Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1999-09-14
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A ! MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be. routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1999, REGULAR MEETING .................................. 3245-3255 *B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SET BID DATE FOR HALSTEAD LANE/WESTEDGE BLVD. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT. (SUGGESTED DATE OCTOBER 6, 1999). (PLANS, SPECS & BID WILL BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING). *C. APPROVE TEMPORARY ON-SALE BEER PERMIT AND PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL, SEPT. 18 & 19, 1999 .......... 3256-3257 *D. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: CASE g99-33, UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, 4608 KILDARE ROAD. (SUGGESTED DATE SEPTEMBER 28, 1999) ............... 3258 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE MERCER GROUP, INC. TO RECRUIT CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER. RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 2000 ............. 3259 3243 PLEASE-TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 3260-3283 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. LETTERS FROM THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR AN EMERGENCY WATER INTERCONNECTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 110 AND THE SOUTH SAUNDERS LAKE DEVELOPMENT (BASSWOOD ROAD) ............................... 3284-3285 DISCUSSION: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS ..... · 3286-3309 DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE FALL LEAF DROP OFF SITE FOR MOUND RESIDENTS ......................................... 3310 7. PRESENTATION OF 2000 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUNDBUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF .,~ $3,174,950; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2,061,970 LESS /~)~ THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $502,790, ~ ~_~ RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,559,180; ~.~~ APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000; AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATESAPPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES ........................................ 3311-3313 8. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ao August Finance Department Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director .................................. 3314 C. D. D. EDC Minutes from August 19, 1999 .................. 3315-3317 Park & Open Space Commission Minutes from August 19, 1999. 3318-3324 DCAC Minutes of August 19, 1999 ................... 3325-3330 L.M.C.D. Mailings ............................. 3331-3352 3244 Page 1 of 1 FLEI INGER From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: Dean, John B. <jdean@Kennedy-Graven.com> Fran Clark (E-mail) <fleisinger~msn.com>; Pat Meisel (E-mail) <pat~meiselwoodhobby.com> Tuesday, September 14, 1999 12:14 PM 0168806.doc 6 <<0168806.doc>> Here is my revision to page two of the Mercer agreement. I added paragraphs 6 and 7. O9/14/1999 Agreement Continued: The parties shall have the right at either parties' convenience to terminate this Agreement following ten (10) days written notice to the affected party. Should either party terminate this Agreement, the City shall only be obligated to pay Mercer for those services already provided. 6. Mercer is being retained to conduct the executive search in large part due to the reputation and experience of its president, James L. Mercer. It is understood and agreed that, absent specific consent from the City, the services to be performed by Mercer, other than clerical and administrative, will be performed by James L. Mercer. Mercer shall have access to data collected or maintained by the City as necessary to perform Mercer's obligations under this Agreement. Mercer agrees to maintain all data obtained from the City consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Mercer will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the City. Mercer agrees to defend and indemnify the City from any claim, liability, damage, or loss asserted against City as a result of Mercer's failure to comply with the requirements of the Act or this Agreement. Upon the termination of this Agreement, Mercer agrees to return data to the City as requested by the City. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA BY: Pat Meisel Its Mayor ATTEST: BY: Fran Clark Its Acting City Manager Its City Clerk THE MERCER GROUP, INC. BY: James L. Mercer, CMC Its: President/CEO JBD-168806 MU220-1 dGg.E~ This AGREEMENT, made aa of this day of__+ ,, , I999, by and between THE MF. RCER GROUP, 1."qC. and the ~ OF MO~, ~A, a municipal WHEREAS, the Cit}' of Mound, Minnesota 0:eraitmRer re{erred to ~g ~e "Ci~") has made a request for p~p,~als to hire sa ~eo~ r~iter to as~st ~e ~ to coaduct a search for a city manage~ ~ot the Ci~: and WHEREAS, The Mercer Crr~p, Inc. (hereinafter referred to ~ "Mercer") bas submitted a pioposal in req>ot~se to the City's reqttmt; W'HI~REAS, the City has selected Mercer's proposal ag the proposal which best meets its needs and the Cirt de..gires to hire Mercer to conduct the City's search fm a city manager; and WHEREAS. Merce~ desires to assist the City ia conducting the Ci0/'s search for a city manager. NOW THER.EJrOtL L in consideration of the following mutual c~veaants and other good and valuable conside~ ;trion, the receipt and ~dcquatT of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties hereto, Merc',:r aad the City hereby agree a~ follows: Mc;car agrees to coad~ct executive search services to the City il~ searching for ~ city mattager as specified La Metcet's proposal to thc cit~ dated .tuly 28, 1999. The City and biercer both agree that this Agrceme. nt shall be governed by thc Ja~'s of thc ~;tate of Minnesota The City au:, Mercer both agree that itl the event that any dispute arises between the parUcs, thc complaLaing party shall promptly notify the other of thc dispute i~ ~jtt~g. Each party shall respolad to the other party in ~'riKog within tctt (iCl) working days of receipt of such notice. The City avd Mercer both agree that any amendments to this Agreement sbatl hr. m~de in writing, and executed by both parties. No proposed amendmcnl which is not in writing and executed by both pa~ties shall effect thc tcrm~ of tbia Agreement 88~'-d £O/ZO'd 108-1 O[£8,4EEZI9+ N{^YI{U ! iO;NN;)4-"'o~ mc:~l Agreement, The parties 8hal:. have the rijht at either pAt'tics' couventenee to terminate this Agreement ~otl:,win~ ten (10) days written notice to the affected party. Should either part7 terminate this Aircement the City shall only bt obligsted to P~!' Mercer for thos~ set-ices already provided. CIIT OF MOUND, ~-sOI'A ATTE, ST: ~eside~ 86t-d ;O/£O'd lO8-J. OL£BZEEzLg+ N~AYaT) T AO~INN;~-moJ:t 86:tl. 118=iL=BO MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 24, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 24, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Building Official ~Ion Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Kevin Biegler, Karen Cole, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Dave Griffen, Patrick Griffin, Beth Hanson, Pat Hovland, Keith Johnson, Jim Kruse, Jenifer Mader, Ed Mader, and Kim Reinhart. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:31 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA The Acting City Manager stated she would like to remove Case //99-31 from the Consent Agenda because the applicant has submitted a letter regarding their approval. The Acting City Manager also submitted a memorandum from the City Planner supporting approval of the repeal of Resolution//91-41 in Item #*1.1 of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like two changes made to Items 3A and 3B. Councilmember Brown stated he would like to add an Item 7A to the Agenda regarding discussion of the Storm Water Management Plan. MOTION by Brown, second by Hanus, to approve Agenda and Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2000. RESOLUTION # 99-74 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE- METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2000. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. *1.1 RESOLUTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 91-41 WHICH APPROVED A C.U.P. FOR A LARGER GARAGE THAN WAS ALLOWED BY CODE. AT THAT TIME ON 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. SANDI & TOM EFFERTZ. CODE WAS CHANGED IN 1997. RESOLUTION # 99-75 RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION//91-41, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 11, BLOCK 7, DEVON ADDITION, PID #30-117-23 22 0059. P & Z CASES //91-002. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. '1.2 APPROVING A QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION SIGN PERMIT FOR A PORTABLE SIGN - OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL. MOTION. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. '1.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR HALSTED PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- LOTS 1.2. 3. HALSTEAD HEIGHTS. PID//22-117-24 43 0007. P & Z CASES //99-25 &//99-28. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 RESOLUTION # 99-76 A RESOLUTION 0F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DENYING PRELI1VIINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, YARD SPACE, HARDCOVER AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR HALSTEAD PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. *1.4 PAYNIENT OF BILLS. MOTION. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. 1.5 APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES DATED AUGUST 3. 1999. Councilmember Hanus stated on Page 3100, Paragraph 6, Line 1 should be revised to read as follows: "Councilmember Hanus suggested that the City receive a proposal from Sathe & Associates.. MOTION by Hanus, second by Mayor Meisel, to approve the Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes dated August 3, 1999, as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.6 APPROVAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DATED AUGUST 10. 1999. Councilmember Hanus stated on Page 3111, Paragraph 5, Line 4 should be revised to read as follows: "Councilmember Hanus voted for Mercer as his first choice and Sathe as his second. MOTION by Hanus, second by Councilmember Weycker, to approve the Regular Council Meeting Minutes dated August 10, 1999, as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.7 CASE//99-31: RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE; LOT WIDTH, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD AND DETACHED GARAGE FRONT YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DECK AT 4921 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE; BLOCK 14, LOT 16 AND BLOCK 21, LOT 1, DEVON; ED AND JENNIFER MADER, PID# 25-11%24 11 0124. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 The City Planner stated the Planning Commission approved the applicants' request for the existing deck to be replaced with a walkway along the west side of the house. The City Planner stated that the applicants have now submitted a letter requesting that the deck be built as it exists allowing a conforming setback on the west side, a conforming lakeside setback, but a nonconforming east side setback showing as 3.6 feet. The variance being requested is 2.4 feet. The City Planner recommended approval of the applicants' deck changes and also would allow the 3.6 setback on the east side. Councilmember Hanus stated that he is in agreement to what Staff is recommending. Councilmember Hanus wanted to make sure the deck is currently eight feet wide and will be widening to be ten feet. It was indicated that this was correct. Councilmember Hanus also wanted to make sure the applicants were definitely willing to give up the walkway as previously agreed upon. The applicants were present and stated they were willing to do this. Councilmember Hanus asked if this is a single parcel with two separate lots and the City Planner stated that it is. Councilmember Hanus then asked how the City counts street frontage, does the City count it on the parcel or on the lot? The City Planner stated this can be difficult to calculate. The City Planner stated in this case to calculate street frontage the City would use the house parcel because it is the principal structure. Councilmember Hanus stated that changes to the Proposed Resolution in this case should not list the lot width, the rear yard, or the side yard (west) because they are conforming. In addition the title of the Resolution should read "Resolution Approving a Variance; Side Yard (Fast) and Detached Garage and New Deck Located at 4921 Island View Drive, Devon, Block 14 and 21, Lot 1 and 16, PID//25-117-24 11 0124, P & Z Case//99-31. Councilmember Hanus also stated the first Whereas paragraph, Line 3, should read as follows: "a 20 foot front yard, and a 6 foot side yard setback; and," and the third Whereas paragraph, Line 1 should read as follows: "Whereas, the proposed deck would have a 3.6 feet side yard setback back." Councilmember Weycker stated that the Now, Therefore clause also needs to be changed to read as follows: "The City does hereby' approve the variance" and "The variance is approved for the following described property." Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following Resolution as amended above: RESOLUTION # 99-77 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE; SIDE YARD (EAST) AND DETACHED GARAGE AND NEW DECK LOCATED AT 4921 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON, BLOCK 14 AND 21, LOT 1 AND 16, PID //25-11%24 11 0124, P & Z CASE//99-31 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 1.8 EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION The City Attorney explained the City Council would meet in closed executive session to discuss first the pending Woodland Point litigation and, secondly, a threatened litigation against the City of Mound on Halstead Lane. Councilmember Weycker did not attend the portion of the Executive Session dealing with the Woodland Point Litigation. The Council went into Executive Session at 7:46 p.m. The City Council came back from Executive Session at 9:21 p.m. City Attorney Karen Cole, stated the Woodland Point litigation was discussed in the first part of the Executive Session tonight and the Settlement Agreement for this case has been presented and discussed by the parties and Council. Ms. Cole reiterated that this litigation was brought by parties regarding their rights to use the Waurika and Wawonaissa Commons that abut Lake Minnetonka in the Woodland Point subdivision area. The parties to the lawsuit are the landowners in the Woodland Point subdivision and the City of Mound. The parties have been working on a settlement in this case for many months and the result of this has produced the proposed Settlement Agreement brought before the Council tonight. Ms. Cole stated a few features of the Settlement Agreement as follows. First, the two Commons in question would no longer be included in the City's dock program but, rather, would be considered private and the City would not have any public easement in those areas. The City would, however, have an easement in seven street ends in the Woodland Point subdivision for the purposes of installing multiple slip docks that would be available for use by nonabutters of the Woodland Point Subdivision. In addition, the City would be constructing four sets of stairs to facilitate use of the docks and Commons. The Settlement Agreement includes provisions for sharing of the cost for stairs and installing the docks. The Agreement also states how the Woodland Point residents may or may not use the commons. The Agreement is contingent on receiving approvals that would be needed from the LMCD for the construction of the docks. MOTION by Brown, second by Hanus, to add the Woodland Point Agreement to the Agenda. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.. Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//99-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS PROPOSED IN THE WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A The vote was 3 in favor with Councilmember Weycker abstaining. Motion carried. 1.9 DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON HALSTEAD LANE. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 Mayor Meisel stated the second part of the Executive Session pertained to the drainage problem on Halstead Lane. The City Attorney stated that during the second part of the Executive Session the Council did receive a report from the City Engineer involving actions that may be taken against the City regarding a storm draining problem on Halstead Lane. He stated the purpose of the discussion was to formulate a mechanism for resolving the situation and to eliminate potential cause for future problems in this matter. He also stated that past circumstances may have caused problems or damage to structures that will have to be dealt with separately. The City Engineer stated in the meeting there was discussion of remedial action by the City and also a long-term solution for the storm sewer problem on Halstead Lane. The City Engineer stated he put together a proposal as recommended at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, which assigns some assessment cost to ail the properties in the Halstead Lane area. Also, in the meeting there was discussion of stop-gap measures that could be taken to get rid of the sink holes in the area and alleviate problems that come up in the future. The City Engineer then stated after having been given the above information, the consensus of the City Council was to pay for the entire project itself. The City would advertise for bids immediately. If the bids were priced too high because of the time of year when the bids are asked for, then there are stop-gap measures that could be taken to replace the pipe between the Biegler and Kruse property with the size pipe that is intended to go in when the project is completed. At the same time the sink holes would be filled when the pipe is put in. The City Engineer stated the City could then rebid the project next spring and have it completed then. The City Engineer stated that if bids come in favorably this fall, then the project will be completed this fall. The City Engineer stated he estimated this project to cost approximately $63,000 when completed. The City Attorney reiterated what the City Engineer had stated above. He mentioned there would be no special assessments against the property owners in the Halstead I.ane area. He stated that last year the City adopted a storm water utility ordinance which provides City wide rates against all properties in the City which are intended for problems of this type. The City has not implemented a fee structure for that ordinance yet. He stated that the $63,000 would be spread out to all the properties in the City of Mound based on the formula in the ordinance when a fee structure is adopted. Councilmember Hanus stated the intent is to get the project done "before the snow flies." If the bids are too high, then the project will be split up resulting in the easterly portion done this year and the westerly portion completed next year. Councilmember Brown stated the City will require easements from the people in order to get the sink holes filled. The City Attorney stated that if the City is going to do the public improvement itself it will need temporary construction easements for that piece and easements would be required to fill the sink MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 holes because these ate located on private ptopert2/. If the Cit2/x~ould put in a tempotar~j pipe then the City would need a temporary easements from the property owners as well. The City Attorney stated that the documents needed in this project will simply require that the property owners acknowledge that the City is not admitting to any fault, but they are making the situation better and fixing the problems that exist. The City Attorney stated he would like ideas from current property owners regarding what to do with the past problems on their property. Mr. Biegler stated that he and Mr. Kruse share common landscape and shrub concerns. Mr. Biegler would like to know if it is possible to have them removed with the intent of trying to save them. Mr. Biegler stated strongly that he would like the sink holes filled this fall and stressed the concern of settling that may occur throughout the upcoming years. Mr. Biegler wanted to be assured that any further settling would be filled in as it occurs. The City Engineer stated that the City could come back and refill the sink holes if this does occur again. Mayor Meisel stated that if the shrubbery is taken out and saved, the place where it goes back needs to be in a location that is appropriate, not near where the storm sewer is to be located. The City Engineer agreed. Mr. Kruse stated he appreciates how the City has helped the Halstead residents. He stated he has seen how the City Council takes responsibility and commended the efforts of the City Council. Mr. Biegler also thanked the City Council for all their efforts. Mr. Kruse asked if it would be possible to have a walk through accomplished before actually coming in and getting rid of the trees. Ms. Hanson asked if she would be granted compensation for moving the mature trees. The City Engineer stated the City has a permanent easement between the two lots Ms. Hanson is asking about. He stated that survey work needs to be accomplished before trees are removed and the City would not want to put trees back over the pipe for the obvious root problems that would occur. Ms. Hovland stated she also has sink holes on her property which is Lot 12, Block 2. Ms. Hovland would like to have a survey of her property and have her sink holes fixed also. The City Engineer stated that the surveyor could review her property also and if they do find sink holes, then the City would be willing to fill those. Mr. Kruse asked if the City would restore the easement area as it looks today. The City Engineer stated before he could answer this question he needed a survey done of the property. Mr. Kruse had a question of where the pipe would be connected and where the water would exist. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 The City Engineer stated there would be a swail to keep it away from the neighbor's yards. Also, the pipe that will be installed will be starting at West Edge and will then proceed down to Halstead Lane. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to direct the City Engineer to prepare a plans and specifications for the Halstead Lane/Westedge Blvd. storm sewer improvement. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The property owners wanted to know what the next step would be for them to keep this project moving along. The City Attorney stated that there would be some initial investigation on the properties of Halstead Lane regarding soil testing. After that point, the City Attorney would like to have a discussion with the insurance company. 1.10 CASE//99-26. RESOLUTION TO DENY VARIANCE; GARAGE SIDE YARD & LAKESIDE SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ONTO THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH ATTIC SPACE ABOVE AT 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD; PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, NANCY RIGELHOF, 61690, PID# 13-11%24 21 0041. The City Planner stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request. The City Planner stated that the reason for denial is that there are other locations on the property that would be more suitable for this garage. Also, he stated the setbacks would not allow much area for easements. Ms. Rigelhof was not in attendance tonight. Councilmember Brown restated that there is a lot of property where this garage could be built to make it conforming. The hardships for the applicant would be a slightly greater cost to have it built in a conforming area versus the nonconforming area. Councilmember Hanus stated that he visited the location and felt the tree in question was an older tree that would not outlive the garage. He stated the City is always willing to save trees when the need is there. Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION # 99-79 RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 5308 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD, LAFAYETTE PARK, PARK OF LOT 22, PID #13-117-24 21 0041, P & Z CASE # 99-26. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE NORWOOD LANE SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DECIDE WHO, HOW MUCH AND IF, THE CITY IS GOING TO ASSESS THE ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WERE INCURREr~ DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF NORWOOD LANE. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 The City Engineer stated that the actual pr0iect cost was considerably more than x as anficil ated when the project was assessed in March of this year. The project is now complete except for the final bituminous wear course, which will be applied next year. The City Engineer stated he has separated out the City's share of the extra costs and arrived at an amount of $7,000 that should be added as a supplemental assessment. The developer of the plat "Lynmore" should be responsible for $3,990 of the $7,000 and the remaining $3,010 could then be assessed to the other seven lots. This would amount to an extra $430 per lot, which when added to the $4,270 already assessed results in a new figure of $4,700 per lot. The extra $430 per lot is entirely for the street portion of the project. The City Engineer also stated two of the lots were owned by an elderly lady who does qualify for a deferred assessment. There is also one lot at the present time which is combined with a house that is adjacent to it that is buildable and could be separated and assessed for the sewer and water portion. He stated the assessment heating deferred the assessments at that time until a building permit was requested. The City Engineer again stated that the $3,900 should be assessed to the developer of Lynmore. He stated the remaining $3,000 will have to be decided by City Council if they want to go through with the publications, advertising, hearings, etc. to get that amount assessed on the remaining seven properties. The City Attorney stated that the same statute does apply when handling a supplemental assessment as the original assessment. The people being assessed with the supplemental assessment would have the right to appeal. If the decision by the City Council is to only assess the developer, the City and the developer would have to go through the process of handling a supplemental assessment as well. The developer would also be able to appeal this supplemental assessment. The City Attorney stated he does agree with the City Engineer to go through the process to have the developer pay for the supplemental assessments. Mayor Meisel asked why the developer would benefit over the individuals being assessed. The City Attorney stated that the developer has property that is currently being developed in this area, therefore, there would be an equitable argument for the developer to be assessed. Councilmember Hanus stated this property should be assessed the same way the property was assessed in its original plan. The developer agreed then to pay 51 percent and the owners would pay 49 percent. Councilmember Hanus stated we should follow along that same line. The City Engineer stated that this is how the assessments were figured out. Councilmember Hanus asked of the lots being assessed, do all of them have the potential for being subdivided into a lot. The City Engineer stated that all of the lots are subdividable. Councilmember Weycker stated that the City should go ahead with the supplemental assessment for the developer and the property owners. The Acting City Manager stated that the City would be paying minimal costs to have the hearing redone for these supplemental assessments concerning the Norwood Lane development. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION # 99-80 ASSESSMENT NORWOOD PROJECT. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL AND HEARING FOR THE LANE IMPROVEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Councilmember Brown stated that the Surface Water Management Plan was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 23, 1999. The consensus was to have the Planning Commission go through this document with Mr. Dan Parks page by page, line by line. When the Planning Commission completes this process, they would present their findings to the City Council. Councilmember Hanus stated he appreciates the Planning Commission agreeing 'to do this project, but would like it done in a timely manner so there would be enough time allowed for the Councilmembers to review the Surface Water Management Plan before the due date of December 31, 1999. Mayor Meisel stated that the Planning Commission would be allowed time up until the City Council meeting of October 11, 1999, to thoroughly go over this Plan with Mr. Parks, but at that meeting of October 11, the Councilmembers would like their findings. INFORMATION 1. EDC minutes of July 8, 1999. 2. Park & Open Space Commission minutes of August 12, 1999. 3. L.M.C.D. mailings. Notice by AMM (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) of 1999 Metro Regional Meeting for Thursday, September 16, 1999, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the New Brighton Family Service Center. The Acting City Manager stated that if there are any interested members who would like to attend the AMM on September 16 to contact her and she will make the arrangements. Mayor Meisel stated she has lined up two interviews on September 7. The first will be with Mercer starting at 5:30 p.m. and the second will be with Sathe starting at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Meisel stated she had tried booking Oldani but they were totally booked. Mayor Meisel stated that there will be a one-half hour presentation by the interviewee to sell him/herself and then 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1999 one-half hour of questions by the Councilmembers. The whole process will take one hour for each candidate. The Councilmembers will meet at 5:00 p.m. to discuss any issues before the candidates start the interviewing process. Councilmember Weycker will call the City Planner and assure him that he has the authority to check into grant money for the historical hall according to a statement by the Acting City Manager. Councilmember Weycker stated that there is a lot of grant money available but she would like to know the pitfalls. Councilmember Brown stated he had estimates from previous years totaling about $50,000 to get the hail refurbished. It appears the location of those estimates are not known. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brown, second by Hanus to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: Council Secretary 11 $15.00 for 3 days;plus .:..'.~:.: ....i." Sept. 18. & 19, 1999 · i . .$3~°0:~r.i':~:::.aft~r::':'.!':;-?i".~:~i:::.. ;.:.:i.; ::;':~.::.::.. Dates Permit.Will Be Used .. Limited: t° i'~fi: Cah~Ufi~e:D'~y~ ' . .:F L~eENSE ff '":2'..: .:.. Only Four anyorganizat%n '" :'" ' ':"' ::'"::' "' ' :""':" ":':" 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, M2h-NN~ESOTA 55364 TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-LNTOXICATE&'G MALT LIOUOR PERMIT Event: Incred±ble Fest±val Address of Event: 2385 Commerce Blvd. Mound Chairman Orgarfization: Our Lady of tho Lako orTitle: Rcv, Stan Madcr Address: 2385 Commerce Blvd. Address: 2385 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 Phone No.: 4 7 2 - 12 8 4 Home Phone: 4 7 2 - 12 8 4 Work Phone: 4 7 2 - 12 8 4 Section 810.10, Subd. 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the issuance of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.801 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this ~,ction to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts required by Minnesota law. Name of Insurance Co.: Catho]ic Mutual Gro~p Amount of Coverage: $ 2 5,0 0 0,0 0 0 · . Section 810:10. Subd. 1, Application Form. in the case of any application for a Temporary 'On-Sale' license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, pr/or to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such use of its lands. 8-12-99 Date Applicant s S~gmature ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Halstead/West Edge Storm Sewer Improvement Project Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00A.M. Wednesday, October 6, 1999 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to complete the reconstruction of City storm sewer. The estimated quantities of major items are: 245 LF RCP Removal, 480 LF New Storm Sewer Pipe, 2 New Structures, Remove and Replace 120 LF Concrete Curb and Gutter, 100 TN Class 5 Gravel, 60 TN Bituminous Paving and Related Work.. ' The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 1999. All proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Halstead/West Edge Storm Sewer Improvement Project" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $20.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON- REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. City of Mound, Minnesota Pat Meisel, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk ........................................ ~ ::::E.-::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ~ ...........................~, ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: :::::::: ::::-:::: ::::::::: ::::::::: N ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii ~ J ::::::::: ::::;:::: ::::::::: :;:::;::: :;:;::::; .: ::::z::;: :;::::::: ::::;:::: ~ ~--0 !j; ::::::::::7::::::::::::::::::::::7::::::::2::::2' :2:~'::::: ::7::::::::::::2:: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::: . ::::.::::: :::::::::::1:::::: :1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: '::::2::: :::::::::::::::::: . ::::::::::: : :: :::::::::::::: ::::: : : :::::::. :- ~ . ..~ - ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: ::::.::::: ::~:::: ::::::::: , ~ . :~' ~ ................................................... . ........... r'~ ............. · ~ . ~ ~- ~ i!ii!!ii! i!ii!iii: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::' ~::::::::: :~:::: ::::::::: :': '~:-~:';:"'~ ..... ;::~:, ~.':~.~,:-'c ':x ..,:. ':',: ............":-.-:':~'-: ::::::::' ::::::':i :ii!ii:ii :i:::i:!! :iii!iiii i::::::' :::':::::: ':::: ::::::::: ..... i ............. ; ....................................... ; ............ ......... e~,~ ~ .......................................... : : ~,::ta~ : :::::::: ~ ~ WEST EDGE BOULEVARD !]ii!!!!i ~! ~i?i~!?i~i~!~ ................ i i;!i:n-u --' ............ ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: :::~::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::;::: ::::::::; ~ ~ ~ ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ................................................................................. ...-~ ~.~ ~"~ ~ """ ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: :::::1::1 ::1:1:::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: I ~ $25.00 Day - Single Dance .$200.00 Yr.- Annum Dance Date of Single Dance I License Year Annual Dance LICENSE # CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION Incredible Festival LOCAlqON OF DANCE: 73~ Commerce Blvd. - Mound OLL Parking Lot TYPE OF DANCE: Variety 7IME PERIOD OF DANCE: 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. CHAIRPERSON OR APPLICAN~hona ~ ADDRESS: 5 5 8 5 W.,~ r i ch Sherwood Drive TYrLE: Administrator OLL ADDRESS: 2385 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 HOME PHONE #: 472 = 6340 HOME PHONE #: WORK PHONE #: Date a77-1284 WORK PHONE#: 472=1284 Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Approved Police Dept. Adm. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Denied 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 #99-33 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION LOCATED WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 4608 KILDARE ROAD, BLOCK 11, LOT 6, SETON PIDS # 19-117-23 21 0028 P & Z 99-33 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 28, 1999 to consider the approval of a utility easement vacation located within the R-lA Single Family Residential zoning district at 4608 Kildare Road. ': ! --~, ........ /q.~ :.:,.o ~ ::,~o :'"L "":i ~,;',,~ '~,,' -.;r-- i IJ , ~,,: ,; F~<,,,,t.~o,~ -' '~ i~g~.:,,'_ , / -"'--'r ,t ' t ,~ .,_ !,,~[,.,,~,~ L.. ~. U!:~io ~ :'ZT) '3' : ~'3 l'. ~ :..R,' / All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this m~ ~uist,JPlan~g Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on September 14, 1999 Published in the Laker, September 18, 1999 printed on recycled paper September 14, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing & Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, entitled, "Resolution Approving the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget for the Year 2000 Pursuant to MSA Chapter 469"; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the City of Mound in the amount not to exceed $24,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said levy, not to exceed $24,000 is approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and shall be certified as a tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1999. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: , and seconded The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk Mayor 252 BILLS September 14, 1999 Batch 9081 Batch 9082 68,236.53 204,631.45 TOTAL BILLS $$ 272,867.98 Z 0 · Z I ..J uj r'r' n.' '"~ oo 0 0 ,,..,, n..U ~ I o°° I, 0 I ~Z p,.. r'~'u ,0 o o o o' ~oo' Zn ZZ .J Z 0 O_ · 0 P Z I I I I I o o o ,.go o ,.go o g o ~ ,g o ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z I !1 I z Z .I U I .JZ On.- z Z ~3 U I Z I ,L~J ..J .--I oo u'3Z O0 x ) ,.,.~ I I3.. __1 Oz :z: cc: -.~ -.3' Z O- Z 0', Z Z Z ,,~ cO z o, 0 Z I ,..-I ',.D ! Z Z o n,,. --~ U U3 I · -~ ..j LDZ 12'-I:> ::~ ._1 ..9 Z ,<: -,~ ,o,,4:1 ! O, ! oo I I Z Z %=-3 Z ,"'- OU Z I _1 xZ -s-' --1 Z 0 0 uu O0 O0 O0 oo..g o oo ~o.g oo 0'. 0'. 0'. 0'. I I I I o o o g o° I I I I I UZ -4' C ,.', 0 C. 0 0 $ 0 0 0 '0 0 0 .D ') 0 Z 0 Z ,,-I 0 o o ! ? Z L~J 0 I,D 0 0 u~ u ~ D ! ! o o u*,, ,0 · 0 .,,o 0 0 J J 0 ..) _) ') ' I / n"/ n" I n' I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I I "ri ,r',, ,~: >,, I I (' ~ C, (' C 0 ~" C 0 ::, .., 0 0 . :, 9 ,3 ~ ) I Z 0 Z Z LU~ ~ ~ ° ~. C, (' I ! I 0'. D', Z o Z cs:) 0 ,...,, ~_ ~Z Z I I I I I I I I . . . , , , , , , ~Z ~~ Z ~ Z Z~ ~Z · ' 4 gg ~ 0 0 0 O 0 · '" '; ~"~ " ,D ., ~ C .) ; 0 ,0,,o I I I ~,1 I I i! I Il I I ,I I I ',1 I ~ 3O 0 D, ? g z Z "3 (D ? ? ! O, CD O, 0 {30 Z eO Z oO Z z 0 Z >,. ,.J Municipal Offices 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, MN 5536'4-9552 8 September 1999 City of Mound '~ 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Attn: Fran Clark. Dear Fran: At their meeting last night, the Minnetrista City Council directed staff to send a letter to the City of Mound requesting an emergency water interconnection. This interconnection would be near the intersection of County Road 110 and would take place as part of the Saunders Lake SOuth Development. The purpose of this interconnect would be for emergency and safety purposes only. The City believes this interconnection would be beneficial for both communities and. with utility work occurring in this area as part of the Saunders Lake South deVelOPment, it seems like the appropriate time to make this interconnection. This interconnection ' would take place with' no expense to Mound. Thank you for your consideration of this interconnection opportunity. Please adVise at your earliest convenience of your decision. City Administrator F:~,DMIN\TIM~ETTE R S".'VIOU N DH20.WPD OFFICE 612-446-1660 FAX 612-446-1311 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLIK Bonestroo Rosene Anclerlik & Associates Engineers & Architects ~ 6516361311 09/14/99 16:21 ~ '02/02 N0:537 Rone,tuO. Rosene. Andrr6k .wd )Lli.~ooare~:. Ira' ,~ .m Afh,n.'mve Artin~ '~;~1 ~ Allan Rick 5ch~dt. PE. September ! 3, 1999 City of Minnetrista 7701 County Road 110 W Minnetrista, MN 55364-9552 Saunders Lake South BRA File No. 260-98-803 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: We are writing Io recommend a water connection from the Saunders Lake South development to the City of Mound water system in the County Road 110W right-of-way. lnterconnections b~twe~n cities are considered good standard practice and are strongly recommended by the Metropolitan Cotincil. lnterconnections typically provide flexibility in the area.s of: 1. Supplying wattr through a variety of aqu(fers, thereby protecting residents from contamination of individual tulutfer~. Since. Minnetrista and Mound extract water from different aquifers both cities would receive this benefit. 2. Supplying additional water for ute in fighting rite. Since Minnetrista will not have a tower in this area in thc near future, Minnetrista will receive this benefit immediately. The strength of the ctm'ent Mound water system in this area is uncertain. Water is forced through a 6-inch diameter section of main along CR 110W. It is likely that Mound will immediately receive some fire fighting benefit from this connection. Sub,quest to Minnetrista constructing a water tower in this area. the inte~onnection would provide more definite rite fighting benefit to Mound. 3. Supplying backup water in the trent that sections ora water system ar~ taken out of service. Minn¢~sta will receive this benefit during well pump replacement or repair, Mound will likely need to repair or replace sections of their water ~jstern in this area. They also may be planning to replace the section of &inch main with a larger size. Connecting to the Minnetrista water system will allow for a backup to provide continuous service during this work. Based on our brief analysis, both Minnetrista and Mound will benefit from an interconnection. Yours very truly, BO .N..,~OO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATF_3, INC. .PahTG, I~euer, P.E. Pc: lohn Cameron, Mound City Engineer 2335 g{/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 RESOLI.rrlON ~5-109 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWF,RS AGRF. F..~Et,~' B~EF-N THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR THE INTERCONNECTION OF THEIR WATER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the City of Minnetfista has only one well with which to provide water to it's residents, and; WHEREAS, the City of Minnetrista desires to connect with the municipal water system of the City of Mound in the case of an emergency in order to provide water for it's residents, and; WHEREAS, the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound will sign a Joint Power Agreement regarding the interconnection of the two water systems, and; WHEREAS, the two systems will interconnect at County Road 110 and Three Points Boulevard, and; WHEREAS, the City of Minnetrista will be responsible for all permits and 100% of the expense in connecting the two water systems, and; WHEREAS, upon interconnection, there will be a valve on both sides of the connection to be, opened by each city's employee in the case of an emergency arising from a fire d~ natural disaster by order of the cities Police Chief and the Mound Fire Chief, and; .,: WHEREAS, the amount of water used will be calculated according to the length of time the valves were open based upon the water rates of the two cities, a. nd;___. ...... WHEREAS, termination of agreement will require a three year written notice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound will sign a Joint Powers Agreement between the two cities for the interconnect ion of their municipal water systems. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jenson, Jessen and Polsto~ The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: N~x~e,, . Mayor Attest: City ~an,='~<:je'r--~ Adopted: C~ob~r 10. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR THE [NTERCONNECTION OF THEIR WATER SYSTEMS The City of Mound, Minnesota ("Mound"), and the Ci~ of Minnetrista, Minnesota ("Minnetrista"), under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, hereby conclude the following joint and cooperative agreement for the interconnection of their municipal water systems. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to provide an interconnection ("the Project") of the municipal water systems of Mound and Minnetrista at Three Points Boulevard in Mound, so that these Cities and their water utility users will have greater assurance of continuing water service in times of emergency. 2. Interconnections. Mound and Minnetrista agree to interconnect their municipal water systems at Three Points Boulevard as soon as Minnetrista executes the construction contract with the low bidder and subject to Mound City Engineer review. 3. Construction. Minnetrista shall cause the interconnection to be constructed and shall engage and compensate the Consulting Engineer, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates. Minnetrista shall award ali contract, and shall be respons~le for all expenses in engaging and compensating the low bidder; and in general shall take such actions and incur such expenses as are reasonable and necessary to complete the interconnection. 4. Proiect Costs and Permits. Minnetrista shall be respons~le for 100% of the total Project costs and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. 5. Water Usage. The interconnection shall have a valve on both sides of the connection and shall be used only in emergencies. In such event, each City's valve shall be opened by its own employees. In the case of an emergency arising from fire or natural disaster, the valves may be opened by an order of the Cities' Police Chiefs or the City of Mound's Fire Chief. In case of an emergency due to loss of water pressure, the use of the interconnection may be authorized by the joint approval of the City Administrator of Minnetrista and the City Manager of Mound or by the joint approval of the head of the Cities' Public Works Departments. Page 2 Joint Power Agreement Minnetrista and Mound Water If the water is needed for more than 24 continuous hours, it can be supplied only upon the request of one City Council and the approval of the other City Council. City Council meetings will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.705 Subd lb (c) 6. Charges for Water Usage. The volume of any water used shall be calculated according to the length of time the valves are open and the water pressure flow. Charges for each volume unit of water used will be based upon the average of the water rates charged by the two Cities. 7. Maintenance. Each City will maintain the pipes, equipment and system within its own City limits and additionally Minnetrista will perpetually maintain the newly constructed pipe and connection that lies between Minnetrista and Mound. 8. Indemnification. Each City agrees to indemnify the other, its officers and employees and to save and keep them harmless from all losses and expense incurred as a result of any claim, demand, action or cause of action, including any claims based on breach of warranty, negligence or product liability, arising out of that City's construction, operation, maintenance or ownership of the water systems interconnection, unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of its indMduaI City or its elected officials, employees, officers, or agents. 9. Termination of Agreement. This agreement may be terminated by either City of the City Council of the City desiring termination giving three years (36 months) written notice to the City Council of the other City. 10. In the event of disassembly of the system for any reason, Minnetrista will be respons~le for the disassembly and removal of the pipes, valves, meters and other equipment installed in Mound as a part of this project. Page 3 Joint Power Agreement Mound and Minnetrista IN WITNESS AND EXECUTION of this Agreement, and pursuant to authorization of their respective City Councils, the Cities of Minnetrista and Mound have entered into this Agreement and have affixed their corporate seals hereto. CITY OF MINNETRISTA Mayor City Administrator CITY OF MOUND Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 121-95 RESOLUTION APPROVING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR INTERCONNECTION OF WATER SYSTEMS WITH THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the City of Minnetrista is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Minnetrista is in agreement with the terms of the JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR THE INTERCONNECTION OF THEIR WATER SYSTEMS; and WHEREAS, the approval is necessary to complete Public Improvement 95-2, Well #1, Watermain Replacement and Connection of City of Mound Water System. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Minnetrista hereby approves the JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR THE INTERCONNECTION OF THEIR WATER SYSTEMS, with the City of Mound. The Mayor and Administrator/Clerk are hereby given authority to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. This resolution was adopted on the 5th day. of September, 1995, by a vote of Ayes 4 and Nays 0 Tacheny - absent. ATFEST: Clqa)lotte Erickson AdministratoffCierk $~p-O~-~g 10:48 P.O1 Municipal OffJccs 7701 County lloa¢! I IO Wcsl' Minnetrista. MN 55364-.q5~2 8 September lggg City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Attn: Fran Clark Dear Fran: At their meeting last night, the Minnetrista City Council directed staff to send a letter to the City of Mound requesting an emergency water interconnection. This interconnection would be near the intersection of County Road 110 and Basswood Lane and would take place as part of the Saunders Lake South Development. The purpose of this interconnect would be for emergency and safety purposes only, The City believes this interconnection would be beneficial for both communities and with utility work occurring in this area as part of the Saunders Lake South development. it seems like the appropriate time to make this interconnection. Thank you for your consideration of this interconnection opportunity. Please advise at your earliest convenience of your decision, F:~ADMIN\'FIM~LE'I-r ER S'~O U N DH20,WP D OFFICE; 612-446-1660 ~' FAX 612-446-1311 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 5. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS Chair Funk pointed out other cities' rules and regulations for their docks, to use as suggestions on drafting Mound rules and regulations. Commissioner Ahrens quoted one regulation he would like to see implemented, stating that dock holders have to be residents of the City. 3 ..,,.,:K and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999 3wt~ $. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS Councilmember Hanus brought up problems with boat sizes on multiple docks. This is an issue right now and should be discussed quite soon. Commissioner Ahrens stated this subject should be put on this agenda, or at least very soon because some rules need to be established. Slips are 24 feet deep, and LMCD allows a 4 foot overhang, although this is not always clear in the LMCD regulations. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 Councilmember Hanus suggested, to that end, to require a copy of a drivers license when requiring a copy of the boat license, as proof of residence. Commissioner Ahrens pointed out some cases where he knows that non-residents are using Mound docks, but is unsure how to go about fixing this problem, as people go to some trouble to conceal that fact. He suggested, perhaps, requiring a copy of the certificate of title for boats anchored at City docks. Commissioner Burma suggested that may simply speed up the process of a Mound resident holding title to a non-resident's boat. Commissioner Ahrens stated some consideration needs to be given to ways to prevent . this practice. Ahrens then brought up the possibility of a lottery system for dock sites. He has received positive comments about this option. Councilmember Hanus stated he has heard some negative comments but, overall, more positive comments. Chair Funk suggested having benchmark periods of time for priority of drawing. General discussion followed by all of the mechanics of a lottery system, and different options to fund such a system. Chair Funk volunteered to draft a lottery policy, as a point to clarify discussion of specific points. Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that more discussion of the multiple dock rules and regulations should be dependant on the answers received on the surveys to be discussed later at this meeting. City wide rules would pertain to the actual legalities and safety of the docks, such as boat size, or any problem staff presents that becomes more than they can deal with without a written rule. Commissioner Burma stated that in speaking with the public, the less the City can regulate and restrict, the better the program. Commissioner Eurich summarized that the lottery, and the documentation of boat owners as residents, are the two items which need follow up. 4 6-22-1999 11:29AM FROM CITY OF waYZATA - CHAPTER 311 - MUNICIPAL BOAT SLIPS 311.01. Permit required. No person shall moor, dock, maintain or' place any boat or other watercraft upon, in or adjacent to any part of the shoreline of the lagoon owned and maintained by the City adjacent to the municipal beach without first having secured a permit therefor as herein provided. 311.02. Application for permit. Any qualified person desiring a permit for a municipal boat slip shall make application therefor on a form supplied by the City. Each such applicant shall state his name, address, type of boat to be moored, State boat Iicense number and all other information requested therein. 311.03. Permit restrictions. A permit for a municipal boat slip shall authorize the person to whom it is issued to park and store his boat or other watercraft therein described in the boat slip assigned by the City. No such permit shall be assignable or transferable, All such permits shall require the applicant to affirm that he will hold the City harm[ess ,fi'om any and all damage or [oas whatsoever arising from his use of said sfip. The City Manager shall limit the number of permits issued and shall issue permits in the following priority: 1) 3) 4) To residents of Wayzata, To other ownership categories of real property in Wayzata... To applicants who have verifiable work addresses in Wayzata. To all others thereafter in Order of application. Annually, applications will be processed as follows: 1) Previous year's permit holders in priority 1 will be given until the third Monday in March to reapply and pay the appropriate fees, 2) On or a~er the first Tuesday in April, any remaining municipal boat slips will be assigned to applicants in order of pdority and a lottery. 3) A waiting list of not to exceed 2.0 applications shall be retained to allow for the possibility of seasonal turnover of slip holders, The City shall provide all mooring structures within the lagoon, and no person shall be permitted to construct a dock or any other attachment to said structures. Each boat slip shall be numbered, and no person shall use any other slip than that which is assigned to him by the City. Only one permit for a municipal boat slip shall be issued to applicants sharing a common address. Any assigned boat slip not used by June 10th in the year in which it is issued shall be declared vacated, the permit for said slip shall be canceled, and the fee paid therefor shall not be ~fundable. Post-it' Fax Note 7671 CODE REVENUE OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE - JANUARY 1 FUND BALANCE - DECEMBER 31 1997 ACTUAL 39,926 173,~47 213,573 1998 ACTUAL 23,445 2t3,S73 237,018 1999 APPROVED (12,910) 214,210 201,300 4350 2O00 PROPOSED 5,36O 237,020 242,380 6-22-1999 11:30AH FROH CITY OF WAYZATA 404 5318 P. 2 The following restrictions shall apply to the type of watercraft eligible for a municipal boat slip which has not previously been docked in the facility: 1 ) No watercraft shall have a beam exceeding eight and one-half (8 112) feet. 2) No watercraft shall have a draft in excess of thirty-six (36) inches. 3) No watercraft shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet in length from I~w to stem. 4) All watercraft shall be subject to design and seasonal water limits of the lagoon and associated parking facilities. The City Council, by resolution, may set further restrictions on the types of watercraft for which permits may be issued and the fees to be charged for such permits. 311.04 Parking permits. A permit for the parking of an automobile or other motorized vehicle on public lands or grounds adjacent to or in the neighborhood of the municipal beach between the hours of 10:30 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. shall be issued by the City Manager to each person to Whom a permit for municipal boat slip is issued. Such parking permit shall not be assignable or transferable. 311-2 6-22-1999 ll:38AH F~OH CITY OF WAYZATA A~, E~318 P. 3 BOAT SLIP POLICY Slip holders from the previous year who are in the pdority 1 class have an opportunity to renew their slip permits and are given renewal forms and instructions. Applications must be in by the close of the business day on the date specified, to be accepted. Slip permits are limited to one per family. Boats must be registered and licensed to the person holding the permit. Non-resident applicants cannot use the address of a parent or friend owning property in Wayzata. Applicants for a permit shall be the principal operator of the boat. If a boat is owned by more than one person, all owners must be residents of Wayzata in order to be priority 1 class. Slip holders who move from Wayzata after payment of the slip fees may continue use of the slip until the end of the season, but may not assign the slip to the new resident, and must continue to occupy the slip with a boat registered and licensed to the original slip holder or Vacate the slip. Unassigned slips will be assigned annually on the set of priorities as stated in the ordinance. Assigned boat slips not occupied by June 10th shall be declared vacated, and the permit canceled, and the fee shall notl be refundable. The vacant slip will be assigned to · the next perscn on the waiting list. Permit holders from the previous year who have moved out of Wayzata or sold their Wayzata property will lose their slip. Applicants are required to provide all information requested on the City provided application form, including a copy of the boat registration card. Failure to comply will result in forf, eiture of your priority class. LOTTERY RULES Applications shall be received and sorted according to priority as stated in the ordinance. No applications shall be taken after the close of business hours on the Friday preceding the first Tuesday of April. A lottery drawing of each priority group will be made to determine the order of' each group. CITY OF DEEPHA. VEN WATERCI:L-X.FT SIZE RESTRICTIONS 300.07 Subd. 1. CLASSES OF PERMITS The City Mil issue two classes of permits for City Space: Class A permits for docks, buoys and shorespace,'and Class B permits for slides, canoe racks and other watercra~ space. The permits will authorize only the roi!owing watercra~ at the following City spaces: -CLASS A PEI:LMITS (a) Buoys may be used only by sailboats at least 16 r%et in Ien~h and not more than 25 feet in Ien_~h. (b) Docks may be used only by powerboats at least 16 feet in length and not more than 24 feet in length which are no more thmn 8 feet, 6 inches in width. Sailboats, canoes and w'atercraR without motors are not pen'nitted at City docks. (c) .Shore space may be used only by boats at least !6 feet in length and not more than 34 feet in length which are no wider than the w[d:h of the shore space and any dock al!ow. No dock on a shore space may exceed 40 feet [n length. CLASS B PERMITS (b) ': '= o~. used onlv by boats of not more than 16 feet in S.~_~c~s and street-end slides may" ~ lc,=& with no motors other than outboard motors. No boat may be kept at a slide unz~.ss it is of a slze and weight that pe~its the owner to pull the boat from the water manually. Canoe racks may be used only for canoes, and for small boats such as rowing shells, sai!boards used for windsur5ng and the so-called "sunfish" or "laser" boats so long as the watercraft, does not exceed the width of the rack and does not interfere with the use of the rack for other permitted watercraft. This Ordinance was adopted in April of 1992 The stides (pallets) along the shoreline are 16 feet wide. 3 Boats on the slides can not exceed 5 feet in width. boats share each slide. DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS Ct--LAPTER 9. CITY WATERCRAFT SPACES 900 CITY WATERCRAFT gPACES 900.01 Definitions Subd. 1. Watercraft Subd. 2. Public Shoreland Subd. 3. Watercraft Space Subd. 4. Waiting List Subd. 5. Boating Season Subd. 6. Permittee Subd. 7. Auxiliary Watercraft Subd. 8. Owner of Watercraft or Aircraft Subd. 9 Property Owner 900.02 Construction of Docks, Etc. 900.03 Aircraft 900.04 'Launching and Removal 900.05 Mooring of Watercraft 900.06 Permits Subd. 1. Classes of Permits Subd. 2. Requirements for Permit Subd. 3. Waiting Lists 900.07 Use of Watercraft Space Subd. 1. Rights not Assignable Subd. 2. Use Required Subd. 3. Use During Boating Season Only 900.08 Waiver of Permit 900.09 Revocation 900.10 Tags CHAPTER 9. CITY WATERCRAFT SPACES SECTION 900 CITY WATERCRAFT SPACES 900.01 Definitions. For purposes of this Section, the following terms will have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Subd. 1. Watercraft. "Watercraft" means any motorboat, sailboat, rowboat, canoe or other water conveyance of any type. Subd. 2. Public Shoreland. "Public shoreland" means any land abutting on the shore of a lake or other water course, which land is owned, leased or otherwise under the operation or proprietary control of the City. Subd. 3. Watercraft Svace. "Watercraft space" or "space" means any dock, buoy, slide, canoe rack, shore space or other facility for watercraft, owned, operated or controlled by the City. Subd. 4. Waiting List. "Waiting list" means the list of applicants for permits for watercraft space, as compiled by the City according to this Section. Subd. 5. Boating Season. "Boating season" means the period from April 1 to November 1 of a given year in regard to all docks, buoys and shore spaces owned, operated or conip-olled by the City and the period from April 1 to November 15 of a given year in regard to all slides and canoe racks owned, operated or controlled by the City. The Cit3,-'s St. Louis Bay ramp wiI1 be closed during the period from June 1 through Labor Day because of its proximity to a swimming beach. Subd. 6. Permittee. "Permittee" means the person to whom a permit has been issued according to this Section. Subd. 7. Auxiliarv Watercraft. "Auxiliary watercraft" means a small watercraft or dinghy used to travel between the Iakeshore and a buoy at which a larger watercraft is moored. Subd. 8. Owner of Watercraft or Aircraft. "Owner" as applied to watercraft and aircraft, means a person who holds legal title to a watercraft or aircraft is the subject of a lease or conditional sales contract with right of possession vested in the lessee or conditional vendee, then the lessee or conditional vendee will be deemed the owner. 900-1 Subd. 9. Property Owner. "Property Owner" means fee owner of land in the City or the beneficial owner of land in the City whose interest is primar{ly one of possession and enjoyment in contemplation of ultimate ownership. The term includes purchasers under a contract for deed. 900.02 Construction of Docks, Etc. No person may construct, install or erect any wharf, boathouse, dock, buoy, canoe rack or other facility for watercraft mooring or storage upon any public shoreland, except with prior written consent of the City. 900.03. Aircraft. No person may keep, operate or park any aircraft within the City or on any waters within the City or within the harbor limits of the City, except within a private garage. 900.04 Launching and Removal. No person may launch a watercraft or remove it from the water, over, across or upon public shore!and if the watercraft requires or utilizes a trailer or similar conveyance for transportation over land, except at ~he times and places designated by the Council and except upon payment of such fees as may be established from time to time by the Council. 900.05 Mooring of Watercraft. No person may moor, place or store any watercraft at any City space or at any road, street or railroad bridge or abutment, without first securing a permit as provided in this Section. A permit for the keeping of a watercraft at a City buoy will authorize the permittee to moor an auxiliary watercraft to the buoy at times when the primary watercraft is not moored to the buoy. All watercraft and auxiliary watercraft kept at a City space must be licensed by the State and must have the State license number displayed on the watercraft as required by law'. 900.06 Permits. Permits issued under this Section will authorize an owner of the watercraft to whom the permit is issued to keep a specified watercraft at a specified space for the specified boating season as provided in this Section. In addition, a permit for a buoy will authorize the mooring of one auxiliary watercraft to the buoy at times when the primary watercraft is not moored to the buoy. Subd. 1. Classes of Permits. The City will issue two classes of permits for City Space: Class A permits for docks, buoys and shore space, and Class B permits for slides, canoe racks and other watercraft space. The permits will authorize only the following watercraft at the following City spaces: Class A Permits. (a) Buoys may be used only by sailboats at least I6 feet in length and not more than 25 feet in length. --..-' - 900-2 (b) Docks may be used only by power boats at least 16 feet in length and not more than 24 feet in length which are no more than 8 feet, 6 inches in width. Sailboats, canoes and watercraft without motors are not permitted at City docks. (c) Shore space may be used only by boats at least 16 feet in length and not more than 34 feet in length which are no wider than the width of the shore space and any dock allow. No dock on a shore space may exceed 40 feet in length. Class B Permits. (a) Slides and street-end slides may be used only by boats of not more than 16 feet in length with no motors other than outboard motors. No boat may be kept at a slide unless it is of a size and weight that permits the owner to pul1 the boat from the water manually. (b) Canoe racks may be used only for canoes, and for small boats such as rowing shells, sailboards used for windsurfing and the so-called "sunfish" or "laser" boats so long as the watercraft does not exceed the width of the rack and does not interfere with the use of the rack for other permitted watercraft. Subd. 2. Recmirements for Permit. (a) Property Owners, as defined in Sec~on 900.01, Subd. 9, will have first priority for permits issued under this Section. Persons who are not property owners will be entitled to a permit for a type of space only if a space is available after issuance of permits to all property owners who have requested a permit for that type of space. If an owner of a residential dwelling unit rented to a tenant has not applied for a permit, the tenant may apply for the permit and may be treated as the property owner for purposes of this Section. If more than one person owns a lot or parcel of land in the City, the first property owner to apply for the permit will be considered as the sole property owner for purposes of thik Section. (b) No person will be issued more than two permits for a boating season, and no person will be issued more than one Class A permit for a boating season. Not more than two permits, and not more than one Class A permit, will be issued to persons residing in any one residence. 900-3 (c) Applications for a new permit or renewal of an existing permit for a boating season must be received in writing by the City or postmarked on or before November 15 of the preceding year, or on or before November 20 if the applicant also pays a late fee et{ual to 50% of the normal fee. On or before October 1 of each year, the City will give written notice to M1 persons issued permits for that year that they may renew their permits for the following year. The notice will state that the permit must be renewed on or before November 15, or on or before November 20 if a late fee is paid equal to 50% of the normal fee. A permit will be issued or renewed only if the required information form and the permit fee are received or postmarked on or before November 15, or if the information form, the permit fee and the 50% late fee are received or postmarked on or before November 20.- Applications which are not received or postmarked on or before November 20 vdll not be accepted. If the amount of a dock fee cannot be determined before the required payment date, a minimum deposit must be made on the basis of an estimated normal fee of 575.00, plus any late fee. (d) (e) A permit will be issued ordy to a person who is an owner of a water,'aft for the keeping of only that watercraft at a designated space, except that a permit for a buoy will in addition au'Zorize the mooring of an auxiliary watercraft to the buoy at times when the primary watercraft is not moored to the buoy. The information to be filed with the City in connection with a permit will be on a form provided by the City and will include the name of the person to whom the permit will be issued, the name of each owner of the watercraft, the address of la_nc] in the _City owned by ea__~_~ such person, the address of each such person's residence, a description of the watercraft for which the permit will be bsued, including its dimensions and State ~- registration number, a description of the space requested, and such additional information as the City may from time to time require. If the des~iption of the watercraft and its State re~stration number are not known or available on the date the permit is issued, such information will be filed with the City before using the space. The information form also will include written statement by the person to whom the permit will be issued that such person is a bona fide owner of the watercraft and that the ownership was not acquired for the purpose of 900-4 qualifying the watercraft for use of the space as required by this Section. (0 No new permit will be issued, and no existing permit will be considered renewed, until the City has received payment of the required fee as set forth in Section 405.05. Subd. 3. Waiting Lists. (a) Applicants for permits will be added to the appropriate waiting list or lists according to the order in which their written applications are received by the City. The City will maintain separate waiting lists for the following types of space: (1) buoys, (2) docks, (3) shorespace, (4) slides, (5) canoe racks, and (6) other watercraft space. A person may apply for any or all of the different types of watercraft space, but no person will be included on any one waiting list more than once. Cb) On or before October 1 of each year, the City will give written notice to all persons on the waiting list that unless they confirm their desire to remain on the waiting list on or before November 15 their name will be dropped from the list. Each waiting list"i~d'"~llst of current holders of permits will be posted by City Hall. 900.07 Use of Watercraft Space. Subd. 1. Rights not Assig-nable. No person may keep a watercraft in a City space without a valid permit issued under this Section. No person may keep at such space a watercraft other than the one spedfied in the information form filed with the City, except that an auxiliary watercraft may be kept at a buoy as provided in this Section. No person may assign or sublet any rights under a permit or allow his space to be used by any other watercraft space. Subd. 2. Use (a) Recmired. If a watercraft space for which a permit has been issued is not used 60 days or more for the keeping or mooring of a watercraft as authorized by the permit, the City may refuse to renew the permit. If a permit is not renewed because of the permittee's failure to use the space to the extent required in this paragraph, the permittee may appeal to the Council for reconsideration of the permit denial. Any such appeal must be filed in writing 900-5 (b) (c) with the Clerk within 30 days after the refusal by the City to renew the permit. The appeal must specYfy any reasons for objecting to the City's derision and any mitigating drcumsta.nces or other facts relating to the permittee's failure to use the space. The Council will hear the appeal at a reg-ular meeting and will consider any written or oral information presented by the permittee a_nd the City staff. After consideration o£ such information, the Council will affirm or reverse the decision not to renew the permit. If a watercraft space for which a permit has been issued is not used for the keeping of a watercraft in accordance with the permit prior to June 15 of the boating season for which the permit was issued, the City may revoke the permit, by ma~led written notice to the holder of the permit. The City may then issue a permit for that watercraft space to the next person on the waiting list entitled to the space upon payment of the full f~ for the permit. The holder of the permit revoked under this paragraph ma}' appeal to the Council for reconsideration of the revocation. Any such appeal must be filed in writing with the Clerk within 10 days after mailing of the City's notice of revocation. The appeal must specify all reasons for objecting to the revocation and any mitigating drcumstances or facts relating to the failure to use the space prior to June 15. The Coundl will hear the appeal at a regular meeting and will consider any written or oral information presented by the permittee and the City staff. After consideration of such information, the Council will affirm or reverse the revocation of the permit. If the permit is revoked, the permit fee will be refunded in full. If the revocation is reversed, the original permit '.'ill be reinstated and the permit issued to the next person on the waiting list will be null and void. Any permit fees paid by the next person on the waiting list will be refunded if the revocation is reversed by the Council. At any time prior to expiration of the rights to appeal set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subdivision, a person may apply for, a variance from the 60-day provision of paragraph (a) and/or the' June 15 provision of paragraph (b), by written application to the Clerk stating the facts, circumstances and hardships which would support the requested variance. If the Coundl determines that there are circumstances which would create undue hardships for the permittee if the 60-day and/or June 15 provisions are strictly enforced, the Council may grant an 900-6 appropriate variance to the permittee. The variance may be limited to a specific watercraft and may be subject to time limitations or other conditions as may be imposed by the Council. If there is no time limit on the variance, it will apply each boating season thereafter unless other conditions of the variance are not met. Subd. 3. Use During Boating Season Only. A space may be used only during the boating season, as defined in Section 900.01, Subd. 5. 900.08 Waiver of Permit. A permit holder, or a person entitled to a new permit, may waive the right to such permit for one boating season or any part thereof by w-ritten notice to the City prior to June 15 of the boating season for which the permit is to be issued or was issued. The City may then sublet the space to the person with highest priority on the waiting list for that [/pe of space for that boating season, or a specified portion thereof. If such written notice is pven prior to June 15 of the boating season in question, the original permit holder will then be entitled to renew the permit for the following year and the person who sublet the space will be returned to the same priority on the waiting list. If written notice is not given by the person entitled to the perm.it (or by the permit holder if the permit has been issued) prior to ]'une 15 of the boating season for which the permit is to be issued, or was issued, then the person entitled to the permit, or to whom the pern'fit -*'as issued, will lose all rights to the permit and all rights to any priority on the waiting list for that type of space. No person will be allowed to waive the right to either a new permit or renewal of an existing permit for two consecutive boating seasons. 900.09 Revocation. The City may revoke a permit for any violation of the provisions of this Section or for failure of the permit holder to use a space during a boating season. A permit also may be revoked for violation of the City's ordinances establishing harbor limits and prohibiting nuisances in the harbor limits. 900.10 Tags. Whenever any watercraft or airplane without an operator is found in violation of this Code, the police officer or other authorized person finding it will take its re~stration number and any other information which may identify the permittee or owner and affix conspicuously to the watercraft or airplane a written notice specifying the violation and the date, time and place of any required appearance. The occupancy of any Cit'y space, or the operation or use of a watercraft' or airplane, in violation of this Section is prima facie evidence that the watercraft or airplane was at the time of the violation moored, controlled, operated and used by the permittee for a watercraft for which a permit has been issued, or by the owner of an airplane or water,-aft for which a permit has not been issued. 900-7 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DOCK .adND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION TOM MCCAFFREY RULES OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS Shelly from Deephaven said that they have had many requests to the boat committee for residents to use their boat lifts at the city multiple docks. They have all been refused for these reasons. a. Cluttered Appearance b. No Uniformity c. Leads to Canopies d. Safety concerns - Kids climb on e. CiD' left v~"ith abandoned lifts Skip Lajoy, from Tonka Bay Marina thinks the ova'her just doesn't like the clutter and extra mess of having to deal with boat lifts. He will call me if that's not the case or if he can get more input. Bonnie, from Wayzata says with limited room they are not allowed. Their municipal policy does not allow anything to be attached to their city docks. j3o/ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWCOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Thank you for your cooperation. Raspectful!y, Tom McCaffrey /" Dock Inspector ~J CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 FAX (612) ~,72.062Q Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector PJ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWCOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (6121 472.0600 FAX (612} 472-0620 Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector pJ 1 ~mte~ on recycJed paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MA'fWCOD ROAD MCUND, MINNE,SCTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-C600 FAX i6~ 2) '~77.-0620 D~TE: Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Tom McCaffrey / Dock Inspector pJ ' onnted on recycledpape~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY'WCOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESCTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612} 472-0620 DATE: DOCK SiTE TO: ~) 0~2 ~ Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector PJ ~stre~ on recycle~ I h=v¢ u,-elcom~I ~he ehmination ofind~viO~ dock~ ~d f~ ~a~ h~ fiont of my prope~ The ~h~ dock :~k a v~ cluH~ ~d sum~Itaj~ ]oo~n~ collection of doc~ ~d r~laced i~ wi~ ~ a~hc~kall~ pl~ing dd~ pac~c. ~at is un~l a bo~ w~ mov~ tu a ~id~ys oH~mion (s~c below'). ~is m~de ~e sh~ clock look ve~ cluucr~ Ag~vatin~ thc si~n~on is the ~t ~ ~s ~e ~at ~s p~ially cover~ with ~ bH~t blue pl~dc ~ w~ch is toofly a~ ~ ~ ~ ~u~tly blo~ out of p]~c ~d ~e bont i~ then p~sIIy HII~ wi~ ~wa~. ~equ~tly ~a~t~ ~th ~ ~I of~s boat w~lowin~ shor:Hnc, ~d a ~aI eyesore, ~in~ once ag~ look clu~ter~ ~d ju~y. di~Hcult to.le~l~e the ~ppe~ca or a boa~ ~ut c~ ~mc cor~ide~nnn ~hore7 Feel ~ee to contact me ifI c= be of~y Mark Reckin$~r ~ 4~-~1 Island V jew l)Hve [I.~m'r~nt ~EOnfiguration I the addition of 1 - 4 lbot se;rio~. L~s clutter and d~epcr w~t~ ~'nr the ~:hject l'saat. 'FOODS.INC. 48S3 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND DCAC REVIEW OF PRINCIPALS Commission Goal: Hold the middle ground by maintaining a balance between the gometimeg conflicting degires of abutters and nonabutters. Principals Review Objective: Review issues and decision criteria that have an impact on our goal of maintaining a happy Commons. (oversimplification) · Nonabutters want a place to put their boat near their home · Abutters want a sense of privacy and control over the lakeshore in fi'ont of their house. o Use plan balance of abutter privacy vs nonabutter access Multiple Docks · Reasons for · Degree of voluntary transition Number of nonabutters in the program Utilization of total number of available BSUs Other? CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL From: Date: Subj eot Fran Clark, City Clerk/Acting City Manager September 9, 1999 FALL LEAF DROP-OFF SITE I have spoken to Greg Skinner and Joyce Nelson about a Fall leaf drop-off site and how it should be handled. We have decided that the former Lost Lake storage site is about the only place that is available and gives the City control over what is dropped off, when it is open and who is dropping off leaves. We talked about the following 3 weekends for the drop-off. Saturday, October 23rd Sunday, October 24th Saturday, October 30th~ ~ Sunday, October 31st ~ ~ Saturday, November 6th % Sunday, November 7th ~ This would give residents 3 different weekends to choose from. The Plan is to have only Mound residents bring bagged leaves to the Lost Lake site. The City would then haul the leaves to the Hennepin County Regional Park on County Road 44. printed on recycled paper September 14, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,174,950; SETTING TIlE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2,061,970 LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (FIACA) OF $502,790, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,559,180; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000; AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby adopt the following preliminary 2000 General of the City of Mound, Minnesota, Fund Budget appropriations: City Council 83,020 Cable TV 26,000 City Manager/Clerk 198,750 Election s/Regi stration 12,450 Assessing 68,000 Finance 175,400 Computer 23,600 Legal 146,980 Police 1,080,600 :'Emergeney m'epa~n'ess 14,650 Planning/Inspections 225,370 Street 494,020 City Property/Buildings 88,890 Parks 224,750 Recreation 39,570 Contingencies 106,780 Transfers 166.120 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3,174,950 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for collection in 2000: SPECIAL LEVIES Bonded Indebtedness Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds Total Special Levies TOTAL PRELIMINARY LEVY PRELIMINARY TOTAL TO BE LEVIED FOR 2000 Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) Preliminary Certified Levy 82,770 33.350 116.120 1.945.850 2,061,970 -502.790 1,559,180 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 2000 as follows: GENERAL FUND As per above SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 3,174,950 Area Fire Service Fund Capital Improvement Fund Cemetery Fund Dock Fund TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 411,520 869,340 8,190 80,640 1,369,690 124,980 318,420 458,890 956.940 1,859,230 September 14, 1999 SUMMARY General Fund Special Revenue Funds Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS 3,174,950 1,369,690 1.859.230 6,403,870 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby sets Monday, December 6, 1999 and Monday, December 13, 1999, as the public hearing dates for consideration of the 2000 Proposed Budget. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 33/3 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR AUGUST FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Balance: August 1, 1999 $4,390,280 Bouqht: Money Market 4M Plus 2,394 Money Market USBank 100,067 CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.836% 726,781 CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.983.% 476,503 CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.458.% 324,122 Matured: Money Market 4M Plus (300,122) Money Market USBank (75,000) CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.056.% (316,417) CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.998.% (593,764) CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.947.% (718,142) Balance: August 31, 1999 $4,016,702 2000 Budclet Preparation The Acting City Manager and I have worked on the final proposed levy and budget during August. The City Council will be asked to approve the preliminary levy and the proposed budget on Tuesday September 14. The preliminary levy amount will be used by the County Auditor for the property tax notices that will be sent to each property owner in November. FEMA We have received all the money that was certified to FEMA last year relating to the May 15, 1998 storm. Obviously we did not receive the full amount spent, but it will go a long way toward helping us to balance the 1998 budget. Accounts Payable Clerk Katie Hoff has resigned from her position with the City to take a job in the private sector. The Acting City Manager and I have interviewed a candidate for the open position of Accounts Payable Clerk. In the meantime we have tried to keep up the work with the personnel in Finance. We have offered the position to Sue Schwalbe on a full time basis and she will start on September 9, 1999. MINUTES - EDC ' AUGUST 19, 1999 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:05 a.m. by Paul Meisel. Members present: Mark Brewer, Stan Drahos, Paul Meisel, Jerry Longpre, Jerry Pietrowski, Lonnie Weber, and Sharon McMenamy- Cook. Also Dresent were Ma¥0r Pat Meisel, Duane L~i~in~r, Gino Businaro, Terry Santo, Bruce Chamberlain, and Linda Kohl. Approval of Minutes Sharon McMenamy-Cook made a correction of the July 8th meeting, stating is a member of EDC but was entered as also present. Jerry Pietrowski made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Lonnie seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Auditor's Road Renaminq The article in the LAKER Newspaper generated 38 responses from citizens for the renaming of Auditor's Road. After considerable discussion, and because of the importance of the name, it was determined that though many of the suggestions were good, none stood out as being the choice of everyone. Keeping in mind the definitions of street, lane, drive, etc, a decision was made that each member should make up a list of new suggestions and give them to Fran a week before the September meeting so she can put them in the packet. A vote on a name will be made at that time. Post Office Relocation Bruce Chamberlain stated that the intent is to have the post office located on the Community Center site, which is now under demolition. We hope to have a purchase agreement for the post office location with the current purchasers of the property by October 1st. He did meet with them to go over what their concept plan is for the whole property and looked at where the post office could be within that plan. A meeting is set up with the postal service representatives next week and hopefully Bruce will be able to take a concept plan to that meeting to show them their possible piece on which to build. We have received word from the postal service already that they do like the proposed site at this time. Even if the process begins next Thursday, the post office will not be able to be in the new building until October of next year. That means, we cannot finish the canal project and begin the greenway project until after that date unless we find a temporary location that is suitable for the post office. Several suggestions were made of possible facilities that could temporarily house the post office, taking into consideration the location of drop boxes and the request from the post office they not be moved between the end of October through December. One suggestion was building a pole barn that could later be sold. Sharon McMenamy-Cook will check into possibly renting a modular bank which banks use in emergencies. The process of moving the post office is for the City to purchase land approved by the postal service. They will then select their own developer or builder to build the new facility. The post office then proposes that option to the person who will eventually be the owner of the post office. Tax Increment Financing District Bruce Chamberlain presented a packet of the Mound Environment & Appearance Model which contains all the properties within the TIF district. It also includes all the county tax information for those properties. There are approximately 80 to 90 properties that will need to be evaluated by an experienced evaluation company. The cost will be approximately $30,000. Due to the properties not yet being evaluated, the public hearing set for September 14th will have to be postponed until October. After all the county tests are met, the Council will determine the location of the TIF District based on the recommendation of the City Finance Consultant. Buy a Brick Program Lonnie stated there are several citizens that have contacted the City regarding purchasing a brick. He is planning to make posters regarding the program that can be distributed in the various stores of Mound. Terry Santo stated she may be able to assist in the design and printing of the poster for distribution. Other Business Mayor Pat Meisel stated the EDC Commission needs to put a budget together for the costs they incur during the year. In the past, individual members have absorbed the costs except when a consultant has been needed, which the city has paid for out of the general fund. Mayor Pat Meisel stated that dollars made and spent need to be accounted for. Gino Businaro will put some figures together for the next meeting. Mayor Pat Meisel also stated that it is important for this commission to start to show their pride in Mound by thinking of ways to beautify the City. The EDC Commission needs to take responsibility for how the City looks. If we are going to put flower baskets up on the street lights next spring, now is the time to start planning for it. People need to start thinking now that Mound is changing and not wait until the completion of the new business district. Paul Meisel suggested the Commission help promote a garden club that would be responsible for flowers at various locations within the City. It was suggested that we contact the Senior Center to see if they would be interested in planting flowers by both Welcome to Mound signs as you enter the city. There are several organizations that may be willing to put funds into various projects that would make the City look more appealing. Mayor Pat Meisel stated she talked to the Rotary regarding the building of a bandshell/gazebo down at Mound Bay Park. They haue a matching grant fund up to $750 for community projects. She requested the EDC Commission support this project. The Mound Bay Park was picked due to concerts already taking place in the summer. The American Legion was represented by Duane Leisinger who stated they are interested in remodeling the back side of the Legion to enhance the looks. The American Legion is in the process of possibly renovating their building but due to the cost of ADA regulations, the cost may be prohibitive. They also would like some of the monies made from gambling to be used for the community. One project they would like to do is to update the flags within the city. They also have a flag pole placement plan for the island on Auditor's Road and the turn-around area. Duane Leisinger suggested the EDC Commission contact the various organizations within the area to let them know how they can assist. There is man-power as well as monies that can be tapped, and the members want to be a part of some of these projects. He invited someone from this commission to come to both a Legion and the Lions meeting to show how they can assist. Bruce Chamberlain stated he is scheduled to meet with the Lions on September 22nd and the Rotary on the 27th. A4journment A motion to close was made by Weber and seconded by Brewer. The motion was unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m. The next meeting is September 16th 7:00 a.m., at the City Hall. The City will purchase rolls for the next meeting and Gino will pick them up. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, Christina Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also presentwere Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner John Beise 1. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 8, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to approve the minutes of the July 8, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission {POSC) meeting, as amended: Page 5, Item 6, Paragraph 1 "...the distribution oft o__[f information." Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved with the following amendment: 1. Add 2A: Discuss: Community Center Green Space 2A. DISCUSS: COMMUNITY CENTER GREEN SPACE Park Director Fackler reported that a purchase agreement has been accepted from a developer. Their intentions are not known yet. Councilmember Weycker stated she has spoken with the developer, who stated he has no plans for the property as yet. Commissioner Casey stated if .the City wants the property, they need to begin communication regarding how to go about obtaining the land, if at all possible. It is not too early or too late to examine any options. Commissioner Domholt suggested getting the public involved, especiai:',, .'.he residents of the area in question. Commissioner Casey stated the City has the power to take a more aggressive approach to obtaining this land also. Councilmember Weycker stated no calls came from the public when the loss of this open space was published in the paper. Commissioner Domholt stated direct mail to the key people of each spor:.,' "'-our~., ,., that those people will get the word out. This extra step needs to be taken. Once the network is established, less work would be involved. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Councilmember Weycker questioned if this should be done as a Commission, or as an individual. Weycker stated she is fairly burnt out on trying to get the public involved, as she has been working towards that since the beginning. She would support the effort, but would rather not be directly involved any longer. Commissioner Casey asked if the City may, in retrospect, wish to buy the land. Councilmember Weycker stated she thinks not. The City bid under their own appraisal amount. Her belief is that the Council did not really want the land. Commissioner Casey asked if the Council could be convinced to spend any money to preserve the green space. Councilmember Weycker answered that she believes not. Commissioner Domholt reiterated public input can be started project wide, with this project. Commissioner Casey stated the green space only may be able to be broken off, and a Park Plan already formed would be an advantage when discussing with the Council. Councilmember Weycker recommended showing numbers from the Comprehensive Plan in support of keeping the green space, because it is needed. This approach would not throw a decision already made back at them so hard. Commissioner Domholt stated that at this point, if the public throws the decision back at the Council, that may not be such a bad thing. If the citizens in that neighborhood have the power to be heard, this could start the momentum for more neighborhoods to get involved, especially if this neighborhood can make a difference. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper to include on the next agenda a meeting of concerned citizens to discuss the issue of acquisition of green space at the Community Center site, and to consider citizen input for a park plan. Also to recommend that the City of Mound direct mail a notice to the affected neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. 3. DISCUSS: PARKS RESOURCE GUIDE Commissioner Domholt stated that Mound has an opportunity to get the community involved with the parks and open space. With all the neighborhood parks that exist, a network of concerned citizens can be built if enough information is sent out to the right people. Also, the POSC can be a place for citizens to get information as well. The first notebook, the Neighborhood Resource Guide, can hold any information the neighborhood would need such as city meeting dates and names of city emploYees and officers. The second notebook, the Project Resource Guide, would hold information for the POSC to use 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 on projects, as many times questions arise again at a later date. Commissioner Domholt offered to keep the notebooks organized for at present. Commissioner Casey asked how past minutes and packets are stored. Park Director Fackler replied that information is retained, but he would have to check into the details of what is kept. Staff was cut back and there is no one who keeps everything on file and archived, so old files are not as organized as they once were. Commissioner Domholt suggested keeping the notebooks at City Hall and he will add information as it comes up. Commissioner Cooper questioned how these resources will be made available to the public. Commissioner Domholt replied that it could be distributed by park neighborhoods, and be included in a welcome packet for any new residents. Commissioner Casey cited the Neighborhood Revitalization Project in Minneapolis, which is almost totally public driVen, and wondei'ect-ff-Mound could get to that point. Commissioner Domholt stated his belief that with hard work at the outset, public input could definitely become almost totally public driven. Commissioner Casey questioned if anyone would like to discuss this with the Minneapolis park department for pointers on how to begin. Commissioner Domholt suggested starting with the project just discussed; the green space at the Community Center site. 4. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT POLICY Commissioner Meyer stated no new draft has been done yet. Commissioner Casey presented the following memo, which was sent to Building Official John Sutherland on July 9, 1999: "Last evening the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission discussed the proposed revisions to Mound City Code Section 320.00, during which time we discussed legislative changes to the city's power to "amortize" non-conforming uses. For your review, I have enclosed Chapter 96 of the 1999 Minnesota Legislative Session Laws. In my opinion, this new law does no! affect the city's ability to remove or amortize encroachment on its own property. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance provides little guidance about how to remove or amortize encroaching structures. As we discussed at last evening's meeting, it is best to 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 draft ordinance language that specifies the criteria to consider when deciding to remove a structure or other encroachment. What are your thoughts about this and could you describe the criteria the city intends to use? Also, what is your latest advice on the city's legal power to remove encroachments? Finally, you mentioned that the city will formally "link" responsibilities for new encroachments to adjoining property owners in a way that will bind future property owners. Could you provide a sample legal document that reflects how this arrangement will be made? Thanks for your help." Commissioner Casey stated no answer has been received as yet. Councilmember Weycker asked if Building Official Sutherland should return to the POSC with answers to these questions. Commissioner Casey stated he would like to schedule Suthedand to attend the next meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to include in the next agenda a meeting with Building Official Jon Sutherland to hear answers to the questions raised at the July 8, 1999 POSC meeting, and in the memo of July 9. Motion carried unanimously 5. DISCUSS: OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Councilmember Weycker questioned what is being done with the March for Parks funds, and suggested using it to ask for matching funds, as this seems to be a better way. Organizations like to see others contributing as well when asked for funds. Weycker suggested staff draft a letter asking for funds matching those that the Park Commission has raised, for additional trees. Commissioner Meyer stated a letter to the organizations (Lions, Jay Cees, VFW and American Legion) would be the first step, and attending a meeting would then be done on request. Councilmember Weycker suggested including in the letter all groups which were being approached for funds. Commissioner Meyer stated that the current $645 could be spend this fall on trees, along with any additional funds if received by then. Commissioner Cooper asked if any nurseries offer deals for buying trees in ~bulk." 4 Mound Advisory Park.and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Park Director Fackler stated that 4 or 5 nurseries are cal~ed, and the best deal is taken. Commissioner Casey stated that at one point, a nursery donated a tree and planted it, basically for the media coverage and positive public relations. Commissioner Cooper asked if there are other ways to raise funds such as a booth at the Mound City Days, or something similar. Commissioner Casey mentioned that the state is looking for citizen input on where to spend some funding. He does not have too much information yet, but can look into this. 6. REVIEW: NATURE CONSERVATION REGISTRY PROGRAM Commissioner Casey presented the draft of a non-binding program which suggests to people that their land has natural benefits for the community. This would give the City a chance to be involved in the sale process at the outset, rather than trying to catch up. Casey suggested presenting this draft to the City Council. Councilmember Weycker requested a sample of an actual form that would be filled out by someone willing to participate. Commissioner Casey stated this draft is the "idea stage" and the actual mechanics can be drafted if the idea is accepted by the City Council. Councilmember Weycker stated that she would actually like to see all the information before going to the City Council. Commissioner Casey stated he would work on the forms and mechanics of the program to add to the presentation to the City Council. These forms can be discussed at the September POSC meeting. Casey then summarized the program and consensus was very positive for Casey to continue with the additional information. 7. REVIEW: SWENSON PARK PLAYGROUND Park Director Fackler presented information on equipment and installation for Swenson Park, in the same area as the current playground, but expanded. Neighborhood input is now needed in September. Commissioner Meyer stated a public hearing could be scheduled for September, and then questioned whether the height of the swing set could go from 8 feet to 10 feet. Park Director Fackler stated he would check, but that could be considered at a later time also. 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 DISCUSS: THOUGHTS ON ADOPTING A NATURE CONSERVATION AREA REGISTRY PROGRAM See item #6. 9. POSC SEPTEMBER AGENDA Some items for the September POSC agenda are: 1. Green space at the Community Center - Public hearing 2. Public input on Swenson Park equipment proposal 3. Discuss: Encroachment policy 4. Review: Registry program 10. FOR YOUR INFORMATION' DCAC Minutes City Council Minutes Planning Commission Minutes LMCD Information Monthly Events Calendar 2000 Budget Minnehaha Creek Water Shed Information Shade Tree Advocate 11. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative Councilmember Weycker reported that the City Council has held many HRA meetings, and Downtown Redevelopment Project meetings, including discussion on the TIF district. Commissioner Meyer reported that 10 posts were put in at Swenson Park. Park Director Fackler stated that no complaints have been received about them yet. Commissioner Meyer then stated that Crescent Park and Three Points Park have made similar requests for posts, and he will discuss these requests with Fackler. b. Park Director Park Director Fackler summarized some difficulties with no City Manager and so on, but generally things are going along well. Fackler also mentioned some vandalism that has been reported recently, which is causing some additional staff hours. Fackler commended his staff on the good job they are doing dealing with these problems. The "wish list" Fackler had made was presented to the City Council, and received a lot of interesting comments. 6 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Commissioner Meyer questioned the status of the historical registry for Island Park Hall. Park Director Fackler stated the Loren Gorden has the paperwork at present. Motion made by Cooper, seconded by Domholt to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 7 CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1999 Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present was Kristine Kitzman. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Mark Goldberg Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the minutes of the August 19, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried 4/1 (Burma abstain). 2. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved as amended: Move Item #6 to September, as Commissioner Goldberg is not present to provide information. 3. REVIEW: POTENTIAL CITY MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK SITES Chair Funk stated a letter had gone out to neighborhoods to be discussed this evening, these neighborhoods being Kenmore Common, Waterbury Access and Twin Park. Discussion of Kenmore Common: Jack Miller addressed the Commission, stating he thought Kenmore was discussed last year and users were against this. Mr. Miller was wondering what had changed since then. Chair Funk stated that setbacks are still an issue. Councilmember Hanus stated a changing condition is that the LMCD regulations are one year closer to becoming a problem for the City. Hanus stated that the DCAC is also looking for any suggestions from the neighborhood as to how to resolve the setback problems. Another resident (who did not state his name) stated he does not see the setback problems, as he had measured the docks to the property lines where he thought they were. Mr. Miller presented copies of a map he had drawn showing the measurements taken at Kenmore Common. General discussion followed by all, pointing out lot owners names and dock users names on this map. Sam Decker then addressed the Commission stating Kenmore Common is always kept clean and mowed by the people who live there. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 Commissioner Ahrens stated that if the abutting property owners are happy with the setup as it is, there is no reason for the multiple dock discussion to go any further. Mr. Decker stated that if there are any setback issues, each dock user is willing to work that out. Councilmember Hanus stated that the multiple docks are designed to open up the shoreline, and for the docks to look better and be safer. Some of the docks at this location are looking fairly used, and perhaps more strict aesthetic values could be adopted by the City to regulate this issue. Commissioner Burma asked how many dock users are present. A show of hands revealed 8 people, all of which are against the multiple dock. Chair Funk directed staff to confirm the measurements taken by the neighborhood to make sure setbacks are conforming. Councilmember Burma pointed out that he was the one who asked that this location be revisited, as after the last meeting there were some residents who stated they would like this area to be considered again. Todd Smith addressed the Commission and asked that the neighbors be informed of the findings of staff on setbacks. He added that most neighbors will be willing to work towards conforming on their own. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Ahrens, to drop Kenmore Commons from consideration of a multiple dock, contingent on staff findings of the physical condition and safety of all docks, and that the LMCD setbacks are met. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Ahrens suggested that rather than considering this location for a multiple dock if the above contingencies are not agreeable, staff could first work with the owners of any docks not conforming. Failing to bring the dock into conformity would then trigger this discussion to begin again. Three Points Discussion: Tom Bullock, 1735 Canary, asked about the commons area around Three Points, wondering what the status was of this area. Councilmember Hanus stated that an area similar to this is not in litigation, and not much information is available. Mr. Bullock added that the steps had been taken out in early July and asked if there are any plans for the City to replace them, or if the neighborhood could replace them. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 Commissioner Ahrens stated that there have been places where the citizens have replaced the steps. Councilmember Hanus volunteered to find out from staff what is going on, and reply back to Mr. Bullock. Commissioner Ahrens stated that his preference would be to have the neighborhood put in stairs, as then residents tend to take more ownership of it. Waterbury Access Discussion: Councilmember Hanus stated he does not know the layout of the area, and without additional information, is unable to discuss changing it. Commissioner Ahrens suggested tabling the discussion of this site pending more information and a site visit. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to direct staff to provide ownership of property information, setback information, a plat map, approximate placement of docks, proposed configurations for multiple dock, and where the multiple would be located for both Waterbury and Twin Park sites. Also, to include in the September DCAC meeting the following site visits: 6:30 p.m. at Waterbury site, 7:00 p.m. at Twin Park site, and 7:30 p.m. at City Hall for the regularly scheduled meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 4. REVIEW: 2000 BUDGET Commissioner Ahrens questioned if the outcome of the law suit will be known by the September meeting, as far as how it will affect the Dock Fund. Councilmember Hanus recommended not allowing that to sway any budget decision at this time. Commissioner Ahrens asked if another dock location should be considered. Councilmember Hanus stated that the two now in question may be enough. Also, if another dock site does come up, a request can be sent to the Council at that time. The dock fund is its own entity, and requests such as this would not impact another budget. 5. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS Chair Funk pointed out other cities' rules and regulations for their docks, to use as suggestions on drafting Mound rules and regulations. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 Commissioner Ahrens quoted one regulation he would like to see implemented, stating that dock holders have to be residents of the City. Councilmember Hanus suggested, to that end, to require a copy of a drivers license when requiring a copy of the boat license, as proof of residence. Commissioner Ahrens pointed out some cases where he knows that non-residents are using Mound docks, but is unsure how to go about fixing this problem, as people go to some trouble to conceal that fact. He suggested, perhaps, requiring a copy of the certificate of title for boats anchored at City docks. Commissioner Burma suggested that may simply speed up the process of a Mound resident holding title to a non-resident's boat. Commissioner Ahrens stated some consideration needs to be given to ways to prevent this practice. Ahrens then brought up the possibility of a lottery system for dock sites. He has received positive comments about this option. Councilmember Hanus stated he has heard some negative comments but, overall, more positive comments. Chair Funk suggested having benchmark periods of time for priority of drawing. General discussion followed by all of the mechanics of a lottery system, and different options to fund such a system. Chair Funk volunteered to draft a lottery policy, as a point to clarify discussion of specific points. Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that more discussion of the multiple dock rules and regulations should be dependant on the answers received on the surveys to be discussed later at this meeting. City wide rules would pertain to the actual legalities and safety of the docks, such as boat size, or any problem staff presents that becomes more than they can deal with without a written rule. Commissioner Burma stated that in speaking with the public, the less the City can regulate and restrict, the better the program. Commissioner Eurich summarized that the lottery, and the documentation of boat owners as residents, are the two items which need follow up. Se DISCUSS: DCAC RESTATEMENT OF PRINCIPALS RELATING TO DOCK AND COMMONS Moved to September meeting. 4 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 7. REVIEW: SURVEY ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK Commissioner Ahrens observed that participation was very good. Also, overwhelmingly, most state they are very satisfied to somewhat satisfied, both abutters and non-abutters. One complaint is about the multiple dock at Devon Access, which does not sit in the center of the access. One other survey stated very dissatisfied, but individual survey answers do not indicate dissatisfaction. He noted that most survey answers were against City-wide rules. If rules are needed, they prefer to make them on their own. Chair Funk pointed out one request for the City to add trash barrels on their multiple docks. Councilmember Hanus stated his objections to this, due to the additional cost to the City, and that this may invite less responsible behavior by the general public. Hanus then addressed the problem with the "party boat" that has been complained about and was checked, noting it is a definite problem as far as being an "unofficial" charter boat. Hanus asked anyone with suggestions on how to curb this activity, to please let staff know. One measure taken was to decrease the parking near this boat, and any other ideas for solutions are welcome. Chair Funk summarized that one discussion that is prompted by surveys is the putting in and taking out of the docks, as this seems to engender the most dissatisfaction. This issue can be added to the September agenda. Commissioner Ahrens pointed out another issue that came up being signage for multiple docks, indicating that the dock is not open to the public. 8. DISCUSS: SEPTEMBER DCAC AGENDA To be included on the September agenda are: Discuss: DCAC Restatement of Principals Relating to Dock and Commons Discuss: Multiple slip site locations (to meet at 6:30 p.m., Waterbury, 7:00 p.m. Twin Park) Discuss: Devon Access Multiple Slip Dock Public Lands Permits Discuss: Draft on lottery system FYI A) B) C) D) E) F) LMCD INFORMATION POSC MINUTES MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission August 19, 1999 10. 10. REPORTS A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE No report at this time. B) PARK DIRECTOR No report at this time. C) DOCK INSPECTOR No report at this time. ADJOURN Motion made by Funk, seconded by Burma, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 8, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 8/11/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Stephen Fames and Steven Hicks letter, discussion of request for slow wake buoys between Shorewood Peninsula and Deering Island; B) Lt. Ken Schilling, discussion with Sheriff's Water Patrol and Orono city officials regarding rafting activities around Big Island; C) Review of draft 1999 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Boat Count; D) Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to High-Water Restrictions; amending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subds. 2, 3, 4, and 5; E) Additional Business; 2. WATER STRUCTURES A) Matthew Herman, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variance application for dock length, side setbacks, and an adjusted dock use area; B) Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03; Additional Business; EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 8/13/99 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting; c) B) 8/13/99 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting Report; C) Staff update on 1999 Zebra Mussel Educational Campaign with Carmichael Lynch; D) Additional Business; 4. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (8116199 - 8/31199 & 9/1/99 - 9/15199); ' B) July financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; $. ADMINISTRATION A) Appointment of nominating committee for Board Officers; B) Additional Business; 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION D/STRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 11, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT C?.LL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. ROLL CAIJ. Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lift McMillan, Orono; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Bob Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winbcrg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahems, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. CHAIR ANNO~CEMENTS, C~~k There were no Chair announcement& READING OF MINLYTES- 7/14/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. MOTION: Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 7/14/99 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (1, Partyka); motion carried. MOTION: Babcock moved, Gilman seconded to approve the minutes of the 7/28/99 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. Babcock stated he would like to reserve the right to amend the minutes at a later date because he had not reviewed them in detail. VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (2; Partyka and McMillan); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5min.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: 4A, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; and 4C, Diercks Productions, staff recommends full refund of $50 application fee received for special event application that was withdrawn. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distri~ Regular Board Meetin_~ August 11, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS · Review of Adopted 2000 LMCD Budget. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. He asked the public if they had any comments or questions. Mr. Gabriel 1abbour passed on comments from Mayor Rockvam of Spring Park. He stated the City of Spring Park requested the public hearing because they believe it is good pubic policy for the District to bold a pubic hearing that involves the spending of pubic money. He requested the District budget for public education and safety, using reserve funds, because of increased boating density on the lake. Gilman stated he concurred with the comments from Jabbour. He expressed concern with personal watercra/'t that are creating a nuisance and laaTard on the lake, citing a recent trip on the Minnehaha as au example. McMillan suggested it might be appropriate to get the Power Squadron involved in this issue. Babcax:k stated what is being discussed appears to be an enforcement issue. Gilman stated he believes it is an enforcement issue. Mr. John Mushard, a resident of Greenwood, stated he lives on St. Albans Bay and expressed concern with water skiers coming close to his dock and the shore. He added public safety issue on the bay is a large issue and that a catastrophe is waiting to happen. He suggested the Board consider closing the bay down to quiet waters during the weekends and holidays. He inquired aboug, ldae procedure to accomplish this. Babcock stated a request should be made to staff and have it placed on an agenda at a later meeting. Gilman stated he believed the District should consider the possibility of patrolling the lake. Babcock stated that historically the Board has chosen not to patrol the lake because of financing concerns and because of overlapping responsibilities and jurisdictions with the Sheriff's Water Patrol. He noted whether or not there is local enforcement on Lake Minnetonka by the District or other agencies, the Water Patrol has made it is dear that it is their responsibility to patrol lakes in Mr. Howard Bennis, Mayor of Deephaven, stated the Board might want to consider making au educational video and circulating it to the elementary schools in the area. Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Marina, stated he needed further clarification on the role of the Water Patrol on enforcement on the lake. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page 3 Babcock stated the Water ' Patrol has independent statutory authority and responsibilities to provide enforcement on the lake. He added the District has similar authorities and that the District meets with the Sheriff annually and assembles a joint and cooperative agreement to enforce the District Code. He noted thc Water Patrol in thc past has stated they want to be the organization that determines what gets enforced on the lake. Pedersen suggested the Water Patrol needs to be encouraged to enforce more of the LMCD ordinances that are valid and would improve public safety. He added although the Water Patrol is stretched from a staffing perspective, he believed this needs to be communicated to them. He stated it might be appropriate to meet with the Water Patrol each year in the middle of the boating season. Rascop suggested if local community leorlers have the concerns that are being expressed in this hearing, it would beneficial to contact the court judges to ensure that the volunteer deputies can be used to enforce the laws that apply to the lake. He stated there currently is a case in the appellate courts in which a District Court judge dismissed a BWI case because the deputy was not POST Kitchak stated he believed there is a need for change from the legislature to address reckless boating in the state. He suggested change in legislation that would require boating classes in order to drive a boat. Mr. Terry Forbord, 265 West Point Road, stated it might be appropriate for the Board to consider the District having its own police force on the lake. He noted this could be representative of all the cities on the lake and would allow the citizens to have a vehicle to work together in resolving problems on the lake. He concluded it might be appropriate to have a second location on the lake for the Water Patrol because it would provide greater presence on more locations on the lake. Babcock m-stated the District has the authority to create its own police force; however, it has chosen not to do so in the past because of finances. He noted if the District decided to create its own police force beyond what the Water Patrol provides, it would require additional funding from the member communities to support it. Gilman suggested it might be appropriate to investigate the costs involved in such an endeavor and bring it back to the member cities to get their input and feedback on it. Jabbour re-stated he believed that there needs to be a program to educate the public on safety. He suggested that the District budget for this type of program and consider working with a lobbyist at the state legislature to obtain proper law changes. He noted that he would assist working with the private sector to obtain matching funds if the District takes this direction. McMillan stated that the timing might he right for the District to start a voluntary boat safety program, with potential matching funds from the private sector, as a model program. Kitchak suggested it might be appropriate to have staff schedule more discussion on this issue at a future meeting, inviting interested parties such as the Power Squadron to attend. Lake Minnetonka Conserv~on District Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Mike Ronald, 4853 Bartlett Blvd., stated one opportunity to get involved at the local school districts is through activity days in the spring by offering a safety education class. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public heariag at 7:35 p.m. Babcock asked Board members if they had further discussion or consideration. Rascop stated based on the testimony, there appears to be support for more enforcement on the lake. He added there might be support for added increases in future budgets to Support this. Gilman re-stated his position from a previous meeting that the increase in the levy to the member cities for year 2000 is too high based on an inflationary rate in comparison to 1999. · Seton View Association, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to increase Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from six to seven at a conforming structure. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. He asked the public if they had any comments or questions. Ms. Julie Steffen, 4877 Bartlett Blvd., spoke on behalf of Seton View Association. She stated the Association facility is currently considered a conforming multiple dock facility with six slips on 340' of continuous shoreline. She concluded the Association has made application to expand boat storage at the facility to seven by adding a fie-on slip on the west end of the approved structure. Babcock asked if the applicant could resolve length and side setback issues that were addressed in the slM-f memo. Steffen stated she was unaware of the issues but that she would resolve them. Mr. Mike Ronald, 4853 Bartlett Blvd., stated he had spoken with the developer of the property. He noted he believed the dock length from its original approval originated from the 929.4 NGVD shoreline on the island and that dock length from this point was less than 100'. He stated he could assist the District in obtain the information from the developer, Bill Niccum. Babcock asked how wide the proposed tie-on slip would be at the western end of the dock. He noted .;:.~.. the storage of the boat could not be included in the side setback area and that should be identified. Ronald stated he believed the maximum beam on the boat stored at this location would be 15'. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Rascop asked' how much shoreline the applicant has and how many slips it could qualify for. Lake 1Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August I1, 1999 Page Babcock stated the applicant has 340' of continuous shoreline and that the Code allows the applicant to qualify for up to seven slips. Rascop asked for clarification from LeFevere on how the draft ordinance relating to boat density might apply to shoreline measurement for a situation az that being proposed by the applicant. LeFevere stated if the shoreline that meandered at a site is greater than 25 % of a straight line shoreline, that would trigger review by the Board on whether shoreline that is measured should be adjusted. Babcx~k asked the applicant if the island is at or above the 929.4 NGVD shoreline. Steffen stated the entire island is above water. She questioned why the association could not include the shoreline from island to determine the total amount of shoreline. Nybeck stated staff brought this issue to the Board's attention because the Code currently requires continuous shoreline. I-Ie questioned how the Board originally approved the multiple dock length because the dock length from the mainland is well over 100'. Babcock stated he believed staff has raised a valid point because if the applicant desired to transfer partial credit of the shoreline from the island to the mainland, the island would need to be left in its natural state and could not have dock originating from it. He noted he believed the issue that staff has brought to the Boards attention is how the Board originally approved the facility. He questioned whether that is an overriding reason not to approve an additional slip. MOTION: Gilman moved, Kitchak seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application for Seton View Association as submitted. Partyka stated he believed the applicant needs to clearly establish the 929.4 NGVD shoreline on the survey to identify where the dock begins. Babcxx:k asked LeFevere how to proceed when the plat at the site is in question in a re-application when there are no adverse claims. LeFevere stated the Board needs to determine how much proof they require. He stated if the Board has questions about the amount of shoreline and whether it should qualify ,for an additional slip, then the 929.4 NGVD shoreline becomes important. He added it appears that when the Board originally approved the multiple dock facility, dock length originated from the island and it is less than 100'. Gilman clarified other than an additional boat being stored at the currently approved facility, there would be no changes to it. Kitchak stated he believes the point of origin for dock length should be the island, not the mainland. Lltke ~M'inneton]ul Conservation Distri~ Regular Board Meetin~ Aulust 11, 199~ Pate 6 Babcock stated he believed it is a matter of interpretation whether to measure the length of the dock from the 929.4 NGVD on the shoreline or the island. He noted in past applications, the shoreline applied credited towards density credit for a multiple dock license needed to be continuous, unless an island is left in its natural state with shoreline credited to the main land in compliance with Code. He stated using this approach from past applications, the shoreline only from the island should be applied if the dock length originates from the island; however, they might qualify for a dock length variance. He concluded there might be an issue whether the shoreline on the approved site plan is valid to approve an additional BSU because the 929.4 NGVD is not documented. LeFevere stated the ordinance amendment that will be under consideration later tonight could change the amount of shoreline the applicant is credited with. Mr. Mark Thompson, a Deephaven city council member, suggested the Board could approve the application, subject to verification of the shoreline on a survey. He asked if the request comes before an ordinance is changed, is the request still valid based on the old ordinance. LeFevere stated that new laws can be applied to something that is not already in place. He added if the proposed application is not approved before a new ordinance goes into effect, then the conditions of that ordinance would be applied. He noted the District is dealing with an application that deals with public waters and that there are no vested rights. Partyka suggested the motion include a friendly amendment that the applicant provide an updated survey which highlights the 929.4 NGVD shoreline. Babcock added that staff has recommended that any approval be subject to approval by both the City of Mound and the MN DNR. Gilman and Kitchak agreed to these friendly amendments. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Mathew Herman, Consideration of variance application from LMCD Code for length and side setback requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. Babcock opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. He asked the public if they had any comments or questions. Mr. Mathew Herman, 3825 Cherry Avenue, reviewed the application for the Board. He made the following comments: · He stated he owns two lots, one that has lakeshore frontage and one that does not. He noted his lot where his house resides does not currently have lakeshore frontage. He stated the lot he owns between his house and the lake is mainly a wetland, with a small part of it above the 929.4 NGVD shoreline. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page 7 · He stated the proposed dock, which would be 281' in length, would provide access from his residence over the wetland to the land that is above the 929.4 NGVD shoreline that has riparian rights. He noted th~ neighbor to the east currently has a similar dock that is used as a catwalk. · He stated the City of Orono has already approved the variance request and has granted him the ability to the place the dock across the unimproved Cherry Avenue right of way. He added the MN DNR has indicated he needed to get approval from the District. · He entertained questions or feedback from the Board. Babcock asked if the neighbor's dock to the east crossed over open water or if it was entirely wetlands. Herman stated it mainly crosses over wetlanda. Rascop asked if the dock would be machine installed or hand installed. Herman stated the proposed dock would be hand installed. Nybeck provided additional background on the application. He stated the MN DNR does not require a permit for this dock because it is seasonal. He noted the applicant has been before the Orono city council with the proposed project, adding they approved it. He stated the District required a variance application from the applicant because the wetland is not entirely enclosed by land above the 929.4 NGVD shoreline and it opens towards the lake. He stated if the Board desires to approve the proposed project, he believed the Board needs to clarify the physical hardship(s) associated with complying with Code. He concluded the applicant has identified emergent vegetation as the hardship. Babcock questioned if the neighbor to the east has an approved variance. Nybeck stated he would have to check into this but he believed they did not. Rascop suggested if might be appropriate for the two neighbors to combine docks and have only one that extends over the wetland. Herman stated this would not be his preference because of liability concerns. Kitchak questioned whether the neighbor's dock is non-conforming because it does not have an approved variance, it would make be~r sense to have a joint application with the neighbor. Nybeck stated that staff has recently received a phone call from a member of the public who might application for variance from Code for similar circumstances. He noted he instructed this individual to call back later because staff would have a better understanding, after this proposed application, of the direction of the Board. Lake Minnetonk~ Conservigion Distri~ Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page Babcock asked if McMillan was aware of the hardships recognized by the city council in the variance granted by the City of Orono. McMillan stated the main hardship, which is outlined in the City of Orono Resolution, is the physical characteristics of the land. She noted this application had some similarities with the Seton View application reviewed earlier by the Board. Kitchak stated he believed one of the hardships for the applicant is the inability to get to the land that is above the 929.4 NGVD shoreline. LeFevere stated he believed this is a difficult case to allow an individual to construct a dock, through a variance, over a wetland to a parcel of land that is dry and unbuildable. He noted that might not be true in this case because they are unable to construct a dock from shoreline they have because of emergent vegetation. He concluded the Board needs to determine whether this is a reasonable solution to reach navigable water. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. MOTION: Partyka moved, Gilman second~ to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the variance request. Kitchak stated he believes the District should hold off on approving the application to see ff the two docks on abutting properties could be combined to minimize impacts on the wetland. He suggested the Board delay action to the next meeting to allow the applicant to contact his neighbor regarding this. Parytka stated he believed the applicant could talk to the abutting neighbor before the next meeting because the only action that could be taken by the Board was to direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval. Kitchak stated he might not support this request, as presented, unless it can be illustrated why the two neighbors cannot share one dock over the wetlands. Panyha questioned ff the neighbor's dock is an existing structure. Herman stated it is and that a former resident was unsuccessful in combining two docks into one. He noted he would prefer to have his own dock smscture over his own land rather than share one with the abutting neighbor. Kitehak stated his experience with variance applications is to mitigate problems and minimize their impacts. ' Babcock stated he was wrestling with the proposed application because the applicant is asking the District to resolve a land issue by granting him a variance to have acce~ over the water. He added; however, he respected the request from the applicant appears to minimize the impact on the Lake Minne~onka Conservatioa Distri~ ~ l~rd~ August 11, 1999 l~e 9 wetlands. He stated the Board in the future is going to have to make a decision about allowing docking fights over wetlands on marginal shoreline. He concluded the Board in the past has approved similar length requests; however, the Board has required abutting neighbors to combine to one dock. MOTION: Rascop moved, Kitchak second~ to table further action on the proposed application to the next Board meeting. VOTE: Ayes (4), Nayes (4); motion to table failed. Gilman stated he believed the main issue the Board has been considering is the non-conforming dock of the abutting neighbors. He added he believed that is an issue that the District and the City of Orono should address, not the applicant. Kitehak stated he concurred with the comments of Gilman; however, he believed this an opportunity to mitigate the impact on the wetlands. He added he supports the concept of the applicant to access the lake; however, he also supports conserving the wetlands. Gilman stated he did not see harm to the wetlands as proposed by the applicant. Partyka proposed a friendly amendment to the motion that no boats are to be stored at this dock. Gilman agreed to this. LeFevere stated he believed it might be inappropriate to force two properties to have one dock that they are uncomfortable with. He added the Board must decide if a request that does not combine two docks is a reasonable response to a hardship of emergent vegetation. Babcock proposed a friendly amendment that the parcels at both ends of the dock, Lots 2 and 3, remain under common ownership. Partyka and Gilman agreed to this friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (2, Rascop and Babcock); motion carried. Babcock expressed concern that the proposed application provides access to another parcel of land rather than the lake. 1. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (7/16/99 - 7/31/99 & 8/1/99 - 8/15/99). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distri--~ Regular Board Meet~ August 11, 1999 Page 10 B. June financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the ~une financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Gilman moved, Babcock seconded to accept the June financial summary ami balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, Discussion and consideration of an ordinance relating to boat storage density on lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03. Babcock summarized previous discussions relating to the draft ordinance amendment, noting that public hearings were held on 7/14/99 and 7/28/99 and that a variety of correspondence has been received from member dries. He noted the city he represents, Tonka Bay, has requested the Board take no action on this issue this evening. MOTION: Gilman moved, Babcock seconded to table action on this agenda item. VOTE: Ayes (4), Nayes (4); motion to table failed. Nelson asked for a status update on the draft ordinance amendment. He questioned whether the Board is considering first reading, second reading, adoption, or other considerations. Babcock stated he believed a motion could be made for any of those actions. Rascop stated he would like to see Section 1 removed from the draft ordinance amendment that would change the General Rule from 1:50' to 1:100'. MOTION: Rascop moved, McMillan seconded to remove Section 1 of the draft ordinance amendment and approve first reading. Kitchak stated he believed the Board to date has focused entirely on the change in the General Rule and not on the other two elements of the draft ordinance amendment. McMillan stated she believed the Board still needs to consider current conversion of use Code provisions and whether changes need to be made to them. She suggested a workshop session might be appropriate. VOTE: Motion eaxried unanimously. Lake l~[innetonka Conservation Distr~ Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Marina, stated he concurred with the comments of McMillan and suggested a workshop session be scheduled in the near future to discuss conversion of use Code provisions. B. Additional Business There was no additional business. EWMJEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Staff update on 1999 Zebra Mussel F, ducational Campaign with Carmichael Lynch. Nybeck stated this past June, the Board authorized staff to work with Carmichael Lynch on a zebra mussel educational plan. He noted the plan for 1999 consisted of a public access signage stencil, two print ads, and a billboard campaign. He reported staff has received the stencil and has a further update on the other two elements. He reviewed the sample billboard proposed by Carmichael Lynch, noting they realistically should be up around September 1. He recommended the Board authorize staff to place four posters on these billboards for four weeks during the month of September and to allow staff to print an additional eight posters for the 2000 campaign. He stated there would be cost savings by doing this with an estimated cost of $200 to $300 per poster. He asked the Board for feedback on the proposal. Gilman stated it might be appropriate to save money and buy higher profile space during a better month next April. Nybeck stated based on the feedback from the Board in June, staff has committed to four locations for four weeks during the month of September. He suggested he believed there is merit to running the four week campaign yet this fall to get pr 'eluninary feedback from the public. Babcock stated he believed the poster should have the WebPage address of the District on it. He suggested this might be more appropriate rather than a toll free number. He expressed concern about printing an additional eight posters if the WebPage address is not on them. Babcock stated he preferred the District deliver one single message rather than using the second print ad message. Gilman stated he believed using the cockroach message on a limited basis would be appropriate to see what kind of results it brings. McMillan stated she would like to have small posters printed to distribute to a variety of places. Babcock stated he believed the poster board should state that the telephone number is toll Lake Minnetonka Conservation District eau r August 11, 1999 Page 12 ® MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to direct staff to print 12 posters if Carmicahel Lynch can add the District WebPage address and to identify that the telephone number is toll free, or to print four posters if these changes cannot be made. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Staff update on 1999 EWM Harves~g Program. Nybeck reviewed the status of the 1999 EWM Harvesting Program. He stated the harvesters are scheduled to be removed from the water on Friday, 8/13/99. He expressed concern in that they are being removed too early and that this will be addressed in the off-season. He suggested staff work with interested Board members in an ad hoc committee to bring recommendations back to the Board. The Board discussed a variety of ways to improve the program for year 2000. Some of them included harvesting earlier and later than what is currently being done, training the staff before the season is to scheduled to begin, and working longer days. · Nybeck stated several areas of the lake had second cuts this year. He noted they ~cluded Grays Bay, St. Albans Bay, Gideon Bay, Old Channel Bay, Carman Bay, and Phelps Bay. C. Additional Business There was no additional business. LAKE USE AND RECREATION B. Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to High-Water Restrictions; amending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subds. 2,3,4, and 5. Partyka stated he had a problem with the draft ordinance amendment because he was unsure where the new numbers came from. He questioned whether the lake elevation of 930.6' NGVD to trigger a High Water Declaration is appropriate because the lake has never been that high. He suggested the lake elevation of 930.0' NGVD in which a High Water Declaration could be declared is also too high. He recommended these numbers need to be investigated further and reduced, and that the MCWD should be consulted regarding how the lake levels are controlled by the dam. He concluded he believed the main reason for this ordinance was to deal with erosion of shoreline from wave action. Kitchak stated he has a property that suffers shoreline erosion during high water periods. He noted his experience is that wind action causes more erosion to his shoreline than boat action because the wind is continuous. Babcock stated he concurred with Kitchak. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distri~ Re~qdar Board Meeti~ August 11, 1999 Page 13 Partyka stated the MCWD generally controls the lake between elevations of 928.6' and 929A' NGVD. He added when the lake reach~ 930.0' NGVD, the lake is overflowing the dam and the MCWD has no control at that level. He stated he believed the lake elevation of 930.6' NGVD would never occur. Gilman questioned how many times the lake has re, ached the lake elevation 930.0' NGVD. Partyka stated he believed it has reached this level approximately four times in the last 25 years. P, ascop stated he believed the draft ordinance amendment should include the counting of weekends as consecutive days during the waiting period. Babcock stated he believed one of the strengths of the draft ordinance amendment is that it gives the Executive Director more discretion in declaring a High Water Emergency. He noted the current ordinance does not give the Executive Director this flexibility. Nybeck stated this past spring when staff considered a High Water Declaration, there was a discrepancy of .01' between two readings by the MCWD that triggered the five day waiting period. He noted the draft ordinance amendment would provide staff with greater flexibility compared to the current ordinance relating to this. McMillan stated she believed the lal~e elevation of 930.6' NGVD might be too high. She suggested that 930.2' might be more appropriate. MOTION: Gilman moved, Eggers seconded to approve second reading of the ordinance amendment, and waive additional readings changing the automatic trigger point from lake elevation 930.6' NGVD to 930.1' NGVD, and to reduce the 930.0' NGVD trigger back to 929.8' NGVD. Babcock stated he would prefer the one trigger point in the draft ordinance amendment remain at lake elevation 930.0' NGVD rather than be reduced to 929.8' NGVD. MOTION: Babcok moved, Nelson seconded to change the lalce elevations in original motion TO from 930.1' NGVD to 930.2' NGVD and from 929.8' NGVD to 930.0' NGVD. Kitchak sated he believed there is a need to gather more facts on the issue prior to voting on it. LeFevere stated in order for the Board to adopt an ordinance amendment, it takes a majority of the Board or eight favorable votes. He added he believed there were not sufficient votes present to change the ordinance. Lake Minnetonka Coilservalioil District Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page 14 Babcock and Nelson removed their motion to mend. Gilman and Eggcrs removed their original motion. The consensus of the Board was that this agenda item would be continued to the next scheduled Regular Board meeting. Partyka stated he needs more information and data on how the numbers were derived in the draft ordinance amendment. D. Additional Business Babcock stated that on 7/31199, he observed car/trailer parking at the 101 Causeway public access site. Hc noted there were 16 cars and 29 car/trailers at thc public access. 5. SAVE THE LAKE McMillan stated that there would be a new fund raising letter going out in September. Babcock stated there was discussion earlier in thc year regarding an educational video. He asked for an update on its status. McMillan stated she had been in contact with a local cable company and that she would need to follow-up on that. Kitchak suggested contacting the local school districts and sponsoring a contest among them to see who can make the best video on various topics relating to the lake. 6. ADMINISTRATION Nybeck recommended an adjustment in the fee for the Boat and Water Safety Education (BWSE) Program from $70 to $80. He noted this increase would factor in the rate increase from MADD from $15 to $25. MOTION: Rascop moved, Gilman seconded to increase thc fees for thc BWSE Program from $70.00 to $80.00 per participant. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IIEPORT Nybeck stated an August calendar and a Summer Executive Director Newsletter were included in the handout folders to assist thc Board and the public. He added with what appears to be a light workload for the Board, they might want to consider cancelling the 8/25/99 Regular Board meeting. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 11, 1999 Page MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to cancel the 8/25/99 Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock stated the next scheduled Regular Board Meeting would be 9/8/99. 8. OLD BUSINE.~ There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS McMillan stated she recently had received complaints about the parties taking place on the north end of Big Island. She noted there have been live bands, there has been large speakers playing amplified music, and that they have not been approved with a proper special event permit. She added that the large number of boats rafting together is potentially causing a large public safety issue in the future for both the Water Patrol and the boats themselves. She suggested she believed the Board should addre.~ theae issuea. Babcock stated some of the activities going on have gone on for a number of years. He noted it is difficult for the Water Patrol to enforce the law because there are not enough deputies available. Kitchak stated he believed it would be appropriate to request the Water Patrol to take some action. Gilman stated the activity currently going on at Big Island has some differences from past years. He noted the large number of boats that are rafted together is an example. Rascop asked if any complaints have been received regarding this. Nybeck stated one telephone complaint has been received, although it was not formalized in writing. He added the Orono city council has discussed this and that a follow-up correspondence should be received in the near future. He noted Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri has contacted the office and has described similar problems. Kitchak suggested the Water Patrol should be able to go in under cover, take photos, and cite individuals when needed. LeFevere stated he assumed the Water Patrol is aware of what is going on. He suggested contacting the Sheriff to see if they are having problems enforcing current ordinances, to see if they need additional ordinances, or to see if it is a manpower problem. The consensus of the Board was to invite a representative of the Water Patrol to attend the ~ Minnetollka Coilse~atioll Distr~ Regular Board Meetin~ Au~st 11, 1999 Page 16 next Board meeting to discuss the issue. The Board directed Babcock to contact Sheriff McGowan to bring the issue to his attention. 10. ADJOURN1V~NT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERYAI'ION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE 8:30 a.m., Friday, August 13, 1999 LMCD Office, 18338 Mtka Blvd., Deephaven, MN Present: Lili McMillan, LMCD Board; Wcndy Cwwell, MN DNR- Exotic Species Program; Ray Newman, U of M Fisheries; Don Germanson, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA); Dick Osgood, Ecosystem Strategies- representing LMA; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director. Minutes. The Task Force reviewed the minutes from the 6/11/99 EWlVl/Exotics Task Force meeting and accepted them as submitted. Review of 1999 LMCD EWM Harvesting Sps*~on. Nybeck reported on the 1999 milfoil harvesting season on lake Minnetonka coordinated by the District. He made the following comments: · The harvesting season concludes on 8/13/99 with the harvesters being removed from the lake. · The season went relatively smooth other than the mechanical problems that occurred early on. All areas of the lake that merited harvesting were cut once, with second harvests in Grays Bay, St. Albans Bay, Gideon Bay, Carman Bay, Old Channel Bay, and Phelps Bay. He added that a late season harvest was conducted in the southwest comer of Carson Bay to provide relief to the homeowners' association that has expressed a desire to make application with the MN DNR to treat the area with Sonar. · There will be discussion in the near future on ways to improve the program for the year 2000. He noted one of the strengths of the program, the stuffing by using school teachers, is also an area that needs to be addressed because they are limited on the number of weeks they can work. He added some of the ideas that will be discussed include split crews, longer work days, the feasibility of starting the program earlier and working later in the season, and the feasibility of adding another harvester to the fleet. · He entertained feedback or questions from Task Force members. Newman asked when second cuts in Phelps Bay were done. Nybeck stated second cuts in Phelps Bay were done in the last few days. Germanson stated based on his observations, the vegetation in the lake was greater this year versus last year. McMillan asked what this might be attributed to for this year. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 8/13/99, PAGE 2 Crowell stated there are so many factors that influence the growth of milfoil. Germanson asked for an update on the number of lakes that are infested with milfoil. Crowell stated new infestations in the State of Minnesota include Buffalo Lake, Centerville Lake, McKinney Lake, Ice Lake, Washington T ~,,_, and Stella Lake. She noted the infestation in Mc inney Lake is in the Grand Rapids area and that it has recently infested Ice Lake, which is downstream. She concluded there was recently a whole lake treatment of McKinney Lake with Fluridone. McMillan stated it would be beneficial to get input from the LMA when discussion on how to improve the harvesting program for 2000 takes place. Review of 1~)9 IMCD Zebra Mussel Nybeck stated this past June, the Board authorized staff to work with Carmichael Lynch regarding a three-element zebra mussel education plan for 1999. He made the following comments: · The first dement, a stencil for public and private accesses on the lake, has recently been received. He noted the making of these signs should be started in the near future. · The other two elements, a billboard campaign and print ad, are close to being complete and should be finalized in the very near future. He reviewed the proposed billboard message, noting four billboards in the Lake Minnetonka area have been reserved for four weeks beginning around 911199. He added although the. timing of the billboard campaign for 1999 could be better, it was determined that getting the message out in a smaller campaign would provide the District some preliminary feedback. · The funding of this program for 1999 is coming from a combination of the Zebra Mussel and Save the Lake budgets. · He entertained feedback or questions from Task Force members. Germanson questioned whether the picture on the proposed billboard carries a strong enough message. Nybeck stated other alternative aspects of an educational campaign are being considered for 2000 and that work on them would begin this fall. He added one of the biggest problems the District has been faced with this year is the time constraint. Crowell re-stated the concerns of the MN DNR relating to the message of the campaign. She added although there are concerns with the message, she appreciated the time and money spent by the District in getting the message out. The Task Force discussed the idea of submersing boating equipment, such as a boat ladder, into T~e Peppin to allow zebra mussels to attach to them. The idea being discussed was to display this equipment at public accesses on Lake Minnetonka after it has been recovered to illustrate the potential impacts of infesting the lake with zebra mussels. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 8/1~/9~, PAGE Ager-~y ReDorts. Crowell reviewed the infestations in the Grand Rapids area at McKinney and Ice l_~kes. She noted both lakes are relatively small and that a small channel connects them. She added that McKinney Lake, which has a of 114 a rr , was i ntly with Fluridone with the idea of eliminating the growth of milfoil for several years and assisting in containing the spread of it to surrounding lakes in the area. She stated preliminary results s/mw significant damage to the growth of milfoil in the lake. McMillan asked for feedback from Crowell on the reaction of homeowners on McKinney Lake. Crowell stated initial feedback from the homeownen has overall been positive to date. She reviewed the location of the other infestations she identified earlier in the meeting. This included: · Buffalo Lake- Wright County · Washington and Stella Lakes- Meeker County · Centerville T.ake$- Anoka County She concluded Buffalo and Centerville Lakes are heavily infested with milfoil and that they are conai~ maintenance lakes in which the MN DNR public accesses will be chemically treated. Newman made the following comments: · The milfoil growth in Cenaiko Lake appears to be relatively controlled. · The growth of milfoil and weevil activity in Auburn Lake has declined since last year. · The growth of milfoil in Otter Lake, which was winterldlled a few years ago, is generally under control. · The growth of milfoil in Smiths Bay was heavier earlier in the year but has been reduced with heavier weevil activity in the area this area with one-half weevil per stem. He added other areas of the lake were sampled for weevils in Grays Bay and Phelps Bay. He stated they located some weevil activity in Phelps Bay and that he would be interested in identifying where second harvests were conducted. The Task Force discussed the use of weevils on the East Coast and the feasibility of controlling milfoil on Lake Minnetonka with them. ,Aron-wide l.qke A~qoeiation Reports. Germanson stated the LMA succe~sfuUy participaled in the Excelsior 4* of July Fireworks Display and Lake Minnetonka Bike Tour. He added Dick Osgood was present to talk about a successful LCMR grant application that was secured by the LMA. Osgood stated the LMA received grant money from the LCMR for a Lake Minnetonka citizens monitoring and education network. He noted this would involve utilizing a citizen involved volunteex network on projects that need to be conducted and that they can be trained to do. He added the main criteria in considering a potential project is can the network he trained properly to conduct the project credibly. He asked for feedback from the Task Force on potential projects that could be done credibly and that could he of use. EWMYF.~OTICS TASK FORCE, 8/13/~, PAGE 4 The Task Force brainstormed poteatial ideas for {i~ project. Some of the ideas discussed include: · Bio-mas~ sampling · Weevil occurrence samplin~ · Shoreline inventory of natural buffers vers~ tip rapping · Lawn rumpling on lakeshore properties for phosphorous contents Oexman~n sated one of the main goals of this project is to establish a program that is long-term. Old bnsiness. There w~ no old business. New h.,iinp~m. There was no new busine~. Ad{o,,rnment. There being no further business, the meetin~ was adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Rely Sub~tu~d, Gregory S. Nybeck Executive Director Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999 5. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS Councilmember Hanus brought up problems with boat sizes on multiple docks. This is an issue right now and should be discussed quite soon. Commissioner Ahrens stated this subject should be put on this agenda, or at least very soon because some rules need to be established. Slips are 24 feet deep, and LMCD allows a 4 foot overhang, although this is not always clear in the LMCD regulations. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999 Commissioner Goldberg stated the intensity of the multiple docks also needs to be regulated, especially on multiples in front of neighborhoods. Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated that other city's rules are basically this: if a boat is too large to fit in the slip, it belongs at a marina. Park Director Fackler stated that each dock configuration should be looked at, and the maximum number of boats and the boat sizes should be set and then adhered to. Councilmember Hanus stated that trying to accommodate people will eventually have to come to an end, as there are limitations in what can be done. He suggested directing staff to bring in designs and set limitations at the next meeting, to send to Council. Also, present boats, even over large ones, need to be grand fathered until a new boat or user is assigned to the slip. Then the limitations would be adhered to. This aids in the transition, but still works towards the most desirable intensity and boat size. Commissioner Eurich stated that less flexibility may not be such a bad thing. Rather than going site by site, simply have a 24 foot maximum, as other cities do, and grandfather any larger boats. When they are taken out of the system, stick to the set limits. Councilmember Hanus stated that this may help with public opinion also, as a person limited to 24 feet is paying the same as someone with the ability to have a larger boat. Commissioner Ahrens agreed and indicated support to draft a change to the ordinance to cap the boat size at 24 feet and grandfather existing larger boats. Councilmember Hanus questioned whether a larger slip would be put in for new multiple docks where someone already has a larger boat, with the same grand fathering clause after that transitional exception. Park Director Fackler stated that the bowsprit would also have to be addressed, as some can get quite long and hang over, cutting off the rest of the dock as one cannot get around it. Councilrnember Hanus suggested stating that nothing can stick out over the dock, and allow people to deal with that however they can, such as backing their boat in if they have a long bowsprit. Also, beam width needs to be addressed. Other cities have an 8 1/2 foot limit, and that seems to be a manageable number. Ownership of boats kept in the system was discussed, highlighting the rules of the system which need to be discussed and possibly changed. Park Director Fackler and Dock Inspector McCaffrey will highlight the problem areas to present for discussion at the next meeting. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to recommend a change to the City Ordinance to restrict the length of watercraft to 24 feet, and the beam 3 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999 not to exceed 8 1/= feet, aa defined by the boat manufacturer. Also, under no circumstances can any part of the boat extend over any section of the multiple dock. Boat length and width restrictions may be waived for an existing dockholder with an existing craft until that owner or boat leaves the system. Motion carried unanimously. 4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745o0789 · FAX 612/745-9065 : - ' Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Char, Deephaven Eugene Parlyka Secret-eL Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Mound Bob Anlbro~e Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Greg KJtchak Minnetonka Lili McMillan Drone Ro0er~ Rascop Shorewood J. Suertt~ Woodland · belden Wert Greenwood TO: FROM: · I.akeahore Weekly News · Aun: Legal Department .(Fax #~ Roger ~g, Administrative Technician Public Heating Notice (919199 Edition) · - ~.MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUBLIC mr.~RING NOTICE 7:00 PM, September 22, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manimu Road Richard Oliver Variance Application 2537 Wexford Road Mound, MN 5~t The ~ Minne~nka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public he~-_'.~ to cx)n,~ider a Variance Application from Richard Oliver. Thc proposed application is for variance from LMCD dock length, dock use area, and side setback requ/reme~t$. All intexe~ted persons will be given Detaih available at the LMCD office, 18338 lViinn~ Blvd., Decph~vcn, ~ 55391. 50% R~lcycled Content 20% Po~ Coa~m~. W~ Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd O winternet.com LAKE M~NNETONKA CON~F~RVATION DISTRICT RF.Q~ FOR Ri~VIEW AND COMbiENTS ~TA Dh[it GE2~RAL PI~flT APPLICATION Comments on ti~ application zr~ du~ 10 days from ~rg~__pt of ~ notice. K~turn to: l.,2d.C~.; IK3.M Mir,,,~toe~- ~lvd.; Wa.vaala; MN 55391) / ) 0 h ~.- COMM'F. NTS ON PROPOSAl. Comments on Project by Reviewer (attach ~eparate sheet it needed): Recommendation ot Reviewer: Nxme of Review.~r: Title: Date: ,Variance to The LMCD Code VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE LMCD CODE Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone 745-0789, Fax 745-9085 ~ _j~ /lUG 1 o 1999 By Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type. In accordance with LMCD Code Section 1.07, where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessar7 to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a vadance from the requirements of the Code, or may require a vadance from what is otherwise permitted by the Code, provided that such vadance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by public or dpadan owners. The following application, when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the Distdct along with surveys, photos, and such other inform3tion as required. Address: City, State, Zip: Phone #: . Fax #: PROPERTY LOCATION The property is located in the City of: ~4 ~k. ~ , The property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s): ~j. ~ J~.J~.~. LMCD Area Identification Number(s): State.practica~ifficulties and hardships cau. sing variance to be required: Please s,.lbmit names end mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the property. Such owners must be verified by checking with Hennepin County Auditors Office, 348-3271; (or a privste abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.25 per tax parcel (minimum of $25.00). This service usually takes two days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this assistance. C:Wly Documents~Applications\Vadance to code appl..doc .~ ,.. 'Variance to Code Documen~ listed below are required; check that they are attached: Locater Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North direction, Site clearly marked, Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number) County Plat Map (Site clearly marked, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number) Certified Land Survey (Legal description, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number, 929.4 N.G.V.D. shoreline) Proposed facility site plan (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable) Existing facility site plan, if applicable (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable) ,,~Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay. FEE CALCULATION APPLICATION FEE .......... (non-refundable) .......................................... $250.00 DEPOSIT ..................... (refundable, upon full compliance with the Code and extent of administrative, inspection and legal service required) .................................... +250.00 TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED (this fee is for processing of the application and does not ntitle the applicant to a variance) ...................... ~$500.00~ ! certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; ! understand that any variance granted may be revoked by the D/strict for violation of the IHCD code. I agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of ,the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at r,~sona~'~ times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of zl~ subrlft a ~, j~s-~l.t sa~ey upon completion of the docks. ,,., Return this application, attachments and fee to: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone: 745-0789 Fax: 745-9085 Fine Line cj. ~-oup, t P.O. Flox 1611 Bums~Jle, Minnesota · 55337-0611 (612) 8904267 _Dffioe/Fax Subject: The ckx:k at 2541 Wexford Road. Mound. - The property was recently redivided and two new residences are being constructed on this site. - The new addresses are 2537 Wexford and 2541 Wexford. - Both new home owners are willing to share a single dock structure. His~or)': The home on this site was orJ~nally constructed in the 1940's and was the only structure in this area for many years., (Refer to aerial photo dated - 11/9/71) - The land owner had a navigable chatmel accessing Seton Lake near the Channel to Emerald lake. - In the early 1970's, during a period of low water elevations, the land owner was allowed a dock extending to the current location by the city of Island Park (the precursor to the City of Mound), in exchange for not having to maintain the channel by drying. The owner did not give up rights to dredging. - The original landowner sold the property to the current landowner with a u~ble but cl~eriomting dock. -During the approval process at the city of Mouod for the current building, a request was made by the City Council to adjust the location of the beginning of the dock. To move it from shoreline owned by the city. -Owner decided to renovate structure at the same time. Request: The current landowner wishes to apply for a 'Dock Use', a 'Side Setback' and a 'Dock Length' variance. - Depending upon the disposition of these variance requests, an application may be made for a dredging permit with the MC'fiD. Rules: Section 2.01 Subd 2b Section 2.015 Dock Placement and Configuration LMCD: Section 2.01 Subd 2a Authorized Dock Use Area. Variance ~ Dock use se~ack variance from Variance required Reconfiguration of Non-coni'orming S~. Allows dockage up to 60' in length Length Variance due to Vegetation and Shallow Water Precedents: Conclusion: Dredging for Access MCWD:RUle E. 3 (cD Rule E. 4 (1) Rule E. 4 (2) The proposed project shall represem the "minimal impact' solution.., with respect to other _reo_~nable alternatives such as dock extensions... To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel ... To implemem or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access Aerial photos and an inventory, show tens to hundreds of docks extending more than 60' and/or dredging allowing navigational access with-in 1/2 mile of this site. The "minimum impact' solution is to allow the replacement of this existing structure in it's original location, with the minor revision suggested by the city of Mound relating to the connection to the shoreline, and its extension to the edge of emergent vegetation. Wexford Docks List of Exhibits: A City Locator B County Plat Map - 1967 C Certificate of Survey C1 Enlargement of Survey- showing Shoreline- D Dock Site Plan E Aerial Photo of Area - 11-9-71 F Aerial Photo Composite Showing Area - 5-89 G Copy of MCWD Rule E Regarding Dredging ~ AUG101999 ; By fi88), o T ~n¥ © 1,. ',~,-- Shore line according ,\ to record Plat x, \ ~,~ ~ ~." ", '~ ~ ....q. ~ , ~o.~ 3 m~ '; B' ~ '". ' .01,~3 &er,al Photo) LAKE O~C~D ./ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RICHARO OLIVER IN BLOCK 7, SETON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I FGAL DiESCR~TIO~I OF PREMISES : Lots l, 2. 3. 14 ~ 15, ~iock 7, S£TON o : Iro~ ~: Irxmtw~ ~pot ~levot~o~ This lu*vey ~t~,l th~ b(:~r.(~rlll of t~ c/~ove d~scribecl property. ~qd ti~¢eo~. It does not purpo(t to ,J~ow ~ny othm' improvMT~ents or AUG 1 0 1999 .By J~ gROIning, l]tC. 112-473--4141 OAT£ 1-18.-G9 CO~IN & FRX NO. ; 6~.2 4'?3 443~ Jun. ~1~ 1999 05:1~3Pt"1 I ~lgl II %1 IN BLOCK 7, HENNEPIN COUNT' MCWD 1~1¢ E Pag~ I of 4 RULEE DREDGING I. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to p~serve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources of surface waters, and surface water quality. 2. REGULATIONS. No person shall dredge in the beds, banks or shores of any. protected water or wetland in the District without first securing a permit from the District and posting a bond or letter of credit purnmnt to Rule K. 3. GENERAL STANDARDS. All permitted dredging shall comply with the following standards: (a) The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHW of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland Conseveation Act of 1991, or floedpl~in and not prone to erosion (b) In cases of an identifiable source of sediment under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment into a waterbody or off-site. (c) Prior to review by the District, all dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and, in the case of Lake Minnetonka, by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. (d) The proposed project shall represent the "minimal imtx~" solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives such as dock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging, beach sandblankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended ~. (e) The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving the stated purpose. (Reference General Permit 95-6150, 'Exca,,=tion for Navigation', paragraph 5). (f) If the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging the following additional standards will apply: (1) The spoil disposal site shall have a minimum storage capacity equal to four times the calculated volume of solid material to be removed, a minimum free board between the top ~CWD Rule E of the projected water surface elevation and the top of the dike done toot,/fno out/et from the spoil disposal is laVlaZ~ (2} The cormmction of the spoil containment site shall be with earthen dikes. No such dike shall exceed 5.5 feet in height at any point. Dikes shall have a minimum 4 foot wide top and side slopes of 2:l or flatter. The dikes shall be adequately compacted by traversing with appropriate equipment during construction. (3) Proposed embankments which differ from the standard in 3(f)(2) shall comply with generally ~ engineering principles and be deaigned and certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of,Minnesota. (4) Spoil containment site~ of limited storage volume which propose a discharge back into a receiving water body. through a control strum shall meet applicable State water quality. guidelines for the receiving water body. W~kly monitoring of the instantaneous discharge shall be performed and paid for by. the applicant. The results shall be promptly forwarded to the District Engineer for comparison to state water quality. standards for turbidity, and total suspended solids. (5) A restoration plan l:n~parecl by. a qualified individual shall show proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on site during the period of operation. The plan shall show final grades and how the site will be restored, covered and/or vegetated after construction. Sites with high erosion potential characterized by ~ slopes or erodible soils may require a cash deposit to ensure performance and any necessa~ remedial actions. (a) Dredging shall be permitted only for the following purposes: (I) To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing ~blic or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements; or (2) To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access; or (3) To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants; or (4) To improve the public recreational, wildlife, or fisheries resources of surface waters. (b) No dredging shall be permitted: (1) Above the ordinary high water level or into thc upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. ~2~4 (2) Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or MCWD Rule E Pa§¢ 3 of 4 which would create a channel to connect adjaccui backwater 41treas for navigational purposes. (3) Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a (4) Where the dredging might cause increased Seel~ge or result in subsurface drainage. (5) Where any portion of the dredged anm contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to I for an area adjoining residential lakeshore. (c) Dredging identified in 4(b)(1-3) above may be permitted where the l~'oject complies with applicable DNR rules. 5. REQLrlRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accoml:mny the permit application- One set - full size; one set - reduced to maximum size of 1 l"x17'. (a) Site plan showing properly, lines, delineation of the work area. existing elevation contours of the adjacent ~land area, ordinary high water elevation. and regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). (b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and proposed elevations and ~ side slopes in the work area. (Topographic contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot.) (c) In the case of projects using hydraulic means of sediment removal and on- site spoil containment the applicant shall supply: (1) Cross section of the proposed dike. (2) Stage/storage volume relationship for the l~'Oposed spoil containment area. (3) Detail of any proposed outlet structure, showing size, descrilaion and invert elevation. (4) Stage/discharge relationship for any proposed outlet structure from the spoil containment area. (5) Site plan showing the locations of any lXUposed outlet structure and emergency overflow from the spoil containment al'~. (d) Site plan showing the proposed location of floating silt curtains. (e) Support data: (1) DescritXion and volume computation of material to be ' removed. (2) Description of equipment to be used. ~CWD Rule E (3) Construction schedule. (4) Location map of Sl~oil containment ar~ (5) Erosion control plan for containment ar~a. (6) Restoration plan for any pressed permanent on-site spoil containment site showing final grades, removal of control structure, and a cle~"ription of how and when the site will be restor~ covert~i or revegemted after construction. (7) Detail of any proposed floating silt curtain including specifications for the silt curtain. (f) In the case of projects wher~ dr~lging: (1) Might cause increased sewage or result in subsurfac~ drainage, or (2) Will remove sediment to eliminate a sour~ of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants, a minimum of two soil 10earing logs ex~ending at least two feet Ixlow the proposed work elevation shall ~ required. Home Page 4 ~4 c C £ C 0