lake cities, about half allow accessory structures within shoreland impact area. Accessory structures could include almost any type of building imaginable but most are used for storage of boats, lawn equipment, water sports items, etc. Why one community allows them and another does not varies for a number of reasons. I discussed the notion of revisiting the accessory use provision with the DNR Area Hydrologist, Ceil Strauss. She noted that each city's ordinance is somewhat tailored to its own situation which resulted from negotiations during the approval process. A change in the provisions to permit something not currently allowed would probably require the City to give up something elsewhere or provide additional flexibility. They would also have review and approval authority over and revisions the City wishes to adopt. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Lakeside accessory uses April 19, 1999 Over the past few years, the City has proactively work to remove a few "boat houses" that have presented safety issues. Safety issues usually involved of poor foundations that had heaved and rotted rafters and roofing. Most of these were removed as the result of the review during a variance request where the owner would agree to remove the structure voluntarily. At least one was removed by the City where it involved publicly owned commons land. If there is a change in policy on this issue, it would change the course that has been set over the past few years. As the nonconforming use section states, they are entitled to remain until their useful life expires. It has been difficult to address boat house issues as a related noncompliance issue in variance cases. They are always part of the discussion although action is usually not taken unless conditions warrant. As the DNR has commented, we will probably have to review other ordinance section and "give up" something to get accessory structures. Staff would recommend that if we consider this provision, we need to be very careful in approaching other areas of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Any modification to the ordinance should not adversely impact those properties that don't wish to have lakeside accessory structures. Lakeside structures are certainly in the minority and a provision that would place an additional regulatory burdens on a majority of lakeside properties without one is not appropriate. One of the basic questions we should answer is "Is there reason to change the philosophy on this issue? .... Do these reasons benefit the public's good?" Other questions to consider, "What is the image Mound wants for its shoreline?" It is not out of the question for every lake frontage property to have a building of some type lakeside. "How would this impact community image? .... What is the value of Mound's shoreline image?" 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR APRIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 551,841 Matured: Money Market 4M Plus (150,000) CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.994.% (316,364) Recycling A special thanks to the many people who helped to make Mound Spring Cleaning Day on May 1st such a successful event. Again, Joyce Nelson and Greg Skinner did a great job in coordinating the whole affair. Thanks, Joyce. Thanks, Greg. Annual FinanCial Report The Annual Financial Report will be presented to the Council at the second meeting in May. The audit has been completed and we are finalizing the information necessary for publication. Finance Department Operation April has been a busy time for all of us in Finance. With new staff in payroll, bookkeeping and accounts payable, we had some catching up to do with the learning curve. Now that things are falling in place for all of us, I want to thank the staff for their dedication and hard work. City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: April 1999 Residential Commercial No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Sewer Recycle 05/04/1999 Utility-99 Total 1,109 123 1,232 1,116 123 1,239 13,861 2,635 Total 16,496 $25,366 $5,636 $31,002 $58,662 $16,109 $74,771 $6.901 $142 $7,043 $90.929 $21.887 $112.816 $25,841 $3,962 $29,803 $57,722 $11,924 $69,646 $5.965 $118 $6.083 $89.528 $16.004 $105.532 Total CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 TELE: 612--474-5233 April 26, 1999 Mayor and City Council City Manager, Ed Shukle, Jr. Fire Chief, Greg Pederson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mimnesota 55364-1687 Dear Mound City Officials: On Sunday, April 25, the biggest fire in Excelsior in recent memory occurred at the most prominent comer in our downtown. It was 6:30 in the moming, and when Excelsior firefighters arrived on the scene six minutes after being dispatched to the fire, they knew that they would need help. There were residents in nine apartments above the Ace Hardware store, and there were chemicals, plastics, and wood in the store itself. The situation could quickly get out of hand and threaten the entire commercial block on the west side of Water Street. The mutual aid response was fantastic. Chanhassen sent 2 pumpers, 1 aerial/ladder, and 2 rescue squads. Minnetonka supplied 3 pumpers. Mound provided 2 pumpers and a thermal imaging camera. Victoria dispatched a pumper. Within a very short period of time, over 100 firefighters were on the scene. The fire was contained to just the one building. Any fire is unfortunate. In this case, two residents were injured, twelve persons became homeless, and a major downtown business will need to be shut down for months. Without the aid of the Mound Fire Department and the other three departments which provided mutual aid, however, this fire could have been a far greater tragedy. We wish to extend our gratitude on behalf of the City of Excelsior for the help above and beyond the call of duty that your fire department extended to us. You can be assured that we will extend the same response to Mound and our sister cities in the greater Lake Minnetonka community when we are called upon. Sincerely, Mayor Craig_ _W/i//Dawson City ~ager I ECEi /ED ,PR 2 9 19§9 LAKE MINN.ETONKA CONSERVATION D!STRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 FAX 612/745-9085 6rc~Jory $. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka SecretanJ, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kont DahL=n Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoda Tom Gilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Lilt McMillan Orono Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood April 23, 1999 TO: FROM: Lakeshore Weekly News Attn: Legal Department (Fax # 473-0895) Rog~~g, Administrative Technician SUBJECT: Public Hearing Notice (4/29/99 Edition) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUBLIC HEAR~G NOTICE 7:00 PM, May 12, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road Seton Bluff Variance Application Black Lake/Seton Lake Channel, Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public hearing to consider a Variance Application from Seton Bluff. The application is for variance from LMCD length requirements. Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391. 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http:/Iwww.winternet.com/-Imcdl E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com 18538 MINNETQNKA BLVD. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55591 TELEPHONE 6'12/74§-078B FAX Gr,i~:joq/$. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR April 28, 1999 Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Lili McMillan Orono Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood TO: FROM: Honorable Mayors of LMCD Member Cities LMCD Member Cities LMCD Board of Directors /f ~ Interested Parties ~//~ k Executive Dn'ector ' Greg Nybec , ' ' SUBJECT: 5/5/99 Workshop/Planning Session You are invited to a meeting on Wednesday, 5/5/99, at 8 a.m. at Deephaven City Hall, 20225 Cottagewood Road. The purpose of this meeting to discuss a draft ordinance amendment relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka. A copy of this ordinance amendment is enclosed for your review. As highlighted in the letter dated 3/3/99 from Charlie LeFevere, three areas of the Code are being addressed in this Code amendment. They include: 1. Whether to minimize the impact of multiple dock facilities, that utilize an ouflot, on nearby properties. 2. Whether to change the mechanism for measuring the amount of shoreline when it is a meandering line. 3. Whether to change the General Rule from 1:50' to 1:100'. The LMCD Board has discussed the ordinance amendment at its 3/10/99 and 3/24/99 meetings, with first reading tabled at both meetings. Copies of the minutes from these meetings are enclosed for your review. The LMCD is interested in your input on whether this draft ordinance amendment would have impact on local subdivisions and Planned Unit Development (PUD's) in your community. A formalized agenda will be provided at the meeting. Feel free to call me if you have questions or comments regarding the draft ordinance amendment. We look forward to your attendance. 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste //,/, ? Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd@wintemet.com , ¢en 14 & Iq T s: R 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN ',5402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax htt p:/Iwww, ken nedy-gr~ven.com~ CHARLr-~ L. L£F£V£Rr Atlor~y at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9215 email: c1¢ fevete(~kcnnedy-~rnven.com March 3, 1999 Mr. Greg Nybeck Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven MN 55391 RE: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Outlot Developments Dear Greg: Attached is a draft ordinance relating to development of outlots. In this ordinance I have attempted to address several concerns raised by Board members during discussions on the ordinance. One concern raised by Board members was that outlot facilities have sometimes located dock facilities in a location which minimizes the impact on a new development but maximizes the impact on existing adjacent properties. In Section 3 of the attached draft ordinance, an amendment to Section 2.03 (which regulates multiple docks) would require that such multiple facilities must be so located as to minimize the impact of the facility on nearby properties. You will note that this ordinance amendment would apply not only to outlot situations but to any situation in which a dock facility is used to serve multiple residential units. Therefore, this restriction would also apply to a common dock facility ofmultiple riparian properties. A second concern raised by Board members related to the amount of credit for continuous shoreline that is given to a site when the shoreline is a meandering line, through a cattail wetland, for example. Section 2 of the attached ordinance would authorize the Board to make appropriate adjustments to the amount of shoreline for which a site is given credit for any new facility in which the measured shoreline of the site exceeds 125% of the straight-line distance between the end points of the shoreline. Finally, Section I of the attached ordinance deals with new outlot-type developments. Board members expressed concern about establishing a lake-wide one boat per 100 feet of shoreline rule because it would create many non-conforming uses around the lake. I have attempted to avoid that problem in the draft ordinance. The one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule would CLL.159085 LK110-4 Mr. Grcg Nybeck M~ch 3, 19gg P~e 2 of 2 continue to apply th~O~g~°ut the lake exccpt in a situation in which a new site*i"s.'Created (i" a new subdivision) in ~h:'a riparian lot would serve non-riparian properties or ~.ultiple dwelling properties or in a situa~.i°..fi:in which an existing site is used, without a new subdivision, and an attempt is made to Ii '.~. '~':'l~e rights at a riparian lot to non-riparian lots by deed. !!n::o. ther words, if someone creates a ne~tl ~utlot-type of situation in which non-riparian properties, have an interest in a riparian lot, the bri~:.:l~oat per 100 feet of shoreline role would ~xpply. In alli'otl~er cases, the one boat per 50 feet o~sh~reline role would apply. Very truly yours, ....'. Charles L. LcFcvcrc CLL:Ih Bnclosurc CL./.. 1590~5 LI~110.4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOAT STORAGE DENSITY AND MULTIPI.E DOCK FACILITIES ON LAKE MINNETONKA; AMENDING LMCD CODE SECTIONS 2.02 AND 2.03 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LAKE MINNETONY~a, CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDALNS that the LMCD Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Section 1. LMCD Code Section 2.02 is amended by adding new subdivision 6 as follows: Subd. 6. Special Rule for Sites or Interests in Sites Created After March , 1999 and Multiple Residential Sites. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions 1 through 4 of this section, no dock or mooring area may be constructed, established or maintained which provides space for or is used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricted watercraft than one for each 100 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978 (unless authorized by spedal density licenses pursuant to Section 2.05), at any site described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) ofthis subdivision: (a) A site created after March ,1999 on which more than one single family residential unit or one or more multi-family residential units are constructed. A site created after March ,1999 for which dockage rights are attached, in whole or in part, to other specified non-riparian sites or real properties. (c) Any site for which dockage rights are initially attached in whole or in part, to other specified non-riparian sites or real properties by instrument created or recorded after March 1999. Section 2. LMCD Code Section 2.02 is amended by adding new Subd. 7 as follows: Subd. 7. Special Rules for Shoreline Calculation in Certain Cases. In any case in which the measured shoreline at a site exceeds 125% of the distance, measured on a straight line, between the two end points of the shoreline at the site, the Board may adjust the length of shoreline for which credit is given for purposes of computing the number of restricted watercraft at the site as follows: (a) Shoreline will not be adjusted to a length shorter than the straight line distance between the end points of the shoreline. (b) Shoreline will be adjusted only for sites requiring a multiple dock license. (c) CLL-159074 LKll0-4 Shoreline will not be adjusted at any site for any dock facility which was in existence on March ,1999 unless the number of boat storage units is increased at the site. (d) The Board will make adjustments to shoreline at the time of issuance of new multiple dock licenses. Adjustments may be made when the Board concludes that the amount of shoreline measured at elevation 929.4 NGVD is not fairly representative of the amount of' shoreline that is reasonably useable for the construction and maintenance of' docks at the site due to such features as narrow inlets, small coves, highly sinuous shoreline configuration, large areas of the shoreline covered by emergent vegetation or a great difference between the length of measured shoreline and the distance measured along the edge of emergent vegetation between the extended lot lines of the site. Shoreline adjustments shall be made so as to approximate the number of restricted watercraft and impacts resulting from watercraft storage to that of other sites with comparable useable dockage space which do not have the same characteristics of' unusual topography, shoreline configuration or vegetation. Section 3. LMcD Code Section 2.03 is amended by adding new Subd. 17 as follows: Subd. 17. Special Rule for New Dock Facilities Serving More Than One Residential Unit. Multiple Dock Facilities constructed after March .... , 1999 which provide dockage for more than one residential unit shall be so located and configured as to minimize the impact of the facility on adjacent and nearby properties which are not provided dockage at the facility, provided such location and configuration is reasonable, does not pose a haTard to navigation and is deemed by the Board to be generally consistent with the criteria set forth in Subd. 3 of this Section. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the Enabling Act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board of Directors of the LMCD and has the effect of an ordinance. Adopted by the Lake ~fumetonka Conservation District Board of Dkectors this ,1999. day of ATTEST: Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Panyka, Secretary Date of Publication: Effective Date: CLL-159074 LKll0-4 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~ March 2~, 1999 Page 13 F. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03 Babcock stated he had received requests from Board members McMillan and Weft recommending the District hold a Workshop/Planning Session to get input from the cities on this ordinance. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth ~_~c'_onded to table discussion of first reading of this ordinance amendment, and to direct staff to facilitate a Workshop/Planning Session to discuss this ordinance amendment with all member cities. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. 1999 Multiple DockfDistrict Mooring Area fl)MA) Licenses, staff recommends approval of 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in 3/18/99 staff memo. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in the 3/18/99 staff memo. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. H. Additional Business. There was no additional business. ./ 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Staff recommends approval of ren. ewLal LiquorfWine/Beer license applications as outlined in the 3/18/99 staff memo. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 10, 1999 Page WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03. Babcock introduced the agenda item noting it addresses three separate issues. McMillan stated she would like to discuss the possible change of the General Rule from 1:50 to 1:100. She asked for clarification from LeFevere on how the Code amendment was drafted. LeFevere stated the draft Code amendment would not supersede any municipal ordinance that is more restrictive than LMCD Code. He added the Code amendment would treat all outlot situations on Lake Minnetonka the same. He noted the three components of the draft Code amendment include the change in the General Rule to 1:100, it addresses the placement of docking structures at the end of a development that impacts the adjoining neighbors, and it addresses measurement of meandering shoreline through wetlands. He concluded if the Board is comfortable with these components, the Board might want to take it one step further to allow greater density under an LMCD ordinance based on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) model. McMillan questioned whether the intent of addressing outlots would be accomplished by making the General Rule more restrictive. Babcock stated he recalled in the past, LeFevere has advised the Board not to prohibit boat storage on outlots because of difficulty of enforcing this on a long-term basis. He noted a more restrictive ordinance on certain types of facilities appears to make more sense. LeFevere stated if there were a strict prohibition against boat storage on outlots, the ordinance would not allow the District to work with cities who encourage outlot situations in a PUD. He noted the General Rule in the draft Code amendment would allow the District to continue working with the cities. Foster stated he needed clarification and encouraged Bokrd discussion relating to shoreline measurement as described in the ordinance amendment. He expressed concern in adopting the process for measuring shorelin, e, ~especially when it involves Board subjectivity. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 10, 1999 Page 3 LeFevere stated the measuring of shoreline that meanders through wetlands is never going to be an easy task. He noted the concept in the Code amendment would be to compare the amount of meandering shoreline to the amount of shoreline apparent from the lake and making proper adjustments. Gilman stated he believed this component of the draft Code amendment clarifies how to measure shoreline. Babcock stated the District has struggled with shoreline measurement and has allowed for shoreline to be counted on both sides of long, narrow points. McMillan stated she believed the Code might need to define what is usable shoreline. Foster stated with this shoreline measurement standard, the Sweat property has a narrow entrance on to Grays Bay with an enormous amount of shoreline going into the property. He questioned how this standard would be applied in this situation. He stated it makes it difficult for private owners to determine how much usable shoreline they might have towards development. Babcock stated this ordinance amendment would apply only to sites that require a multiple dock license. He added although there are some subjective decisions for the Board, it expresses the intent of this Board not to count all shoreline related to narrow points and meandering shoreline. McMillan stated adopting a General Rule change to 1:100 might make the most sense because it reduces the subjectivity of the Board. LeFevere suggested the Board not get too focused on definitions for all situations that relate to this discussion. He noted the Board might need to amend the Code again when the first application is submitted. Foster stated he believed changing the General Rule to 1:100 might be a more appropriate means of further restricting outlots rather than the proposed means of measuring shoreline. He noted he is more comfortable when the developer has an idea of how much shoreline they have to work with up front. LeFevere stated there are a couple of approaches to allow the developer to know up front how much shoreline they have to work with. He noted a predetermination could be evaluated by the Board before an application is submitted or the developer could deal with the ambiguity after the application has been submitted. McMillan asked if dredged shoreline is allowed in shoreline calculations. LeFevere stated that depends on where it is in relation to the 929.4' shoreline elevation. L~ke Minnetonk~ Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 10, 1999 Page 4 ~..;Kitchak stated on the back side of the Sweat property away from Grays Bay, there are channels that work their way through the property. He questioned whether these channels should be included in the total shoreline calculation. LeFevere stated if these channels are at the 929.4' contour, current Code would count this shoreline towards the total. Babcock stated although some properties meet the density allowances of the General Rule, whether it be 1:50 or 1:100, some shorelines do not appear to be capable of handling those densities in a reasonable fashion. He noted the Board has wrestled with this in the past even though the shoreline is marginal. He added the discussion of the Sweat property might be an example of unusable shoreline being transferred t~ usable shoreline. -,. Kitchak stated he believed the Sweat property, some time in the future, would be a large PUD. He noted in this case an ouflot with the docking facilities on the back side might make a lot of Babcock stated he believed there are two issues relating to that: should that shoreline be allowed to contribute to the active boat count on the lake, and should density shifting be allowed within a pared. Foster stated he is not comfortable with Subd. 7(d) because it is unclear to the developer. He suggested it be dropped from the draft Code amendment. LeFevere stated the subjective percentages used in the shoreline calculations section is no real science and was his first attempt. He suggested the Board might want to change these figures. ~. McMillan stated in a best case scenario, she believed it would be beneficial for the Board to work with the developer on a PUD to identify the best place to locate docking structures. Babcock stated based on his experience, that working relations do not stand the test of time in most eases. He noted the developer and the residents have a different point of view in many cases. He cited Pelican Point HOA as an example. Partyka questioned whether lots are generally platted along the 929.4' lake elevation. LeFevere stated that is not necessarily true. He stated the 929.4' lake elevation mark is the ordinary high water mark which is the delineation point where the District regulatory authority ends. He noted property may be privately owned to the ordinary low water mark, which has not yet been determined. McMillan questioned whether changing the General Rule to 1S 100 is workable for a developer in a PUD. She asked how that would impact a new application, such as Pelican Point HOA. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting -~ '- March 10, 1999 Page Bal~k stated he believed as the lake is redeveloper, developers not only want one boat per house but they also want big boats. He noted marginal shoreline cannot always support maximum density and larger boats. Foster stated in addition to thc 1:100 General Rule, it might make sense to establish footage units based on size of the boats. He noted that might make it clearer for developers. Babcock stated water depths available might also be taken into consideration. He noted thc Board considered water depths when Pelican Point HOA was originally approved in 1994. McMillan questioned whether the District was involved with Pelican Point HOA when the dock sites were initially approved. Babcock stated the Board had significant input with the developer on the original dock locations in 1994. He noted their point of view has changed since the residents have moved in. Foster stated he believed the District needs to adopt rules that are clear to the developer and arc fair. He added there are some conflicts where cities are trying to maximize their tax bases and the District is attempting to control boat density. McMillan stated she believed the construction of large dock structures is similar to building a house. She stated they have an impact on the lake and that the cooperation of District and the developer in dock location and layout would be beneficial. Babcock stated in the Pelican Point HOA situation, they were allowed to density shift from thc island to the main land under certain conditions. He noted one of these conditions was that no variances were to be approved when density shifting occurred. Foster stated the idea of assisting the developer in the designing and location of docks is totally opposite from previous points of view of the Board. He suggested this might merit Board discussion. Babcock stated the Board currently identifies how a dock structure fits with an authorized dock use area and whether it has any adverse impact on abutting neighbors. LeFevere stated in the Code relating to multiple docks, there is a long list of criteria to be considered when a multiple dock license is before the Board. He noted there have been some instances where these criteria have been used to negotiate with the developer when there is an element of a proposed plan which the Board does not find favorable. Partyka questioned whether the Board should approve first reading of the draft ordinance amendment at this point. He stated he was in general agreement with the draft ordinance amendment. Foster expressed concern with how shoreline is to be measured, especially Subd. 7. Lake Minne~onka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting --~ ._ March 10, 1999 Page 6 Kitchak stated he is not comfortable approving first reading yet. He suggested the Board not make changes at this point and continue first reading at the next meeting. The general consensus of the Board was that changing the General Rule to 1:100 was favorable; however, there were some dissenting points of view on how to measure shoreline. Babcock suggested Section 3~ Subd. 17 could be mended to read "minimization of impact may include locating large dock slxuctures near the center of the facility, expanded setback requirements, and/or limiting boat storage density near adjacent properties." Kitchak stated the middle of the property might not be the best area to locate a dock structure in a PUD development. He suggested the decision on the location of the dock could be left up to the discretion of the Board. The consensus of the Board was that the location of the docking facility in the center of the property might not be the best area to locate it. There was discussion that it might be appropriate for the District to adopt an ordinance that parallels the PUD ordinances for cities. Rascop noted one difference between a PUD on land and on the water is that land is for private use and water is for public use. LeFevere stated PUD ordinances for cities are beneficial because they give cities flexibility. He noted at times, PUD's are abused when super variances, broad sweeping variances, waivers, and mixed land uses are granted with little to no discemable improvements that make the PUD justifiable. MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to table further discussion on the first reading of this ordinance amendment to the 3/24/99 Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Ahrens left at 8:34 p.m. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 745-0789 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER Gregory $. Nybeck April 28, 1999 Exotics Mana~,ement: This project is scheduled to commence on 6/14/99 and continue through 8/20/99. With the refurbishing of the harvesters this past Fall, it is anticipated the ten year old fleet should function like new equipment. Consistent with 1998, harvesting priorities will be based on impediment to public boat navigation on the open water. The crew will assist Hennepin County and affected cities in public access clean-up on weekdays and weekends. With zebra mussels as close as downtown Minneapolis, the LMCD is greatly concerned that recreational boaters may unknowingly transfer them into Lake Minnetonka. To create public awareness and to assist in preventing the spread of zebra mussels from infested waters, the LMCD is working closely Carmichael Lynch to formulate a new public awareness plan for 1999. Ideas being considered include television and print advertising, public access and marina signage, and a zebra mussel hotline. Proposed ordinance chanl~e relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities: At its 3/10/99 and 3/24/99 meetings, the LMCD Board discussed an ordinance that would amend existing Code relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka. Three areas of the existing Code are being addressed in this draft Code amendment. They include: 1) to minimize the impact of multiple dock facilities, that utilize an outlot, on nearby properties, 2) to change the mechanism for measuring the amount of shoreline to credit when it is a meandering line, and 3) to change the General Rule from 1:50' to 1:100'. The LMCD Board tabled first reading of the ordinance amendment at its 3/10/99 and 3/24/99 meetings, and directed staff to facilitate a Workshop/Planning Session to get input from the member cities. A meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, 5/5/99, for 8:00 a.m. at Deephaven City Hall. Charter Boat Meetings: A Code amendment was adopted by the LMCD Board at its 3/24/99 meeting that makes it mandatory for charter boats with liquor licenses to attend an annual training session. Working with Sgt. Ken Schilling from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol, meeting dates of 3/30/99 and 4/6/99 were scheduled to facilitate 100% attendance by the charter boat licensee or authorized representative. The discussion at these meetings focused on LMCD charter boat rules and regulaU"ons including general responsibilities, operational rules, and related liquor rules. No new or renewal liquor license has been granted for those charter boats who did not send a representative to one of these meeting dates. 1999 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Count: Staff is preparing to conduct a shoreline storage count for watercraft beginning in tune. This management plan project, which was conducted in 1998, is to be completed every two years. When the Report was presented last summer, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER, 412~199, PAGE staff was directed to conduct the project in 1999 to validate the results of the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Count. Further details of this project will be provided when available. 2000 LMCD Budget: Staff is preparing to begin work on the 2000 LMCD budget. In accordance with Minnesota State Statutes 103B.635, the Board must on or before July 1 of each year prepare and submit a detailed budget of the District's needs, for the next calendar year, to the governing body of each municipality in the District with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. There will be opportunity for cities to comment on the proposed budget through their representative on the LMCD Board and at a meeting in early ]'une. On-t, oinp Licenses/Permits: Staff is close to completing the processing of all new and renewal without change applications for licensed multiple docks, charter boats, associated liquor licenses, and special event permits for Lake Minnetonka. Feel free to call the office if you have questions or concerns regarding a specific license or permit. Bil Hawks Boathouse: The civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Hawks against the LMCD challenging LMCD Code Section _.2.12, Subd. 2 was dismissed in Hennepin County District court on 5/26/98. Also, the Courtruled favorably for the countersuit filed by the LMCD seeking an injunction requiring the storage boat to be removed from Lake Mirmetonka. Mr. Hawks was directed to either remove the storage boat from Lake Minnetonka or to convert it into a houseboat. Mr. Hawks has appealed the 5/26/98 Hennepin County District court ruling and the case was heard by the Court of Appeals on 12/16/98. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the 5/26/98 Hennepin County District court Mr. Hawks has petitioned review by the Minnesota State Supreme Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Further details will be provided when available. WebPage: The LMCD WebPage address is: http://www, wintemet.com/-lmed/ MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused). Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207 Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 12, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Changes: · Page 7, paragraph eight, first sentence shOuld read "The proposal..." · Page 8, last paragraph, second sentence refers to Seton, not Sexton Channel. · Page 9, fifth paragraph, first sentence should read "Burma...table his application so that the Commission members..." MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to accept the minutes as amended. Motion carried: 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN. PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 26, 1999 Gordon reviewed the discussion held at the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The proposal is to add fill to the lot to increase the area to 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty-five feet short of the sixty-foot width requirement. The proposed foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that is above the elevation standards for floodplain areas. At that meeting, Mr. Steele presented various situations in which the Commission has granted variances with more stringent conditions. The Commission members asked to review these cases before making any decisions. Thus, the application was tabled in order for Staff to review these cases and bring their recommendations back to the Commission. These cases included: Hicks: 92-014; Wigen: 96-04; Kelm: 98-09; and 92-57. After review, Staff's recommendation did not change. Gordon and Sutherland met with Ceil Strauss from the DNR Waters department and Jim Hafner from the MCWD last week visiting the site. There continues to be issues with the sea wall behind the property and the adjacent property. There are real land issues that need to be addressed. Mueller restated and verified Staff's position, that given all the current conditions and factors, this land is considered unbuildable without recombination with other adjacent properties although there is some concern that a lot recombination may not work either without variances to lot area. Gordon stated that this is true, however, it would present a much better situation than the current proposal. Staff would probably recommend approval of a plan if several lots were combined. Mueller asked if Staff has spoken with the City Attorney to declare this lot unbuildable because of floodplain and seawall issues. The attorney is aware of the issues of the case. The water issues and seawall issues are DNR and Watershed District issues and are subject to their hearings. Brown asked if in their talks with the DNR and Watershed, was the land originally filled in all the way to the seawall. Gordon stated that was his understanding. Brown stated that the seawall issue is a channel issue, not a stabilization issue of the land. If the land were brought up to that level, he asked if it would be conforming. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Filling in the land is a one-time thing with the DNR and Watershed stated Gordon. He believes it would be an on going, continuing problem since the soil is poor and the land fill goes back into the lake. Brown asked if concrete for the seawall would be better than steel. Gordon stated the Planning Commission needed to stick to land use issues. Brown's point is that the County built the seawall and said it was all right to build a home on the property. Now the seawall has eroded and it becomes the City's problem. He doesn't see this as valid. Weiland stated that the seawall was built to keep the channel open, not to make the land buildable. Page 47 of the meeting packet has the DNR's latest comments. Mueller told Mr. Steele that since the last meeting, he has had time to review the minutes and the cases that were brought to the Planning Commission's attention. While the cases were similar, each was unique and weighed on its own merits. He had some concerns regarding the property. When purchased, it appeared to be one parcel and two Tax IDs. On page 90, the deed is there with lots 10-11-12-13 on it. He wanted to know how it was broken up. He also wanted to know what made a Tax ID a buildable lot. Gordon stated that in the City of Mound, a Tax ID did constitute, a parcel of land. Lot 10 was a separate Tax ID prior to 1978 and lots 11-12-13 formed a second Tax ID prior to 1978. In 1995, lots 10-13 were transferred to Amy Steele and she then transferred lot 10 to Robert Steele. Sutherland stated that in no shape or form did Staff every represent the lot as buildable although they were separate Tax Ids. Mr. Steele stated that given his lawyers advice, he purchased this in good faith with the understanding that it was a buildable piece of property. Brown pointed out that at this time, he did not believe that lot 10 was hooked up to water and sewer. Mr. Steele stated that he was paying a sewer bill. Weiland believes that what he is paying is a sewer assessment fee, not for sewer services themselves. He believes that this property has a septic tank on it. Brown asked if the cabin was currently vacant. He asked Mr. Steele if he could live there. Mr. Steele said yes, the water was pumped over from his daughter's home and he had thought there was sewer hooked up to it. He is not sure if it is up to code Gordon referred back to earlier questions regarding filling in of the land. Even if it was filled in all the way to the seawall and even if they felt it would stay put, there would still 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 26, 1999 only be 6400 square feet of buildable land. The code is 10,000. Even if it is a "lot of record, "it does not guarantee it a buildable. Burma had some concerns about the discussion. He wanted to know how the lot next door was different. It was undersized and had a larger home on it. Gordon stated that since there was an occupied house on it when the application was made, it is different than a parcel with a vacant dilapidated cabin.. Burma also asked if the fact that relatives owned the adjacent lots if that clouded the judgement of the commissioners. Gordon responded that the zoning code is in place to bring up the housing standards Sutherland stated that the Planning Commission could limit the use to a cabin. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the non-conforming use could be removed. Staff is going forward and eliminating these as they come up for review to heighten the standards aimed at in the Zoning Amendments. Brown stated that dealing with his property only are we going to say you cannot improve your property. He doesn't think the City should block improvement of property. By improving the property, the septic tank would be removed which raises another on- going issue in the City. Mr. Steele asked to speak. He raised the issue of Driftwood Lane and the fact that the properties do not drain properly. The "read" drains on the properties since it was abandoned and by building a swale, this issue would be resolved. He is giving something to the City. He brought with him a petition from the residents along Driftwood Lane regarding the drainage situation. The petition states: "This petition is to inform the City of Mound that Driftwood Lane is in need of a way to drain all the runoff from rain and snow. Currently since there is no drain anywhere on Driftwood Lane, the water from the whole street goes to the end of the road and settles at 2352 Driftwood Lane. This is ruining the foundation, as well as the property. All of the below signed residents are in favor of having a swale put in to remedy the situation." Amy Steele Richard and Linda Wigner Kelly and Veronica Johnson Robert Steele 2352 Driftwood Lane 2331 Driftwood Lane 2308 Driftwood Lane 23XX Driftwood Lane 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Mr. Steele also plans to fix the seawall that will help contain his property and home. Ms. Strauss from the DNR has verbally agreed to step aside from the 15' fill elevation standard around the home and let the City rule. By adding fill to his property, Mr. Steele is adding more land than exists today. He believes this is a "fair and reasonable" use of his property. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to support staff's position in working toward total conformity. However, until the City can purchase this "Lot of Record" in order to maintain this direction, recommend that the variances be granted. Voss is sure that Staff, DNR, and Watershed District will work with applicant to ensure a proper house is built. Mueller wanted to note that the Glen Allyn application was under separate ownership at the time of purchase. In this case, there was a contiguous owner when the Zoning codes were enacted. This would give a legal way out of the issue. However, in light of staff's comments making this a separate parcel since it was a separate lot, it thus becomes a buildable property in his mind unless the City can purchase it. Mueller would like this in wdting from the City Attorney. Brown will pass on the comments from the Planning Commission to the City Council that an answer is wanted regarding the buildability since it is a separate Tax ID and thus, parcel. He asked Staff to see if it was economically and feasible to purchase this property to use as drainage form the other lots. A call to vote was taken. Ayes: Burma, Voss, and Brown. Nays: Mueller, Michael, Weiland, and Hasse. Motion does not carry. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff's recommendation. Ayes: Mueller, Michael, Weiland, and Hasse. Nays: Voss, Burma, Brown. Motion carries. Chair Michael noted that this will come before City Council on May 11, 1999. 5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 26, 1999 CASE # 97-10: VARIANCE, FLOOD PLAIN, LAKESIDE SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, JIM SMITH PID # 23-117-24 34 0079. Gordon presented the case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of a second story addition. The variances requested are: 800 square feet variance from required lot size of 10,000 square feet; 15.9 foot variance from lakeshore setback, 1.7 foot variance from required lowest floor elevation; 15 foot of setback variance to meet 932 foot grading around the house. The house itself is set back fifty-two feet, however, the deck reduces the setback to 15.9 feet. The existing house is a tri-level design and it would become quad level with the proposed improvements. A new master bedroom would be constructed in this addition. The value of the improvements are less than 50% of the value of the house. The applicants sites these improvements as needed to make the home marketable and to solve a roof problem over the garage. The roof is sagging because the trusses were cut during the installation of a garage door opener. As a result, water is leading into the garage over the electrical box. Staff notes the difficulty of this case because of the number of jurisdictional issues and bodies involved. If the house were to be built today, the basement would be required to be above 933.5 feet and the deck would not be allowed at its current size. The grading work that occurred would need a permit from the MCWD. The current flood plain ordinance allows the existing basement to remain as is unless the improvements are greater than 50% of the home's value ($60,000). The DNR has a flood plain regulation that is somewhat different than the City's. The language generally states that when improvements are proposed over a foundation that does not meet the flood elevation standards, the floor elevation must conform. The DNR is consulting their staff to make a ruling on this standard. Staff expected to have a letter that addressed that issue at the meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance requests with the following conditions: 1. The approval is conditioned on a favorable review by the DNR. The variance does not recognize the existing lakeside setback for the deck. If structural work were needed to the deck, a deck with a 10-foot depth would be allowed. The new lakeside setback would be limited to 42 feet. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Voss asked why Staff was attaching deck conditions to the proposal for the addition. He feels that the Planning Commission hasn't addressed other conditions and issues on other properties. Burma asked if the improvements could be up to $60,000, does that make the house worth $120,000. He also feels as Voss does that by attaching the deck conditions to the application for an addition, a potential mess would be opened up. Voss asked why they were considering this without the DNR information. Gordon stated the anticipated information but it did not come. Sutherland stated that Staff was comfortable with DNR's ruling. The applicant can fill in a couple of inches of soil if needed to raise the level to meet the requirements. Mueller asked why Staff did not recommend fill to alleviate one variance request. Gordon stated that it was graded in 1968 prior to current standards. Gordon also feels that 9200 square feet is much closer to compliance than the previous case. Mueller also suggested that the deck not be attached to the recommendation. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation. Voss wanted condition number 2 to be eliminated, however. Weiland accepted this change but wanted the file tagged should the application come back for deck improvements. Mueller also asked that the "findings of fact" as outlined on page 121 of the packet to be added to the motion. Weiland accepted. Ayes: 7-0. Motion carried. This will come before the City Council on May 11, 1999. DISCUSSION STREAMLINING 7 Mound Planning Commission Minutes Apdl 26, 1999 Gordon stated that there was a need to review the streamlining provisions in the zoning code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and provide a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced. He further discussed the caseloads that had been looked at since 1996 when streamlining was first enacted. They have gone up in number, but he believes this is due to increased activity versus a negative reflection on streamlining. A review of the voting on conforming construction cases shows that when the Planning Commission recommends Council approval, the Council will approve the variance resolution in every case. Code enhancement has been added, which modifies the nonconforming structure to be expanded if expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include approval of all conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. There are probably at least three exceptions where a review would be needed: floodplain issues, shoreland impact zone, impervious surface. In small communities, such as Mound, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. A way to reduce process time would be to designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body. In this situation, the Council would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the applicant wishes to have the Board of Appeals decision heard. This would one way to reduce the review process for the applicant. Staff feels that these added streamlining provisions and process enhancement will not compromise overall community goals. These proposed strategies accurately represent the trends happening in the review process. The also will give the Staff, the Commission, and the Council have more time to address broader community planning issues such as comprehensive plans, zoning updates, downtown redevelopment, and many other issues. After discussion by many commissioners, the consensus was in favor of the streamlining and process enhancement suggestions by staff. MOTION by Brown, second by Weiland, to recommend Staffs suggestions to the City Council and let them decide. Weiland stated that he would like to see a trial period of trying these strategies before recommending that City Council pass this on outright. He believes the balance between appointed and elected officials must be looked at. 8 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Mueller asked that attorneys be present at controversial cases. Gordon stated that the attorney's information is gathered upfront in the staff report. If more is needed, the issue is tabled and then the attorneys are contacted. Gordon stated that the Code enhancement could be handled by amending the language to the codes. A year's trial time period is difficult because of the ordinances that would require changing. Brown and Weiland withdrew the motion. Staff was requested to bring back ordinance draft language for the zoning code enhancements and later address the process enhancements. LAKESIDE ACCESSORY USES The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the lakeside accessory use provisions of the zoning codes. An earlier recommendation forwarded to Council was to not allow any further repairs and to remove any improvements that were structural in nature as prompted by the Hu-'t case. After discussion with the DNR Hydrologist, .3ell Strauss who indicated that changes to the provisions to permit something not currently allowed would probably require the City to give up something elsewhere or provide additional flexibility. Changes in policy would probably change the course that has been set over the past few years. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to keep the Shoreland Managementordinance is concerning boat houses/accessory buildings. Ayes: 6-1. (Nay: Mueller). Motion carried. Burma felt that as an advisory panel to the City Council, it didn't make sense to have the City Council advise the Planning Commission. Mueller stated that variances should be granted on lakeside sheds. Weiland stated that should go according to ordinances. The Planning Commission should uphold these. If the City Council changes, then that is their move. Mueller stated that he would like to see the codes changed then. FENCE DEFINITION 9 Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Gordon stated that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the ordinance to remove the definition of a fence. The Planning Commission suggested that staff use common sense when it comes to fences. Mueller stated not to change codes, but to grant variances if something is needed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland to leave fence code as is. Ayes: 7-0. Motion carried. Brown spoke with Hennepin County regarding using the old community center as a service center. They stated that at this time, the centers were distributed according to population. They did not see a practical need at this time to open one in Mound. He stated that there is other discussions regarding its use. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Included in the packets are the following informational items: Minnetrista Joint Meeting Minutes Workshop: Housing Study. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weiland to adjourn this meeting at 11:15 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. 10 THE CHURCH OF OuR LADY OF THE LAKE 2385 COMMERCE BLVD, MOUND, MN 55364 2 9 April 26, 1999 Mayor Pat Meisel & Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: I am writing to you on behalf of the Parish Council and the parishioners of Our Lady of the Lake Church. We under- stand that Auditor's Road in Mound will be reconstructed and renamed. We suggest to you that this particular road be named after the founder of OLL Parish, Fr. Francis Jager. Our history as a parish dates back to 1909. In May of that year, Archbishop John Ireland was visiting St. Boniface Parish in St. Bonifacius, and requested a tour of this scenic area near Lake Minnetonka. Accompanied by Fr. Jager, then pastor of St. Boniface, they traveled by horse and buggy and entered the newly incorporated village of Mound. Bishop Ireland noticed an old school house for sale, and, on the spot, he decided this would be a wonderful site for a new church. The purchase was quickly made and one month later, June 13, 1909, the first Mass was celebrated at Our Lady of the Lake. During the first few years, services were offered once a month in the summer only. Fr. Jager rode from St. Boni by horse and buggy when the roads were passable, and when not, the Great Northern Railroad furnished a handcar, pumped by Fr. Jager and a section foreman parishioner, to make the trip. By 1915, OLL had become a full-time parish with Fr. Jager as pastor. In 1923, a new and larger church was completed on land near the last railroad switch--this was the "little white church" in Mound, situated on church land near Auditor's Road, across the street from our present church. Fr. Jager was born in Laibach, Yugoslavia, in 1869, and immigrated as a young man of 16, to America. He attended St. Paul Seminary and served as a missionary to Native Americans and as pastor in several parishes. At the beginning of World War I, he took a leave of absence from his priestly duties in Mound when he was appointed by President Wilson to serve on the American Red Cross Commission as an interpreter. He was given the commission of Major. Later, he was commander of the U.S. Agricultural Relief Expedition to the Balkans to aid in rehabilitation. King Alexander of Yugosla- via knighted him for his humanitarian service to refugees. Of great interest to Fr. Jager was the science of beekeeping. He inaugurated the program and he taught the first class in Bee Culture at the University of Minnesota, and was also the president of the National Beekeeper's Association. His apiary, located on a farm near St. Boni, was recognized nationally as a model of its kind. In 1941, a stroke claimed the life of our founding and fondly remembered pastor. This highly respected priest was civic- minded and assisted greatly in the development of our city and the surrounding community. He truly played a big part in the history of Mound--a remarkable man of many talents who loved God and served all people with vigor and fairness. Please consider Father Francis Jager in your search for a new name for Auditor's Road. Sincerely, l~onda Eurich Administrator, Our Lady of the Lake Church P.S. In 1952, a portion of the land in the area of the present Auditor's Road, lots 35 and 37, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, was given by OLL to the City of Mound for public use. April 28, 1999 4801 Minneapolis Ave. Minnetrista, MN 55364 Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: As you may already know, I was appointed to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers last week. I want to thank you, the Mayor and the City Council for your support. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any issue pertaining to the watershed, please feel free to contact me anytime. You can reach me any one of the following ways. Work Phone: Home Phone: Fax: E-mail: (612) 330-6939 (612) 472-2018 (612) 472-4938 csthomasC, visi.com I look forward to working with the City of Mound to meet the future challenges of the watershed. Sincerely, C. Scott Thomas. League of Minnesota Citlee Cities promoting excellence 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1299 o TDD (651) 281-1290 May 6, 1999 Dear Mayors/Administrators/Clerks: I am writing to request your assistance. The House version of the omnibus tax bill contains several provisions that if enacted into law, will impact your city as you prepare future budgets. I would like you to contact your representative and senator and express your concerns about the following provisions. I have attached a copy of a sample letter that might serve as a model for correspondence with your legislators. For your reference, I have also listed the members of the Tax Conference committee. The House bill contains an extension of levy limits for two additional years. Although the bill maintains adjustments for inflation and household growth, the bill removes the adjustment for commercial and industrial growth that was added just last year. The C/I factor was added to provide communities that are experiencing growth in C/I base additional levy authority to provide services to that new tax base. We continue to oppose levy limits. However, if levy limits are extended in the final tax bill, the law must include the adjustment for commercial and industrial tax base growth. The bill also contains a reverse referendum requirement that could affect your city. Under the bill, future levy increases that exceed inflation and household growth could be challenged by voters. If a number equal to 10 percent of those registered to vote in the last general election sign a petition challenging the levy increase, the city would be forced to hold an election on the fourth Tuesday of January. Without voter approval, the levy would be rolled back to an amount equal to last year's levy plus an amount for inflation and household growth. These fiscal restraints are being proposed while other bills under consideration by the legislature would mandate increased services and increased local costs. Although bills such as the bleacher safety bill and the police pursuit-training bill are attempts to address important issues, they will undoubtedly cost money. Local officials must have the flexibility to fund these and other needs--flexibility that is not permitted under rigid, state imposed fiscal restraints. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Mayors/Administrators/Clerks May 6, 1999 Page 2 Levy limits and the reverse referendum erode the ability of local officials to make decisions in the best interest of their citizens, which is what they are elected to do. Please help us retain the control of such important decisions where it should be, at the local level. Please contact your legislators and express your concerns with these House provisions. Sincerely, Del Haag, President League of Minnesota Cities House Tax Conferees Ron Abrams (R-Minnetonka) Dan McElroy (R-Bumsville) Henry Todd Van Dellen (R-Plymouth) Bill Kuisle (R-Rochester) Ann Rest (DFL-New Hope) Senate Tax Conferees Doug Johnson (DFL-Tower) John Hottinger (DFL-Mankato) Steve Murphy (DFL-Red Wing) Jim Vickerman (DFL~Tracy) Bill Belanger (R-Bloomington) Dear [Representative or Senator] As the Legislature enters the final weeks of the 1999 legislative session I would like to comment on several provisions included in the House version of the omnibus tax bill that are of concern to the city of The House version of the omnibus tax bill contains an extension of levy limits for two additional years. Although the bill maintains adjustments for inflation and household growth, the bill removes the adjustment for commercial and industrial growth that was added just last year. The C/I growth factor was added to address a major problemi~~ k~i~$ize-fits-all levy limits. Before last year's change, levy limitations did n%~l:~~~e additional service demands created by new commercial anO...in~;~a~el~gt. If levy limits are extended in the final tax bill, the law musf:..ig~i~h~}~i commercial and industrial tax base growth The bill also contmns ~reT~grse~::~Bd~ [~qui?e~e~t. Under the ball, future le y increases that exceed ~ ~h W di:: iidh growt~"could be challenged by voters. If a number equal to 10 per~i~ ~i~ggistered to vote in the last general election sign a petition challenging t~increase, the city would be forced to hold an election on the fourth Tuesday of Janus. Without voter approval, the levy would be rolled back to an amount equal to last year's levy plus an amount the inflation and household growth. These fiscal restraints are being proposed while other bills under consideration by the legislature would mandate increased services and increased local costs. Although bills such as the bleacher safety bill and the police pursuit training bill are attempts to address important issues, they will undoubtedly cost money. Local officials must have the flexibility to fund these and other needs--flexibility that is not permitted under rigid, state-imposed fiscal restraints. Levy limits and the reverse referendum erode our ability to make decisions in the best interest of our citizens, which is what we are elected to do. Please help us retain the control of such important decisions where it should be, at the local level. Please contact the members of the tax conference committee and urge them to oppose these provisions. Sincerely, Clti~ t,n~not~n~ 145 University Avenue West, St. Pa~d, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (65.1.) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1299 · TDD (651) 281-.1.290 April 27, 1999 ACTION ALERT CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE The full House will be considering the omnibus tax bill possibly Wednesday but most likely Thursday of this week. The bill includes an extension of levy limits and a new reverse referenda requirement for all counties and cities over 2,500 population. The reverse referendum would be a marked deviation from the current system, which allows local elected officials to establish local budgets. In addition, the reverse referendum if triggered by voters would occur very late in the local budget process. The election would occur on the fourth Tuesday in January, fully one month into the city's fiscal year. The levy limit provision is included despite the fact that .fully two-thirds of the cities covered by levy limits did not levy to their limit for 1999. The levy limits are even more restrictive than the limits in effect for 1999. The bill does not include the commercial and industrial growth lhctor that was included in last year's omnibus tax bill. The Senate tax bill currently allows levy limits to sunset and does not include any reverse referendum requirement. Contact your representative and communicate your concerns about these provisions. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Gary Carlson at 651-281-1255. AN EQUAl. OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER May 7, 1999 Senator Gen Olson State Office Building Room 116 St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Senator Gen Olson, As the Legislature enters the final weeks of the 1999 legislative session I would like to comment on several provisions included in the House version of the omnibus tax bill that are of concern to the City of Mound. The House version of the omnibus tax bill contains an extension of levy limits for two additional years. Although the bill maintains adjustments for inflation and household growth, the bill removes the adjustment for commercial and industrial growth that was added just last year. The C/I growth factor was added to ad&ess a major problem with one-size-fits-all levy limits. Before last year's change, levy limitations did not acknowledge the additional service demands created by new commercial and industrial development. If levy limits are extended in the final tax bill, the law must include the adjustment for commercial and industrial tax base growth. The bill also contains a reverse referendum requirement. Under the bill, future levy increases that exceed inflation and population growth could be challenged by voters. If a number equal to 10 percent of those registered to vote in the last general election sign a petition challenging the levy increase, the city would be forced to hold an election on the fourth Tuesday of January. Without voter approval, the levy would be rolled back to an amount equal to last year's levy plus an amount the inflation and household growth. These fiscal restraints are being proposed while other bills under consideration by the legislature would mandate increased services and increased local costs. Although bills such as the bleacher safety bill and the police pursuit training bill are attempts to address important issues, they will undoubtedly cost money. Local officials must have the flexibility to fund these and other needs -flexibility that is not permitted under rigid, state-imposed fiscal restraints. Levy limits and the reverse referendum erode our ability to make decision in the best interest of our citizens, which is what we are elected to. Please help us retain the control of such important decision where it should be, at the local level. Please contact the members of the tax conference committee and urge them to oppose these provision. Sincerely, Fran Clark, Acting City Manager May 7, 1999 Representative Steve Smith 311 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative Steve Smith As the Legislature enters the final weeks of the 1999 legislative session I would like to comment on several provisions included in the House version of the omnibus tax bill that are of concern to the City of Mound. The House version of the omnibus tax bill contains an extension of levy limits for two additional years. Although the bill maintains adjustments for inflation and household growth, the bill removes the adjustment for commercial and industrial growth that was added just last year. The Ca growth factor was added to address a major problem with one-size-fits-all levy limits. Before last year's change, levy limitations did not acknowledge the additional service demands created by new commercial and industrial development. If levy limits are extended in the final tax bill, the law must include the adjustment for commercial and industrial tax base growth. The bill also contains a reverse referendum requirement. Under the bill, future levy increases that exceed inflation and population growth could be challenged by voters. If a number equal to 10 percent of those registered to vote in the last general election sign a petition challenging the levy increase, the city would be forced to hold an election on the fourth Tuesday of January. Without voter approval, the levy would be rolled back to an amount equal to last year's levy plus an amount the inflation and household growth. These fiscal restraints are being proposed while other bills under consideration by the legislature would mandate increased services and increased local costs. Although bills such as the bleacher safety bill and the police pursuit training bill are attempts to address important issues, they will undoubtedly cost money. Local officials must have the flexibility to fund these and other needs -flexibility that is not permitted under rigid, state-imposed fiscal restraints. Levy limits and the reverse referendum erode our ability to make decision in the best interest of our citizens, which is what we are elected to. Please help us retain the control of such important decision where it should be, at the local level. Please contact the members of the tax conference committee and urge them to oppose these provision. Sincerely, Fran Clark, Acting City Manager From: AMM To: Ed Shukle AMM FAX April 26-30, 1999 (page 1 of 2) Date: 4~27~99 Time: 5:13:34 PM Page 2 of 3 Association of Metropolitan PlunicipalitJel New Met Council begins its work The recently appointed members of the Metropolitan Council officially took office on Thursday April 22, 1999. The new Council includes five members who have been either a city councilmember or mayor and many who have had experience working with local governments. At its first meeting, Met Council Chair Ted Mondale outlined his vision for the Council. Mr. Mondale urged the members to view them- selves as regionalists and to work with and attempt to direct local governments. Being aware of the chair's vision and the potential impact of its policies upon cities, you are encouraged to contact your Met Council member. You may want to invite the member(s) to a city council meeting to discuss how the council and city could exchange communications and discuss policies. AMM Fax Ne~,,s is fared periodically to all .4MM ci0, t~nagers attd a&~nistrators. The infort~tion is iu- tended to be shared with m~vors, councilmet~ers and staff in order to keep officials abreast of important metro cio, issues. ~ Copyright 1999 AMM 145 Uuiversio, ,4venue lVest St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: am~n,'~atntnI 4 5. org House and Senate TI F financing bills differ The House and the Senate Omnibus Tax bills contain differing articles relating to economic development and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The House bill (HF 2420) was formally introduced on April 26, while the Senate bill will not be formally introduced until later this week. The Senate TIF article was heard in the Local Government Tax division April 26. The following analysis compares the House TIF section with the Senate section as passed by the Property Tax division: Housing District-Local Match House: The local match for housing districts for which the request for certification is made after June 30, 1999 is changed from 10 percent to 5 percent. Senate: Qualified housing districts are defined to include a housing development in which at least 50 percent of the housing is receiving assistance from district revenues, and in the case of rental housing the housing is affordable to persons and families having incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income. For owner-occupied housing the maximum income threshold is 80 percent. The provision is effective for districts that requested certification on or after Sept. 2, 1998. General Government Use Prohibited House: The section is effective for new and existing districts. The section does not affect expenditures that were made or committed by binding contract before July 1, 1999. The amendment would prohibit the TIF Bills ~ See Page 2 New Metropolitan Council .............. ~'" r~' i~' .,,,.. ~, , -., ...... , ,, ,, _.~ .~ ............... ~ . , ..~ ~.~ ........... ~,.,~ t,~lr, ttt.,~, ................. ~ ~. ~ , - ......... 1~ ~TP¢ ~ ,¢%~' '-' '~ " ' ~ ~ -~ , .it ltl I~ ¢~ ' '~ '~' '.' - ..... -~ ..... ,¢ 'h ................ A' "~ " ~' ~ ~; L~"', ',,~ '' '" : ; ;' ';" ~l~i~'~(,,' ~ ~,~~, '~' Prom: PdVIIVl I0: I-'O ~fflUKle ua[e: 41711~t lime: ~:l:J:~. I'M I'age ~ oT ~ April 26-30, 1999 · AMM Fax New~' Page 2 of 2 TIF Bills/House bill features 8 special laws; Senate 17 Continued from Page I expenditure of TIF for a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social recreational or conference purposes after July 1, 1999. TIF may also not be used for expenditures outside the district for public improvements, equipment or other items if the expenditures serve primarily as a decorative or aesthetic purpose or serve a functional purpose, but their cost is increased by 100 percent as a result of the design, selection of materials or type as compared with more commonly used designs, materials or types for similar improvements, equipment or items. Senate: Districts certified or ex- panded (geographic area) after July 1, 1999 are prohibited to expend TIF for a public park or social and recreational facilities. Pooling for Deficits House: Municipalities are permitted to transfer increment from one district to another to eliminate deficits caused by changes in the property tax class rates authorized by the 1997 and 1998 Tax bills. The municipality may transfer increments between districts even if different development authorities established them. The pooling permit- ted under the bill applies notwithstand- lng the pooling limits of other law. An additional $1.0 million is appropriated to the TIF grant program which is also extended to the year 2002. Senate: The Senate bill is similar to the House but contains an additional statutory reference and defines preexisting obligations to include refunding bonds and expenditures made before June 2, 1997. 1979 to 1982 Pooling Rules House: The use of increment to pay for activities outside districts estab- lished between 1979 and 1982 is ratified. The bill also defines preexisting in-district and outside-district obliga- tions to be contractual obligations by May 1, 1999 and bonds issued by April 1, 1999. Senate; Pooled expenditures are also ratified but the date for issuance of bonds is May 1, 1999 and for binding contracts is Sept. 30, 1999. The dates only refer to expenditures outside the district. The district is not required to be decertified after the preexisting expenditures are paid. Enforcement House: If the county attorney does not take action on a non-compliance issue within 12 months the matter is referred to the Minnesota Department of Revenue for resolution. The Com- missioner of Revenue can suspend the ability of the authority or municipality to establish TIF districts for up to five years. Senate: There is no similar provi- sion. Wage Goals House: No provision. Senate: The local match requirement or aid penalty can be reduced by 50 percent if a district has resulted in an increase in jobs that pay at least 125 percent of the federal poverty wage. The job increase must be certified by the Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) and is effective for the years following the certification. To qualify, at least 40 jobs must be created in districts located in the metro area. In Greater Minnesota, the minimum number of jobs is 10 in a city of less than 5,000 population and 20 for larger cities. Special Laws House: There are eight special law TIF provisions. Metro cities included are Fridley, Chanhassen and St. Paul. Senate: There 17 special law provisions. All but one relates to TlR The city of Woodbury is authorized to levy a property tax for a highway interchange. Of the 15 TIF bills, six are for metro cities (St. Paul, Fridley, Inver Grove Heights, Columbia Heights, Brooklyn Center and the airport impact area). The area includes Richfield, Minneapolis, Eagan and Bloomington. Effective Date Change House: No provision is included. Senate: The effective date for the 1998 amendment to the TIF law regarding green acres is changed from April 30, 1998 to August 1, 1996. AMM to celebrate its Mark your calendars -- the AMM will celebrate its 25th Anniversary at the Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 20, 1999 at the Maplewood Community Center. A social hour will begin the evening at 5:30 p.m., with dinner at 6:30 p.m. and the business meeting 25th Anniversary at the at 7:30 p.m. Former AMM Executive Director Vern Peterson and AMM's first presi- dent Elliott Perovich will share some stories of the early days and the Lynn Deichert Music ensemble will provide some Dixieland entertainment. All AMM members are invited and May Annual Meeting past presidents are also encouraged to attend. The cost to attend will be $30. Invitations and agendas will be mailed out later this week. Everyone will be asked to make a reservation by calling the AMM no later than Friday, May 14. Stay tuned for more details! I"t01 I-rom: ,~lviivl I o: ~-ran L.;larK-Lel$1i3ger uate: ~,/4./:¢~1 i line: '1 :=.~:~z I~M I-'age Z ot Z AM/VI FAX lie Association of' Metropolitan Muni¢ipalidcs May 3-7, 1999 TIF financing plans undergo changes Traditionally the House Tax Committee chair offers an amendment to clarify and correct the proposed Omnibus Tax Bill. Included in Rep. Ron Abram's (R-Minnetonka) amendment is a change to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) provision relating to the use of increment for public facilities. The House bill originally prohibited the use of TIF for such facilities regardless of when the district was established but permitted TIF to be used for the facilities if there was a contract entered into before July 1, 1999. The amendment was made to the effective date section for the provi- sion and now provides that expen- ditures made before Jan. 1,2000, expenditures made under a binding ,4MM Fax' Nears is fax-ed periodically to all ,4MM ciO. managers and acbninistrators. The infor,uttion is itt- tended to be shared with mayors, councibnembers and staff itt order to keep officials abreast of important tnetro ciO, issues. Copyright 1999,4MM 145 University ,tvenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: ammr~.amm14 5. o~ contract entered into before Jan. 1, 2000 or expenditures made under a binding contract entered pursuant to a letter of intent with the devel- oper or contractor entered into before Jan. 1,2000 are ~9 permitted. The new language replaces the July 1, 1999 deadline. The Senate bill as passed on the Senate floor deletes two provisions that were in the division report to the full commit- tee. No longer in the Senate bill is a provision relating to the 1979 to 1982 districts. Also deleted from the bill is the provision regarding a reduction in the local government aid penalty/local match if the district creates a certain number of jobs paying 125 percent of the poverty wage. Both proposals were eliminated because it was determined that they had a cost impact on the state general fund. Cities asked to submit project requests The House Bonding Bill (HF 2205) proposes to spend approximately $45.0 million for several projects related to flooding and emergency repairs. The bill also includes the lan- guage from HF 726 that encour- ages local governments to submit capital projects requesting state funds to the Minnesota Department of Finance for review. Similar language has been approved by the Senate and is included in the Senate's Bonding Bill. Corp. The revised Corporate Welfare Bill (SF 607) was amended into the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill. The amended version incorpo- rates many of the changes dis- cussed by local government organi- zations (including AMM) and includes items that require contin- ued discussion in the conference welfare included in Senate Tax Bill committee. Among the items are the definition of redevelopment, the lack of funds for the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) to conduct training regarding the new procedures and the penalties for the developer for non-compliance with the act. 170;z From: To: Sent: Subject: James M. Strommen <jstrommen@kennedy-graven.com> <jandre@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <citymanager@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <curtb@ci.brooklyn- park. mn. us>; <lakeland@is& net>; <BurnsW@ci. fridley, mn.. us>; <ed. bu rrell@ci.roseville, mn. us>; <gbutcher@ci.maple-grove. mn. us>; <dcallister@aol.~;~m>;~<RCase@edenpr. k12.mn.us>; <dchilds@ci.minnetonka.mn.us>; <jclancy@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <lakeland@isd.net>; <doranc@ci.brooklyn-park. mn.us>; <crichtonc@aol.com>; <floraj@ci.fridley.mn.us>; <mfulto@ci.new-brighton.mn.us>; <jgates@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <rvhill@hopkinsmn.com>; <RickG@rcmnet. org>; <mhanus@pclink.com>; <haukaasj@ci.fridley.mn.us>; <chonchell@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <bjohnson@ci.woodbury.mn.us>; <djohnson@ci.plymouth.mn.us>; <bjoynes@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <karl.keel@ci. roseville.mn, us>; <jkeinath@compuserve.com Monday, May 03, 1999 7:51 AM ~I ECEIYEDI~AY Area Code--Update, Petitions for Reconsideration ! ..... This is an update on the area code matter, and I would like responses from those cities that have an opinion on the issue described below. I must submit a reply to the petitions by Friday. US West has petitioned for reconsideration, again advocating for the overlay instead of the geographic split along municipal boundaries. It has estimated the total additional cost of a municipal split (along the 1-394 corridor through the Medina-Orono boundaries). It estimates about 25 million over and above the cost it would incur for an overlay. It further stated that it will seek recovery of an amortized amount from 612 customers, which U S West states would be about $1.00 per month for 2 and 1/2 years. The variables of this estimate are 1) accuracy of the estimate (Phase I was less expensive to split along municipal boundaries than USW predicted); 2) amount the PUC will allow USW to recover (this could be anywhere from $0 to the whole thing, with the most likely result being something in between) 3) the manner of the rate design of the recovery (who pays). My question is whether this affects your city's position at all. I believe my previous estimates to you were similar to these and the PUC is aware that the municipal boundaries position of the SPA is not contingent on none of this cost being passed through. These boundaries are good policy and there may be a cost to implement such policy. If these dollar estimates change your city's position please call or email. Also, the numbering plan administrator has estimated exhaust periods of 12-15 years for the two north and south suburban area codes and about 7 years for Mpls., which would keep 612. This would possibly eliminate any need for further splits, if number conservation and pooling were effectively implemented. My inclination for the next Mpls. exhaustion (which would be the first) would be to suggest the overlay or a downtown wire center split. At that point, of course, municipal splits are no longer an option. I also understand the SRA position to be that it would not favor a split, even along municipal boundaries, where, e.g., the suburban area gets a new number in 2001 and then because of further exhaust a portion of that area (southwest suburbs or northwest suburbs) must be assigned a new number again within a short period of time (4 or 5 years). This is the outcome possible with a two way split and a very short exhaust period. For any area to endure two new area codes within a 5 year period would be too much, especially businesses. Finally, the PUC order keeps the municipal boundaries intact for all SPA cities (ends with Orono) but west into Minnetrista and Independence the boundaries resort to wire centers based on "lack of development." These split those cities, though largely undeveloped. I have made courtesy calls to each city, which may want to respond. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER May 10, 1999 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PEMBROKE Attached is additional information on the Pembroke Multiple Dock Issue. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 53.41 MAYWCCD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612} 472-0600 FP~((612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: April 12, 1996 Attached Distribution List FROM: SUBJECT: Commons Task Force Pembroke Park/Devon Commons Multiple Dock On April 9, 1996, the Mound City Council conceptually approved a pilot project for a multiple dock system involving the commons docks at Pembroke Park. Your dock site is located in the subject area. The task force has recommended that the city install and maintain a multiple dock complex just south of Pembroke Beach for use by those who currently have dock sites in this Yoh are invited to attend an informational meeting on Saturday, April 20, 1996, 10:30 a.m. at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road. We look forward to hearing your views on the plan at this meeting. The objectives of this proposal are: 1. Reduce dock congestion. 2. Maintain existing nonabutting boat sites within walking distance. 3. Deter vandalism. The pilot project calls for the installation of a single multi~slip dock that will accommodate up to seven boats. The dock will be lit at night to help deter vandalism. The dock will be installed on Devon Commons, using Pembroke Park for access, and will be purchased, installed, maintained and removed by the City. If you are unable to attend the meeting and you have questions or concerns, you may call Mark Goldberg, Commons Task Force Chair at 472-4624, or write to the Mound Commons Task Force, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. We hope this will be a win/win plan for all involved, and look forward to talking with you. CC: Mound City Council Commons Task Force Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Faclder, Parks Director printed on recycled p~-.per Multiple-slip Dock Program Conce£tually Approved by the Council on 1-28-97 Reflects Changes Recommended by Park Commission on I-9-97 Be Ce Renew 1. 3. of underlying objectives for Commons Dock Program. Maintain total number of boats participating in the commons dock program. Keep nonabutter boats within walking distance from their homes. Recognize that some commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight quarters. 4. Work to improve abutter's "sense of privacy" without affecting nonabutters use of the lakeshore commons. Multiple-slip dock objectives. 1. To improve..the level of satisfaction with the commons dock program by reducing or eliminating the number of dock sites in front of aburter's homes. 2. Reduce nonabutter cost by providing permits for boat slips that do not require them to have their own docks. 3. Improved shoreline appearance and reduced congestion. 4.~. The multiple-slip dock system is to be fully funded with current Dock Fund Criteria for considering an area for a multiple-slip dock. 1. High level of dissatisfaction with current commons program. Use November 8, 1995 tabulation of commons survey satisfaction levels as a basis for proceeding. First priority (based on dissatisfaction level) is Devon Commons. Shoreline dock congestion. Topography/tight quarters: Houses close to the water and/or at eye level with the water. Multiple-slip Dock Program Approved 1-28-97 ,v. Z oI ~ Ee A significant percent of dock site holders interested in or willing to try a multiple-slip dock. Existence of a logical location for a multiple-slip dock in that area: a. Convenient access. b. No undue burden on adjacent abutting homes. Implementation steps. Relocate dock holders to a commons user-fee supported and maintained multiple-slip dock. This will be accomplished by placing multiple docks at the ends of fire lanes, street ends, and other locations that are not directly in front of an abutter's property. 2. The City. will be the trustee and manager of the multiple-slip dock system. Being that the Pembroke multiple dock pilot project was a successful program in 1996, make the Pembroke multiple dock a permanent program with a suggested long-term goal maximum of seven twenty-four foot dock slips. When an individual dock site permit holder moves to a multiple-slip dock, that individual dock site will no longer be used as a dock location. The multiple-slip dock is to be used for ingress and egress by the dock permit holders and their guests only. This is needed for boat security, and user safety for the permit holders. Where possible, leave room for a visitor boat. Visiting would be limited to three days. Measure the outcome: Measure dock holder's satisfaction with dock program, dock spacing between docks, privacy, etc. Any time a multiple dock is proposed, all individuals affected will be notified in writing, of a meetinz, and if needed a notice will also be published in the paper, a public hearinz will be held. and all those affected will have the ability to vote and the majority will role. Use Plan for Public Lands issues to review that will affect the multiple-slip dock. what is the total number of boat storage units that the system needs to and can support: throughout tile ll[9gram. In this area? Multiple-slip Dock Program 3pproved 1-28-97 Fe Does the topography of this particular area require any restrictions on nonabutter boat sizes, or other things that would unduly impact abutting homeowners and/or nonabutting dock holders? Installation and transition issues. If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move to the multiple slip dock: a. Keep changes on a voluntary basis. b. Keep nonabutters within walking distance of their homes. Solutions: Move the permit to the multiple-slip dock when the permit holder leaves the program, and no longer use that individual dock site. If a "share" exists, they cannot assume that dock site. Attempt to accommodate that "share" at the multiple-slip dock. What if a dock site holder has more than one boat and therefore wants more than one slip at the multiple-slip dock? The multiple-slip dock can only f'mancially support one boat slip per permit holder. Solution: Leave the permit holder at his/her own dock site. When the permit holder either chooses to join the multiple-slip dock, or leaves the program, then move the dock site to the multiple-slip dock and no longer use the individual's dock site. Secondary benefit: Limiting the multiple-slip permit holders to one BSU gives more flexibility for allowing the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat while still maintaining the number of participants and stay within LMCD BSU limits. o When an area is targeted to have a specific number of BSU's at the multiple- slip dock, yet some of the targeted dock site holders don't move to the multiple-slip dock, do as follows. Create the multiple-slip dock with slips only for those that move to it from targeted dock sites. Then expand the number of slips over time as the remaining dock sites are consolidated onto the multiple- slip dock. Dock fees: No surcharges are recommended based on the commons dock fund financial projections, the proposed multiple-slip dock system is fully funded with current Dock Fund fees. Pilot project for commons docks gets conceptual OK in Mound By Lorrie Ham (Pembroke Park is located on located so close to the beach. The Mound City Council conceptually approved a proposal from the Commons Task Force Tuesday night which could result in the implementation of a pilot project as early as this season. The majority of the member task force was on hand as Chair Mark Goldberg outlined the group's prnposaL After meeting nearly 30 times in the past eight months, the task force, made up of abutters (residents whose property abuts city-owned commons) non- abutters (residents who use the Commons Dock program but who do not live on commons) and citizens-at-large, came up with a list of recommendations which was presented to thc city in January. The task force earmarked the Pembroke Park Commons Area of Devon Common for implementing the pilot project. According to Goldberg there was not em)ugh time lo implement the task force's recomi'flendations on all of Devon Common for this season, so the group concentrated on the Pembroke Park area for the pilot project. Island View Drive and Clyde Road on Island Park.) Current problems in the Pembroke Park area include dock and boat congestion and abutting homes which are close to the water and are at eye level, said Goldbcrg. The task force recommended that the city install and maintain a seven-boat multiple dock complex just south of Pembroke Beach for use by seven non. abutters who currently have dock sites in front of abutters' homes to the south of the beach. The four abutting property owners in the area would then have only their docks in front of their homes, while the rhuhiple dock system would maintain dock sites for thc non-abutters who are existing dock holders in that area. Thc multiple dock system would be located 20 l~ct from Pembroke Beach. according to Goldbcrg. Parks Director Jim Fackler said thc ropes marking off thc swimming beach ct)uJd be moved slightly to accommodate the change. Mound resident Pete Meyer brought up safety, concerned that the dock system was to be Goldberg and task force member Rod Plaza pointed dui that the prop~sed dock system would be further from the swimming area than thc docks that are currently located there. "We'd like to convince the non-abutters of the advantages of the multiple dock idea so that the proposal can begin to be implemented this year." said GoMberg. Long range plans include the installation of between l0 and 20 multiple dock systems in thc next l0 years. Costs of purchasing, installing and maintaining the city-owned docks would be offset by a dock surcharge, which could range from $30 to $50 per year. and would be implemented beginning next year for users of the multiple dock systems, said Goldbcrg. The entire dock program ~s already operated with fees collected annually from dock program users, and this proposal would not change that fact. No general fund or tax money would be used for the implementation COMNION$ . . . Cont. on P. 4 Commons · .. From Page 1 or operation of the proposed program, the council stressed. "I can picture non-abutters eventually lining up to get a dock site in one of the multiple dock systems," said Goldberg, who noted the surcharge would be a small fee to pay for the purchase, installation and maintenance of a dock. Security lights, rip-rapping and other improvements were also listed as benefits for users of the proposed multiple dock systems. With the boating season rapidly approaching, thc task force received the go-ahead from the city council to host a neighborhood meeting with the residents of the Pembroke Park area to determine if residents and users of the Commons Dock . Program are interested in pursuing the seven-boat multiple dock system this season. Goldberg said that the meeting would likely be held April 20 or 21, and that neighbors would be contacted prior to the meeting with specifics. "I like the concept." said Councilmember Liz lensen. "[ hope it works." In a related matter, the council directed staff to pursue issues and possible concerns relating to encroaching structures on city-owned commons property, a subject which has been the root of several lawsuits and much discussion at the city level, The task force had several recommendations in this area, but City Attorney Curt Pearson cautioned the council that "specific language" would be required to change existing ordinances, and that those potential changes must be "carefidly thought out." Mayor Bob Polston noted that the council and task force would work together in pursuing this issue, while recognizing the need to protect the city's interest and the rights of the property owners. DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES- APRIL 17, 1997 DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING APRIL 17, 1997 Present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, lim Funk, Mark Goldberg, Dennis Hopkins, and Gordy Tulberg, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy lames. Also in attendance were: Rim Pederson, Mike Gardner, AndreaAhrens, Don Pedersen, Leah Weycker, Cathy Bailey and Mike Aspelin. MINUTES Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens to approve the minutes of the April 3, 1997 Dock & Commons Advisory Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES None. WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION Chair, Mark Goldberg, explained that the Dock and Commons Commission is trying to find out if they should get involved in helping the residents of Woodland Point in their mediation efforts, but first the Commission needs to get up-to-speed on the issue. Goldberg announced that Mike Aspelin a nonabutting resident in Woodland Point, and Mike Gardner an abutting resident in Woodland Point have been asked to explain their views on the mediation. Mike Aspelin thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak. Aspelin explained that if you look at the recommendations within the mediation agreement, it pretty much sums up the stance of the nonabutters. Aspelin noted that this is a private commons, both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons are dedicated to the residents in Woodland Point. The Commons have not always been used that way, and is not totally being used that way today. Aspelin highlighted the following points from the mediation agreement: "Recommend that a brochure be developed and distributed to the residents of Woodland Point only." Aspelin explained that this idea was to help teach people where the boundaries are, where the access points are, places to stay away from without having to post signs and keep it more attractive to the genera/public and to get more use out of the commons. 6 "Unobstructed access should be a continued right to Woodland Point residents.' Aspelin explained, it was decided during mediation that the south end of Bluebird Lane was not an appropriate access point because most years it was too wet. The best access points Dock & Commons Advisot~. Commission Minutes April I7, 1997 are at the end of Woodland Road and at the north end of Bluebird Lane. Regarding "Encroaching Structures" and the City's involvement, the abutters felt over- regulated. A list was developed of those items that City staff should have the author/ty to grant permits without council approval, such as "trimming of tree limbs above a height of 8 feet." ~Maintain the number of existing dock sites currently on the two Commons - 54 dock sites..." There was concern about how to maintain the 54 dock sites, not everyone in Woodland Point can get a dock, but they would like to try to accommodate as best they can with the space available. "Allow one dock site in front of each abutter's house and continue to give the abutters priority for permits on those docks. Allow non-abutters to cluster their individual docks at ends of streets, other than Canary Lane, on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. Clustered docks can be placed closer together than 20-30 feet." This allows abutting owners to maintain the space in front of their houses, and the nonabutters to have individual cluster docks. Aspelin emphasized that the idea of a cluster dock was not a multiple-slip dock, but individual docks placed at the end of roads and spaced closer than 30 feet. Wawonaissa has already been removed from the Dock Location Map, and they already have docks .with 20 foot spacing, so there is not much room left for the cluster dock idea. Aspelin summarized that they have a good satisfaction level on Waurika even with close dock spacing, and most abutting owners are very supportive of the program. Mike Gardner referred to Aspelin's comment that Woodland Point is private and he does not agree with that, nor does he think the City believes that. Gardner noted that due to the amount work that the City has done on Waurika Commons, the attorney's feel Waurika is really City property. He understands there is a pending lawsuit, and stated that the people of Wawonaissa don't understand why the people on Waurika are joining this party and fighting this litigation. From what he understands and has seen, Waurika is considered a City property based on all the work the City has done there. Wawonaissa was treated differently by the court. Gardner noted that the neighbors have talked about using Canary Beach for a multiple-slip dock. He has drafted a dock configuration and believes the area could accotnmodate 11 slips and still maintain the swimming area. Photocopies of the draft were distributed to the Commission. He feels the multiple slip dock would increase the number of docks available in Woodland Point, and also provide docking for people who are unable to build their own docks. Gardner emphasized that it was nice not having other docks in front of his house last summer. They feel the alternative of having a multiple dock would be an asset to the City and an asset to the community. Goldberg asked Gardner if he had any comments relating specifically to the mediation agreement. Gardner stated that he was not part of the mediation group, but he went to most of the meetings, and they talked about having docks at the end of streets. Gardner does not 'know 7 DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1997 what the settlement was, and does not think people know what the mediation agreement is all about. Polston asked Gardner if he thinks the agreement would be a help or hinderance to the neighborhood. Gardner responded, it would depend upon what the agreement is, and from what he knows most of the abutters do not have a clue what the agreement is about. Polston asked Aspelin if he thinks the agreement would be a help or hinderance to the neighborhood. Aspetin feels that most of the agreement was forced to be put in place due to the standings of what is going on with Wawonaissa commons. Aspelin noted that the mediation agreements states that a consensus was not reached on the building of a multiple dock, but that it could be a future consideration for people who do not want the responsibility of maintaining a dock. In order to install a multiple dock at Canary Beach there would need to be some landscaping and tree removal, and the cost would be great. He also has a concern with having docks and boats so close to a swimming area. Goldberg asked Aspelin how they would feel about forming an association and giving the City the authority to manage things. Aspelin is not opposed to an association, and informed the Commission that they had a neighborhood meeting at Canary Beach, and out of 60 people present, 51 people agreed they should form an association, and out of 27 abutters, nine were in favor of an association. One of the abutters not in favor of the association has private lakeshore and is not on commons. Polston stressed the need to have 100% participation in order to form an association. Aspelin stated that he appreciated the opportunity to have this issue on the agenda, however, does not feel this is the time to be discussing this due to the pending lawsuit, which is scheduled for June or July. He asked that the Commission hold off on any action until they know what the roles of everyone in Woodland Point will be. Polston clarified that he did not know talking about implementing the mediation process was directly related to talking about whether or not there should be a multiple dock. Polston noted that last year the City Council made a commitment to work with the people in the area prior to the next boating season (this Spring) to see if anything could be done to make things run smoother and raise the comfort level, even though the City has no authority to run a dock program there. His thought for putting this issue on the agenda was to live up to the Council's commitment. Aspelin noted that the Council did implement some of their ideas, such as encouraging the sharing of docks. Polston commented that it is not the intent of the Council or the Dock Commission to force the implementation of the mediation process, but would like it known that we are here to assist them. Gardner and Aspelin agreed that they should wait to find out what the court is going to decide regarding the easement. Goldberg confirmed with Aspelin that the nonabutters have adequate space for their docks and boats for this season. Goldberg asked Gardner if their are any nonabutting docks that are DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1997 causing problems for the abutters. Gardner noted there is one dock located at the end of Woodland Road which he does not feel should be there because it is not actually Woodland Road, but is Wawonaissa Common. MOTION made by Goldberg that the Dock Commission sit tight on this issue and wait for further clarlrlcatlon on the easement or for a request from the Woodland Point group to do something. Ahrens seconded the motion. Cathy Bailey further explained the pending lawsuit. The Declaratory Judgement that is going to be entered into the court, is asking the court to explain and tell exactly what the easement rights are to the 99 property owners in Woodland Point. Bailey stated that she wanted to remind the City that they also own 17 of those lots and they went through the neighborhood and 44 of the 99 households have signed on as plaintiffs. She explained that with a Declaratory Judgement you have to declare what side you are on, and if you don't, you are automatically put on the other side. They are hopeful that this process will clear up a lot of issues. They are also a little disappointed that the City is not helping with the Declaratory Judgement as owner of 17 lots. Polston commented that the City Attorney has advised the City to keep a low profile on this issue. The City Manager stated that they were also advised, that as a property owner, that we do have an interest and not a lot of research has gone into that. Aspelin stated that they did have an informational meeting trying to get everyone involved and to educate them on what is going on, and the City was invited, but did not come. In the future, he hopes a representative from the City will attend their meetings. MOTION carried unanimously. Polston commented that it was not the intent of the Council or the Task Force to force multiple docks into neighborhoods, but to do it at the request of neighborhoods. PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK SITE Ahrens reviewed a proposed motion which was handed out to the commission that he had prepared prior to the meeting. The Commission discussed the fact that there are seven dock holders, and two of them were permitted to move to this multiple slip dock with two boats because it was a pilot program at that time. Ahrens explained that this motion will help them reduce the number of boats at this dock to one boat per person. Ahrens etnphasized that last year only seven boats were actually moored at the dock. Hopkins referred to the Multiple-slip Dock Program and noted that it says that they will give up their extra boats. Goldberg noted that the program was implemented after the pilot program was put in place so they are not bound to the program rules. It was discussed whether it is too late to implement Ahrens' proposekl motion for 1997. DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1997 The different dock configurations were reviewed. Ahrens commented that he is opposed to expanding the dock into Rod Plaza's area. It was noted that two of the dock holders are not within walking distance of the dock. Fackler commented that this commons is not a dedicated commons, and you cannot regulate who gets a dock where. MOTION made by Ahrens to recommend to the City Council the following changes in the multiple-slip dock system for the Devon Commons at the Pembroke access for the 1997 boating season: " WHEREAS, the city council has approved on January 28, 1997 the "Multiple-slip Dock Program" as outlined in Dock & Commons Commission manual under the section entitled "Multiple Docks." WHEREAS, the city council has approved making the Pembroke multiple-slip dock a permanent program with a suggested long-term goal to reduce the dock size to a minimum of seven twenty-four foot dock slips. WHEREAS, the dock configuration needs to be modified to improve the accessibility of the three inside dock glips. The Commission recognizes that the water depth for the inside dock slips were too shallow latter in the 1996 boating season and maneuvering the boat into the dock slips was difficult. WHEREAS, the multiple-slip docks are intended to be a small neighborhood dock system for individuals within walking distance of their homes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Dock and Commons Commission reconunends to the City Council on April 17, 1997 that the multiple-slip dock at the Pembroke access on the Devon Commons be modified for the 1997 boating season with the inside slips (F, G, and H) being placed in the manner as displayed on Exhibit A. The docks should be configured in such a manner as to minimize the impact on the butting property owners at this access. Therefore, each individual dock site permit holder will be assigned one boat slip within the multiple-slip dock system at Pembroke access. Dock holders will be assigned a boat slip for the 1997 boating season based on the actual number of slips that were required to moor boats for the 1996 season. No additional boats may be added during the 1997 boating season. Non-abutting dock holders with more than one boat will be assigned an additional dock slip (A or J) for their second boat for 1997 boating season. The Conmfission's goal is to reduce the nun~ber of boat slips to oue boat slip per dock site holder. Therefore, as dock site holders reduce the number of boats of record on their dock application to one boat, they may not increase that number after that point. Current dock site holders with only one 10 DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1997 boat may not increase the number of boats registered in the city dock program. Non-abutter dock holders within the multiple-slip dock system should be within walking distance of their homes. Dock site holders outside of the immediate neighborhood should be moved to another commons for the 1998 boating season. At the point that Craig Watson registers only two boats on his dock application, the Commission recommends that Mr. Watson be assigned to the multiple-slip dock at Pembroke. This is providing that there are available dock slips within the Pembroke multiple-slip dock. His individual dock site would no longer be used as a dock location." MOTION seconded by Tulberg. Funk commented that he prefers dock configuration Opdon #2 as suggested by staff because it addresses the "low water" issue and still leaves 15 to 20 feet to Plaza's dock. Fackl. er commented, when Watson's dock is eliminated, everything can be moved towards the beach. Also, this proposal keeps the dock slips equal in size. Fackler emphasized the need for input from the dock holders before changes are made. Fackler confirmed that LMCD approval should not be required in this case, but any new multiple docks may need to get approval. Ahrens moved to amend the motion as follows: "Therefore, each individual dock site permit holder will be assigned one boat slip within the multiple-slip dock system at Pembroke access. Dock holders will be assigned a boat slip for the 199;_8 boating season based on the actual number of slips that were required to moor boats for the 19967 season. No additional boats may be added during the 199:78_ boating season." Add: "A meeting will be held with the dock site holders to review the dock configuration options prior to May 15." Add: "If the second boat slip goes unused for one season, then that dock holder will relinquish the right to have that second slip." Tulberg seconded the motion to amend. Ahrens called the question. The vote to end debate carried 5 to 1 with Hopkins opposed. The MOTION as amended carried unanimously. This recommendation will be reviewed by the City Council on May 13, 1997. li DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 17, 1997 MOTION made by Tulberg, seconded by Ahrens to schedule a meeting with the Pembroke Multiple-slip dock holders for Saturday, April 26, 1.997 at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall. Staff is to notify the dock holders as a soon as possible. Motion carried unanimously. Hopk/ns stated that he has to work on Saturdays and will not be able to attend the meeting. NEW MULTIPLE DOCKS Ahrens reviewed a proposed motion which was handed out to the commission that he had prepared prior to the meeting. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by tulberg to recommend to the city council the implementation of multiple-slip dock systems for Devon Conmmns at the Devon, Amhurst, and Roanoke accesses for the 1997 boating season, as follows: " WHEREAS, the City Council has approved on January 28, 1997 the "Multiple-slip Dock Program" as outlined in Dock & Commons Commission manual under the section entitled "Multiple Docks." WHEREAS, one of the multiple-slip dock objectives is to improve the level of satisfaction with the common's dock program by reducing or eliminating the number of dock sites in front of abutter's homes. WHEREAS, The first priority (based on dissatisfaction level as found in the November 8, 1995 tabulation of commons surveys) in implementing multiple-slip docks is Devon Common. WHEREAS, the Amhurst Lane, Devon Lane and Fairview Lane accesses have non- abutter dock sites located in front of abutter's homes. WHEREAS, $22,500 was budgeted in calendar year 1997 in the Dock Fund for the purchase of three multiple-slip docks for the 1997 boating season. WHEREAS, the multiple-slip doc'ks are intended to be a small neighborhood dock system for individuals within walking distance of their homes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Dock and Commons Commission reconm~ends to the City Council on April 17, 1997 that a multiple-slip dock be placed at the ends of fire lanes at Devon, Amhurst, and Roanoke accesses by May 23, 1997. The docks should be configured in such a manner as to minimize the impact on the abutting property owners at the subject accesses. A meeting with affected abutter and non-abutter dock holders should take place by 12 DOCK & COMMONS COMMIS$ION MINUTES- APRIL 17, 1997 Saturday, April 26, 1997. All affected parties should be notified in writing of the meeting. The following multiple docks will have a maximum number of boat slips not to exceed 24 feet in length and 12.5 feet in width: Devon Access Amhurst Access Roanoke Access 7 boat slips 4 boat slips 4 boat slips Therefore, each individual dock site permit holder will be assigned one boat slip within the multiple-slip dock. The boat of record on the 1997 dock application shall be the boat assigned to the boat slip. No additional boats may be added during boating season. Non-abutting dock holders with more than one boat will be able to keep an individual dock site only for 1997 boating season. They will be assigned an individual dock site at another commons for the 1998 boating season. Non-abutter dock holders within the multiple-slip dock system should be within walking distance of their homes. Dock site holders outside of the immediate neighborhood should be moved to another conunons for the 1998 boating season. On a shared docks, the dock holder of record shall be the dock holder moved to the multiple-slip dock. We will attempt to accommodate the "share" at the multiple-slip dock, but not to exceed the maxinmm number of boat slips authorized for that multiple-slip dock." Goldberg expressed a concern that all the multiple docks that are being proposed are on Devon Common, and questioned if other areas should be considered. Goldberg questioned if they need to get approval from the council before they meet with the affected dock site holders. Ahrens commented, It was the intent that the Commission first find out if the dock holders are in favor of the change, but suggested, due to lack of time that the Council could approve the motion subject to acceptance by the dock holders. Goldberg noted that the last three paragraphs of the motion are already addressed in the rules, and suggested that the second and third to the last paragraphs be deleted. Ahrens commented that it was the intent to follow the rules. What to do with shared docks was briefly discussed. Ahrens noted this is addressed in his motion. The Parks Director commented that he has received two requests for multiple-slip docks, one at Fairview Lane and one at Twin Park. Fackler noted that the docks at Fairview have 20 foot spacing, they are located in front of two abutting homes, and there is a total of 8 eight docks. The request for the multiple dock carrie from one of the abutting owners. 13 DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1997 Polston suggested they could eliminate one of the proposed Devon sites and add the Fairview site. Ahrens commented that the abutter by the Amhurst access is very unhappy and feels this area should be looked at. He also feels the Devon access needs to be looked at. MOTION made by Tulberg, seconded by Ahrens, to amend the motion, as follows: Delete the Roanoke Access as a multiple-slip dock site, and add the Fairview Lane Access at Lake Blvd. 2. Delete the second and third to last paragraphs. e Amend the following: "NOW, THEREFORE, the Dock and Commons Commission recommends to the City Council on April 17, 1997 that a multiple-slip dock be placed at the ends of the fire lands at the Devon, Amhurst, and Roanoke Fairview accesses by May 23, 1997 as soon as possible. It was also recommended that this recommendation be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997. Motion carried unanimously. REVIEW PROCEDURE MA?qJAL AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC LAND PERMITS This item was moved to the May 15th agenda. ENCROACIq'MENT POLICY: REVIEW STATUS This item was moved to the Ivlay 15th agenda. AD.IO[fRN'MENT MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Goldberg, that the Dock Conunlssion recommend to the City Council that they recognize the hard work and efficiency that Peggy has put into serving the Conunissions and City Council over the years. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Polston, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the Dock & Commons Conunission Meeting at 10:07 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Attest: I4 Chair, Mark Goldberg Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997 ROAD, PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, PID $23-117-24 34 0088, P & Z CASE /t9%16 The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. The Council discussed what would be a minimal variance. The Council asked if the applicant would like the Council to adopt the proposed approval resolution for the 24 foot deep garage. The applicant stated that he would agree to the 24 foot deep garage. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-46 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARI_&NCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION' OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, PID $23-117-24 34 0088, P & Z CASE //97-16 The City Attorney suggested adding a WHEREAS to this resolution that reads as follows: "WItEREA'S, the City Council is, at the request of the applicant, waiving any of the procedures and formalities that might ordinarily accompany a variance application, in light of the fact that this variance has been considered and acted upon tonight." The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 REQUEST FOR FENAL PLAT APPROVAL - JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS The City Manager reported that the applicant has asked that this item be tabled until the May 27, 1997, City Council Meeting. The Council agreed. 1.13 APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE DOCK SLIPS - AM'HURST LA~.XFE ACCESS (DEVON CO[~EX, ION~ & FAIR. VIEW LANE ACCESS The City blanager explained that since the last Council meeting the DCAC (Dock & Commons Advisory Commission) has met with the residents of these two areas, and the consensus indicated that the multiple docks could be installed and that this should be done as soon as possible. /There would be cooperation between the abutting and non-abutting site holders to allow temporary dockage of boats at dock sites not in the location of the site for installation of the multiple slip boat dock. The Park Director is working to obtain cost, installation time, and dock design. The people wanted to get it in before Memorial Day. Up to $22,500 has been budgeted in the 1997 Budget for this project. The proposed resolution for approval was handed out this evening. Also handed out were the Minutes from the DCAC Meetings of April 3, ApdI 17 and May 8 and the POSC (Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of May 6, 1997). The City Clerk reviewed the revisions that have been made to the proposed resolution of approval for these multiple dockT~st"~ns. 252 Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997 the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK SYSTEMS AT THE AMHURST ACCESS ON DEVON CONEVION, THE DEVON LANE ACCESS ON DEVON CONIMON, AND AT THE FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS ON LAKE BLVD. Councilmember Ahrens stated that the third Whereas in the proposed resolution, which has been deleted came about because that was the only direction the Council had given the DCAC at that point. The Council agreed that it should be deleted. Councilmember Weycker stated that she has several concerns: 1. The 6th Whereas which reads as follows: "WHEREAS, the multiple-slip docks are intended to be a small neighborhood dock system for individuals within walking distance of their homes." She stated that from what she read in the minutes, the intent in this is totally being changed and the people who currently drive to the docks now are being asked to find a dock elsewhere. She felt that the intent of having small neighborhood docks and keeping them within walking distance, was so that the City was not pulling people away from where they already walked, not restricting people from driving to their dock. There are a lot of areas in Mound that are not within walking distance of a Commons. So if the Council starts restricting people with having to live in the neighborhood to use these multiple docks, it's wrong. Councilmember Hanus stated that his understanding was that wherever possible, we were going to keep docks within walking distance of people homes. He did not feel this was to restrict people from driving. It was to benefit them by trying to keep the sites in their neighborhood. Councilmember Weycker does not feel that the DCAC Minutes reflect that. 2. Councilmember Weycker stated that another concern is the total number of boats participating in the Commons, was another objective. She felt that was also being skewed because they are restricting the boats to one boat, per person at these multiple dock slips. Councilmember Hanus reminded the Council that everyone participating in the multiple boat dock slip is doing so voluntarily and the single boat issue is the tradeoff for getting a City dock you don't have to put in, take out or maintain. Councilmember Weycker stated that the Pembroke people in the pilot multiple boat dock slip were never restricted to one boat. Councilmember Hanus stated that was true only for the first year. Mayor Po~or~s____tated that after this year, it has been written into the criteria that in order to participate in this program you can only have one slip or Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997 you have to move to another area. Councilmember Weycker stated that it was her understanding at the meeting with the Pembroke people and they were told that they were grandfathered in and that would not be the case for them. She expressed concern that people are not getting the correct information. At that meeting one person questioned why the abutters were not bound by the same rules and the response from the Commission was that the abutters have riparian rights. Councilmember Ahrens stated that there was another response that came later on after that. mAn abutter can participate just as well in the multiple program but they have to restrict themselves to one boat. They have to follow the same rules as the non abutters if they are going to participate in the multiple. Councilmember Weycker commented that right now it's all non-abutters at the multiples. The Mayor stated that it was his understanding that once a person with two boats gives up that one slip at the Pembroke multiple dock, then he will be restricted to one boat. Councilmember Weycker stated that all her concerns have come when reading the minutes from the DCAC. She quoted a paragraph from the April 17, 1997 DCAC Minutes as follows: "Non-abutter dockholders within the multiple slip dock system should be within walking distance of their homes. Dock site holders outside the immediate neighborhood should be moved to another Commons for the 1998 boating season." Councilmember Jenson expressed concern about this also. Councilmember Jenson asked for clarification on the following: ~If someone moves to one of the new multiple docks this year, they acknowledge that they are limited to one boat? The Mayor stated that was correct. Do they then have the option next year to go to a non-multiple dock location?" Councilmember Hanus stated that they can always apply into the system to get back into a pdvatety installed dock, like anyone else can. He stated that because they are already in the system, they would have priority like anyone else who is currently on the system. Mayor Polston quoted the following from the DCAC Minutes of April 17, 1997: "Non-abutting dock holders with more than one boat will be assigned an additional dock slip (A or J) for their second boat for the 1997 boating season. The Commission's goal is to reduce the number of boat slips to one boat slip per dock site holder. Therefore, as dock site holders reduce the number of boats of record on their dfck application to one boat, they may not increase that number after that point. Current dock site holders with only one boat may not increase the number of boats registered in the city dock program.' Councilmember Jenson felt that is a contradiction to what was just said. Mayor Polston quoted the following from the DCAC Minutes of April I7, 254 Minutes - Mound Ci~ Council - May 13, 1997 1997: "Non-abutter dock hotders within the multipte-slip dock system should be within walking distance of their homes. Dock site holders outside of the immediate neighborhood should be moved to another commons for the I998 boating season.' Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels the confusion is in the la.st sentence of the first quote which should read: "Current multiple slip dock site holders with only one boat may not increase the number of boats registered in the city dock program." He understands this to mean, that if a person decides to leave their multiple slip and apply for a private dock again, or course they can go back to the same rules that apply to a privately held dock. Councilmember Weycker commented that in the meantime there may be no docks within walking distance of their homes. Councilmember Ahrens commented that is chance you take when you volunteer to be at a multiple. Councilmember Weycker stated that at the meetings with the residents on the multiple dock slips, she still feels that the people were not convinced that this was a good idea, and after reading the DCAC Minutes, they were not told all of this information. She did not think they had adequate information to make a decision. Mayor Polston disagreed and felt that the Commission was very careful and it was written into the minutes, what was intended and what was happening with the multiple system. He felt the Commission was very concerned, that both abutters and non-abutters, be given the correct information and that the program is voluntary. Councilmember Weycker asked the City Attorney if an abutter has riparian rights to the commons in front of their house, anymore than anyone has riparian fights to public land? The City Attorney stated. "No one can answer that question because that's one of the issues which need to be resolved in litigation. In other words, What is the nature of the abutting property owner's interest in the Commons area? What's the nature o[ the non-abutting property owner's interest in the Commons area? If, in fact, the non-abutting property owner's fight in the Commons is nothing more than the use of the Commons for the purpose of passage, moving from one point to another, then it may well be the case that the abutting property owners do have something akin to riparian rights, if the interest of the non-abutting property owners in the Commons would include the right to use the shore, to fish, to do things that typically are only of interest to an abutting property owner or a riparian property owner. Then the abutting property owner doesn't have riparian fights to the exclusion of anyone else. It is one of those issues that needs to be resolved. They may have them. They may not have them, but to assert at this point that they do, in fact, have them, I think is incorrect and I believe that was, arguably at least, that may have been corrected at the time. He h'ope~:hey don't believe that they, to the exclusion of anyone Minutes - Mound ~i~. Coundl - May. 13, 1997 else, have the rights of r/parian owners at the moment because the Commons lies between their property and the lake." Councilmember Weycker, encouraged everyone to read the minutes of the DCAC meetings that were handed out this evening because she feels there are things in them that were never intended, by the Council, like maintaining the total number of boats. She felt we need to maintain the total number of participants, not boats. Councilmember Ahrens asked for the question to be called on the resolution. The vote on calling the question was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. The vote in the resolution was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. COMMENTS ANI) SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.14 DISCUSSION: MEMBERSHIP EN THE SLrBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA) The City Manager reported that the City of Mound was asked to voluntarily participate in the Suburban Rate Authority for the last nine months, at no charge. That membership expires at the end of June. Councilmember Hanus has been Mound's delegate to this group. The Manager stated that they provide information about what is going on in the utility industry as it relates to municipalities and put out a lot of information. They are a force at the Public Utilities Commission as well as the Legislature on utility rate matters. They are asldng if we would like to continue as a member and if so, adopt a resolution to that effect. The dues are $800.00 a year but if we agree to continue though 1997 they will only charge us $400.00. Councilmember Jensen withdrew herself from this discussion because of a conflict of interest with her employer; she cannot participate in this. Councilmember Hanus stated that he does feel the City does get some benefits from this association. He also stated that he would still be the designated representative if the Council wished. The Council agreed. Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-48 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZ~'G PARTICIPATION [N' THE SUBUq~BAN RATE AUTHORITY; AND DESIGNATING MARK HANUS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AS ITS MEMBER ON THE BOARD OF THE SUBURB,MN RATE AUTHORITY ANI) ED SHUKLE AS THE ALTERN'ATE DELEGATE The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen abstaining. Motion carried. ADD-ONS .... ,~_ 256 ' CCommons Task Force presents dock site recommendations The Commons Task Force established to examine the issues surrounding the commons dock system presented their recommendations to the City Council at their January 9 meeting. The Task Force recommendations arc based on an unscientific survey mailed to abutters, nonabutfing dock site holders, and a random sample of citizens at large. The objective of the survey was to provide some quantifiable information to the sometimes heated and emotional discussion over the commons dock system. The City Council did not act on the recommendations. The subject will be taken up in greater detail at the February 20 Committee of the Whole meeting. Task force recommendations · Maintain the total number of boats participating in the docks program. Keep nonabutter boats within walking distance of their homes. · Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in front of some abutter's homes, recognize that City earns highest award for financial reporting The city of Mound has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Mound has received the certificate of Achievement each year since first applying 1988. Attaining a Certificate of Achievement is a significant accomplishment for a government and its management. Fewer than 100 local units of government in Minnesota received the award for the 1994 budget year. The Certificate of Achievement is an award designed to recognize and encourage excellence in financial reporting by state and local governments. To be eligible for a Certificate of Achievement, a report · must be the published comprehensive financial report (CAFR) of a unit of govermnent. Eligible CAFRs must include accepted general purpose financial statements and must have been audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Beyond the acronyms and number crunching, the CAFR must be useful for anyone wanting more information on local government finance. The CAFR should give a clear and thorough view of the government's finances. Award winning reports should enhance the reader's understanding of the information requked for a fair presentation of the financial statements, be efficiently organized and adhere to certain generally accepted terminology and formatting conventions. The City of Mound Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended September 31, 1994 is available for your review at City Hall and at the Westonka Public Library. The 1995 report will be submitted to GFOA for their review in June and will be prepared in conformity to the Certificate of Achievement program requirements. some commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight quarters. Encourage increased shared dock usage. Explore creating small multiple boat dock complexes (about 6 boats) at neighborhood locations within walking distance. Explore creating multiple boat dock complexes, where possible. at public park locations (such as Mound Bay Park) without infringing on existing usage. · Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shoreland Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by encroachment's existence. · The nonabutters survey results indicate that overall they do not have a problem with commons encroachments. · The topography of some commons areas cause significant backyard privacy and visual impact problems. Large boats (e.g. cabin cruisers) boat canopies, and winter storage need to be limited in those areas. · Explore establishing neighborhood associations or committees to work out problems specific to their comlnons. · Direct the task force to work with city staff to make recommendations for specific commons areas with problems. · Communicate with the public to increase understanding and give opportunity for additional dialogue through open forums, newspaper articles and through the city newsletter. · ~ SPEED NOTE TO ~.2~e ~gez', vi].l~e oZ' ~u~c~ ,o~, GRATHWOL AND PLOETZ ~062 Concord ~o~ew~ ~ou~e~s~ - Mo~, ~eso~ ~6~ A~ORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT ~W 444 SECOND STRE~ 2059 CONCORD BLVD. S. E. EXCELSIOR, MINN. 55331 MOUND, MINN. 55364 su,~ Part uf LoL 71, PheLp~ Island P~Pi First ~vi:ion Attached hereto ~d retu~ed here~th is a t~ed copy of deed ~ ~ts 71 ~d 72 for oark pu~oses. ~nce ~T~ m~m~S not ~ o~nal deed it bears no s~atures, it c~ not be filed, to be on~ a colored copy for your p~perty record. J~une 16 ,, 65 and it would appear ~ccordingly I return it to you. Also attached hereto and returned herewith after filing in the office of the Register of Deeds as do~n~ nu~be~ 3129391, Book 2175 of Deeds, page 323, deed to part of Lot 71, ~helps Island Park. This has now been filed and is of record and is returned to you for incorporation in thc vill~gc properS! le:oz~ files. F1 e~.~. ~c]~nowl edge receipt. '/// ) REPI.Y D ATE ~ g SIGNED RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY ~[~ ~Jn~ti~turt, ~ t~t, .................. ~.~.~. .................. da~ ~/ ............ ~. ............................ ~..~.~.., be~n .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FEi,~ROK~- D~VOU I~ROV~'IT ;~SSO,;I?,?ION, a lJinnesota ~ co~,at~n ~,r the law, o/t~ State of .......... i.L~.O.TlY.~9~.~ ..................................... , p~'~ of the first part, ......................................... .~ ~.~E...~Z....I~.L~ iiD....~A~......~....~.~.~.~ ~..~ ~ ~r~r~t~n u~er the lawe of t~ St~ of ............ ~.~5~.0.~.~ ................................................................................................. , ~r~ of ~ sewnd p~, ~{t~C~Zgt~, Th~t the ~a~ par~ of ~ first p~, i~ co~i~rat~ of the z~ of tO it in ~n~ paid ~ t~ sa~ party of tl~ s~on~ ~rt, t~ reccip~ wl~rcof ~ hereby ~/cnowlcd~ed, do~ hereby (;rant, Bargain, Qz~iiclai~, ~ Co~c~ u~to t~ said p~r~ of a~ ~gns, Forever, all the trao~ ..... or parce~ ......... o/ la~ lpln~ a~ ~in~ ~n tl~ Count~ o/ ....................... .................... t[fi~Pi~ ....................... a~ S~t~ of Jfi~aot~, docrib~ a~ follows, t~w~g~ Lots Seventy-one (71) and Scventy-~wo (?Z), ]~t~o3. p~, i,,3,,,x,~ ~,e,,~ First Division, togeti~er with private streets or alleys ad- jacent thereto a~d %he Northeasterl:f one hundred ten (llO) feet of Lot k of Pembroke, .~ccordiug to the respective plnts thereof on file and of record in the office of ~he ~{egis~rar of £i$1es in ond for said Hennepin County. This conveyance is m~dc for ~he purpose of dedi¢.~ing the above described lands for uhe use t~f ~he pub].io for park a~d recreational purposes forever a~d is made on the ex- press coudiSioa ulmt ~he building nov~ on said !n~d, or ~ny buildi~g ~hnt ~haL1 be constructed thereon to ~eplace or in place of s~id buildin6, shall ~emoin and {~e the pro- perty of the iemhroke-Devoa improvemc~t Association so long as said association exists. The above reJ.'cre.~,;c to priv-~te streets or alleys, includes a SO foo~ lane qdjoiagin the :;ou~k line of the above referz'ed to Lot 72'~ as described in deed of record in Book 960 of i)eeds, Page ~8 in the offiue of ~he ~{egister of Deeds for Ee~zepin ~oun~y, Mi~eso~a. Ia ~abe atlb 1o ~ot'~l ~e ;~allT£, Together zt~tk alt the heredttaments an~ appt~r~enances there- unto belonging or ~n an~vi~e appertaining, to the said parttl ot' the second par~, Ztt swcce.~zors and c~slgnz, In Presene, z ol' ~Jn ~eZtimotLp ~i~tlecco(, /'he s~/ firs~ party IL~xs caused these presents ~o be e~ree~ted £n £~ corporate nctrn~ b~/ Lts .................................... Presi~dent and Lts .._..~.~.~.~..e_.t...~..~.~t. ............... o.n~,.its, corp~rat~-se~l-to By ........ Fam'xi.a...~r.a.a.ah~a.r. ............................... I t~ .................................... P reslden ~ ......n T -~ro~c,~,,Q'""I~'O'"i"~""~'"""'"G'r~ .t.h~Lo..L .......................... I ............................................................................................ Evelyn Wes tgsrd It&....'~.f~a~'.~,a~. ................ O~ thi~ ....................... l~.~.h ................................ ~t~ i, ublic · · ......................................................................................................................... and that said i~t~nten.~ t~'a~ ~ned and scald in behalf of said cornorat~n bu auH~ori~u of it~ Board o/ .............. ~.~..~.~. ............................... and said........~.~.~).~3.~_..b:~.~.~.~.~.[[Q.~.~ ..................................................................... ................. ~v.e~'x...,~aa.~a~d ............ ack~wtedg~d ~ ~t~ment to be the free act and deed of taLd co~orat~n., ~:td ;h",; sai~ co~'~or.~;io~ has ao sual. ..... D.!~m i. kl...~......G~a.$.h~ a~ ..................................................................... Jig ~n:m~n ~plr~ ............ ~.~.~.~..~....~.~ ...................... , 1~ ~.0. .... 5'1 . - ..' ........ . Mi~so~a ~'t~ o ~he first part VilI~e of Is ....... par~ of t~ se~nd part, ~it~t~, Th~ th~_sa~ par~ of ~ ~rs~ ~, ~ eo~i~r~t~ of thz su~ of Onn Doll~ and other v~ua~le consideration ................ to ~t in ~.d ~aid ~ t~ sa~ part~ of t;~ ~o~ ~, t~ reee~p~ wl~reo/ ~ bereb~ ~knowl~d~d, d.e~ hereb~ Grant, Bargain, ~tltcl~im, a~ Conv~ ~nto tl~ said par~ of t~ se~ p~rt, its and a~.~tgns, Forever, agl the trae~ ........ or parce~ .........of la~ l~ing ~nd ~ing ~n tl~ County o/ ....................... Hennepzn ..................................................... ~ 8~ o~ Jf~o~, ~ri~ ~ ~oHo~, ~o~en~n~ at ~he No~heaste~y eo~ne~ o~ ~ot 71 ~n ~elp's Isiand ~a~k First D~sion; thence Southeasterl~ alon~ t,h~ Northerly line of said Lot 71 produced in a straight line to the shore of L~e Minnetonka~ thence South along said shore to the South line of said Phelp's Island P~k First Di~sion~ thence West ~on~ said South line of said Phelp's Island Park First Di~sion ~ its intersection %~th the Westerly line of Lot in said Phelp' s Isled Park First Di~sion ~oduced in a straight line~ thence No~herly to the Southwesterly co~er of said Lot 72~ thence Easterly alon5 ~he Southerly line said Lot 72 to the Southeasterly corner thereof~ t~nce Northerly to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 71. Qro ~a~e alT~ to ~o~ ~e ~amr, To~ether w~th a~! the hered[taments and appur~enancea there- ttnto be~ongLng or Ln anl/w~e ~pper~a~nin~, to ~he sa~d partp o/the second part, itw ~z~ccezsors and awsi~nz, Forever. In Presence of Jn ~g,Zll[mor[z:, ~il~e~:£o[, The m~ fir, t ~r~ ~ c~ed th~e '~ ~ Pr ' · o · ., ,. ~nt and t~..o.ear, et~ ....................... ~r~G~ · r PEMBROKE DEVON n~RO~E~ ASSOC~TION tate of Iinne ota, Co.,raJ of .................... ~?..n..~E~:~ ................................ ) On thi~ .................... ~.~ ..................................... ~ of ......... ~U~ ..................................................... , 19 .58..., before .~, ........................... ~?~7...~.E~.~E ............................................................... within a~ for ~aia Court,j, p,r~onatIU appear~ ................. Eann~a..~.~sh.~ ................................................. : .......... a~ ......... E~e~..JdesLg~ ............................................................ fo me personall~ known,, who, bein~ e~h by me duly sworn .~ch ....... did say tht,t they are r~*pectivel~ tl~ .................................. Pr~ddent and t~ ....................... ~egrg.[~ .............................. of th~ corporatio~ named in the and that said i~t~men.t was si~ned ~in behalf of said corporat~r~ by atzlhor~ty of it~ Board of Di~ctors and ~aid Fa~ie Kraus~ ......................................... ................ Bml~..l'les[g~d ............. ack~wIed~d sa~ ~nsgmm*n~ to be th~ fre* act antl deed of eo~orat~ and that said co.ora[ion has m seal. ............ ........................ 3eo~ry Publi~ ....................................................................... County, .~linn. .$[y eommi, lsion e~cplre~ .................................................................. , 19 ........... Flied for reoord on the 1 day of Aug A.D. 1958 at 9:3D o'clock