Loading...
1995-01-24 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1995, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 10, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND THE JANUARY 17, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCE, SHORELAND VARIANCES AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. CASE #95-01: DAVID AND LYNNE LAUBE, 2391 FAIRVIEW LANE, CREVIERS LAFAYETTE PARK, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, PID # 13-117-24 43 0089. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. CASE//95-02: DONALD B. ANDERSON, SR., 3106 PRIEST LANE LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID #23-117-24 34 0075. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. 6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RESOLUTION g95- RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN APPLICATION FOR INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) FUNDS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS - 1998-2000. 1995 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENN~SEN, R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES. PG. 191-211 PG. 212-247 PG. 248-262 PG. 263-286 PG. 287 PG. 288-292 189 10. 11. 12. APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 5 - WATER METER READ SYSTEM AND CHANGE ORDER NO. I -WATER METER READ SYSTEM - SCHLUMBERGER INDUSTRIES. RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MARCH 5-12, 1995, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND. PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATIONAL/MISCELLANEOUS Ae MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR DECEMBER 1994, PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR. THIS IS A VERY PRELIMINARY REPORT OF 1994 ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, IT WILL GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF EACH OF THE FUNDS IS AND HOW EACH DEPARTMENT IS PROJECTING ACTUAL EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET FIGURES. B. LMCD MAILINGS. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1995. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 1995. APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY FROM BECKY GLISTER. INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1995, 7:30 PM. CITY COUNCIL IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEW PROCESS. WE WILL FORWARD ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS TO YOU IF RECEIVED. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 1994. PG. 293-295 PG. 296-300 PG. 301-318 PG. 319-320 PG. 321-322 PG. 323-325 PG. 326-330 PG. 331-332 PG. 333 190 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 10, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 10, 1995, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Also present were: City Manager Edward I. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Joan Polston, Braedon Schmidt, Mitchell Hork, Keighla Schmidt, Tom Casey, John Edewaard, Jim Brunzell, Stacy & Mark Goldberg, Mary Smith, Dawn Polston/Hork, Brian Hork, Payton Polston & family, Deena Schmidt, Shelbey Schmidt, Zi Yin Moy, Larry Connolly, Michael Durell, Sara Biermann, Brad Biermann, Todd Rask, Oy Wah Moy, Shirley Hatcher, Randi Saba, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Steve Smith, Cynthia Smith, Julie Lilledahl, Mark Lilledahl, Reub Hartman, Rex Alwin, Buzz Sycks, Orr Fenstad, Phillip & Eva Hasch, Alice Rogers, and Harold Meeker. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Elect Bob Polston and Council Members Elect Mark Hanus and Liz Jensen. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Jessen seconded by Jensen, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1994, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion 1.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE //92-060, 061, 062 & 063: NEIL WEBER FOR TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT CO., BLOCKS 10, 11, 15 & 16. WHIPPLE, PID //25-117-24 12 0225, 0118, 0119, 0120 - REQU-F~T: PREIJMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, & VARIANCE City Planner, Bruce Chamberlain, explained that he would like to go over what has transpired since the Planning Commission Meeting in December. At that meeting the Planning Commission recommended denial of the preliminary and final plat for Teal Pointe. He stated that the preliminary and final plat has two issues: The Shoreland provisions that have been instituted and approved by the City since the initial filing and approval of the Teal Pointe preliminary and final plat. The Shoreland provisions state that no building shall be constructed on slopes over 30%, and Lots 1, 2 & 3 have slopes exceeding that amount. Therefore, a variance would be required if the plat is approved. Itt t MOUND CITY 2. COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 The second issue is the retaining wall on Windsor Road. The developer is proposing two retaining walls on either side of Windsor Road to accommodate the grade differences in that area. The developer is proposing an 8 % grade on the street and a 28 foot street width. An option that the City Attorney has reviewed since the Planning Commission meeting, because of the concern about the retaining wall, is adding two variances to the project. 1) To steepen the grade of the street to 13 % from the 8 % which would result in a reduction in the height of the wall, and 2) to reduce the width of the street from 28' to 24', which would allow more space between the wall and the right-of-way line. These two variances combined would have a net effect of, the wall on the south side of Windsor could be reduced from approximately 11 foot height at its maximum to about 5 to 6 feet, and the wall on the north side could be eliminated entirely. By reducing the street width, and increasing the maintenance room, there is a possibility that the material used for the wall could be changed from the proposed steel piling to a material that is more aesthetically pleasing such as stone faced block. If the Council approves the project, staff recommends the inclusion of the recommended variances on the streets and variances to the shoreland management ordinance and findings of fact pertaining to these variances. Councilmember Hanus asked about damage to trees by the retaining walls. The City Engineer indicated that it would depend on whether the street was narrowed to the 24' width, which might help the trees but without having the exact location of the trees it would be hard to determine if the impact would be less. The City Engineer also explained that currently about the last 100 feet of Windsor Road is at a 13% grade so allowing the variance from 8% to 13% would just make the road grade approximately what it is now. Councilmember Hanus asked if the grade would be a problem for emergency vehicles or winter driving. The City Engineer stated that he did not think it would be a problem because of the area with a cul-de-sac and there are other areas in town that are worse. He pointed out the end of Windsor Road that meets Tuxedo Blvd. is at a 14% grade and has not been a problem. The Mayor stated that what he read in his packet was that originally the Planning Commission recommended that the Staff apply the ordinances to the proposed plan, referencing the Shoreland Management Ordinance. He asked what the rationale was for not applying this. Mark Koegler, City Planner, stated that his recollection was that as pan of putting together information that was forwarded to the City Council, the Planning Commission asked for a report on compliance of these lots with the proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance. So that the report that was generated went forward to the Council rather than being referred back to the Planning Commission. Then the decision to allow building on Lots 1, 2 and 3 was made by the City Council. The Council was aware that the Shoreland Management Ordinance was pending (approved by the City but not yet submitted and approved by the DNR). The Council seemed to feel that the ordinance was not in effect at the time or the Council may have felt that the development was appropriate because of the construction methods that were proposed. The Planner stated that he was not sure how well this was articulated in the minutes. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 The Mayor then stated that there was some question as to whether or not the hardshell copies were filed within the 60 day time period. Somewhere in the report it was stated that the hardshells were not filed because they were not signed by the Mayor and Council. The Mayor asked for clarification on this. Also when the Planning Commission reviewed Teal Pointe in December, they stated it was their first introduction to the retaining walls or easement problems. The Mayor asked what was shown on the final plat as being approved? Mark Koegler stated that he would answer the retaining wall/easement question and deferred the signing of the hardshells to the City Attorney. Mr. Koegler stated that when Teal Pointe was presented to the Planning Commission, the packet of information that was required for submittal was the typical preliminary plat, site plan information, etc. At that time, the grading plan that the developer had, showed the road being graded in with the compliance and assistance of the surrounding property owners. In other words, it would have required grading outside the right-of-way lines and outside of the property owned by the developer. The Planning Commission did approve that. In between that time and the Council seeing the plat, the developer made inquiries, and came back to the City and said they were not certain that was going to work out because all parties did not want to be involved in this and have grading done on their property. The action that was approved by the Council and the plans that were approved as part of the preliminary and final plat, were for one of two options. 1)Either at the developer's discretion, if they were able to work the road construction in a means which did not require retaining walls, or 2)the sheet piling retaining wall as an alternative that would allow construction of the roadway without any disruption to the adjacent property. Those were the two options, left to the developer on that issue. The City Attorney, Jim Larson, stated that the reason the hardshells were not signed by the Mayor and City Manager during the first 60 day window was because they were not filed with the City. There are two provisions to that subdivision 9, and the sezond provision says that unless the hardshells are recorded with the County Recorder within 60 days after final approval by the Council, that the plat becomes null and void. When this issue was brought up at the November Council Meeting, it was Mr. Pearson's opinion that neither one of those provisions had been met and therefore it was necessary before the City Council could give final approval to the plat that it go back through the process again. Mr. Pearson recommended that both the preliminary and final plat be run through the process together, simultaneously, and that it go back to the Planning Commission and come back to the Council for reapproval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Tom Casey, representing the opposition to the project, asked to hear from the developer as to what his justifications are at this time so that he can adequately respond to that. He stated that they he would have additional comments to make. Mr. Neil Weber, Teal Pointe developer, commented that they agree with the report given by Planner Bruce Chamberlain. This is the same exact project and the same exact conditions and shoreland issues that were explained and it is all the same discussion that they already had regarding the alternatives on the access road. He stated they are willing to accept any or all of those options that the Council chooses. It is the same project. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 Mr. Casey, representing the neighbors who have concerns about this project. Just as background, he emphasized the following points: "1)The plat is null and void. You are not looking for a reapprovai, it should start ail over again. If you have a null and void plat, you have to begin from the preliminary plat, and go to the finai plat stage. Because it is a new deal, the City does have the fight to impose additionai conditions or to deny this plat. There seems to be an inertia running to, we did it once before, we have to do it again. That is not true, it starts over again and new ordinances apply. Because we are a nation of laws, that we all agree to abide by, the laws that are applicable to this project need to be followed very carefully and that's what did not happen here and that's why we are back here tonight because the laws were not followed. In order to follow them, you need to go back and look at this project afresh and decide what to do applying the ordinances that are now in effect." Mr. Casey - then stated he would be quoting code citations for the record. Section 330:00. Subdivision Code ... "Few activities have a more lasting effect upon its appearance and environment." .... "ail subdivisions .... shall fully comply, in all respects, to the regulations set forth ..." The developer had constructive notice of this particular code provision voiding the plat. You cannot rely on promises indicated by the City Staff, if in fact those were done, and I'm not sure they were. Section 330:25. states "The subdivider is urged to seek the advice and assistance of the City staff in order to facilitate the approvai of the preliminary or final plat. However, such advice should not be construed to predict approval by the Planning Commission or final action by the City Council." Mr. Casey stated, "So there's some provision in the notes regarding that, which I say need to be disregarded, if, in fact, they did occur." Mr. Casey stated that he heard some discussion about the City having a duty to warn the developer about this voiding of the plat, if they don't do it fight. "It would be stretching a legal precedent to say that the City has to notify everybody of their legai responsibilities. The City would be spending aiready overburdened staff time advising them what they are supposed to do. So it's up to the developer. The Developer has legai counsel and if they did not comply with the law, they have to abide by it now and go back and do it again." Section 330:90, Subd. 1. "The Planning Commission and the City Council in their review of the preliminary plat will take into consideration the requirements of the community and the best use of the !and being subdivided.' Mr. Casey stated, "In other words, the citizens who will speak next, have a real fight to have an influence on this plat. They are not just outside neighbors trying to put on political pressure. They have a legai fight to have input on this plat. Also, there is nothing in the code that I have ever read, that says that the City has to maximize the developer's profits. We're not here to insure that he gets everything he wants. All we have to do is apply the ordinances correctly." Mr. Casey then presented the issues that he stated are grounds for deniai: Bluff Setbacks - "There is an indication that the bluff setbacks must be 30 feet. Lots 1, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 2 and 3 are primarily within the bluff impact zones. I-Ie referenced the letter to the City from the DNR, dated January 10, 1995, which recommended that the City deny the plat and associated variance requests. That letter also refers to a letter from the DNR, dated July 18, 1993, which stated that, "The suitability of this site for any residential form of development is highly questionable ..... "Also as a response to the EAW done in 1993, the Met Council indicated that, "The Council staff recommends that Lots 1-3 be considered unbuildable." Mr. Casey then quoted from the Zoning Code procedures: Section 350:530, Subd. 1, "All the conditions have to exist and that's exceptional extraordinary circumstances which don't apply to other property in the zone." Mr. Casey. "Are there exceptional circumstances? No. This property is bluff land property abutting a wetland. There are a lot of bluffs in the City of Mound. There's a lot of steep topography. There's nothing unique about the parcel in that way that requires you to be granting a variance. So it fails from that point. The second point of that is the literal interpretation of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Well, everybody is required to abide by the zoning code and everybody is required to go back 30 feet from the bluff zone under the current zoning ordinance. Pelican Point had to have that applied to them too. So there is not any deprivation of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. Also, the code refers to hardship." Section 350:310, Subd. 61, "gets into what hardship is and it indicates that property cannot be reasonably used if the zoning code is applied." Mr. Casey. "Well, there is reasonable use. There has been no evidence here that it would be unreasonable to justify the code without the variances. Now, the developer has the burden of showing that. We don't have to be the Planning Commission. The neighbors don't have to say, well, here's what you can do without the variances. The developer has to say and he hasn't said, that I (the developer) cannot reasonably use the property without the variances. He intended to buy the property for his home which is a matter of record. There is no reason that he cannot put a one family home there. Again, back to the hardship definition. The plight of the landowners has to be unique to the property not created by the landowner. There is nothing unique about the bluffs. The variance will not alter the essential character of the community. The essential character of the area is that we have bluffs around the whole wetland and there isn't one house with stilts in that bluff impact zone. So for that reason, the variance would fail. Economic hardship is not an excuse under the zoning code." Mr. Casey. "Back to point number 2, about the private street. Section 330:95, Subd. 11, indicates that private street should not be permitted unless approved as part of Conditional Use Permit for an overall development plan. So it gives an exception there. But the Planning Commission Minutes indicate that the Planner, Mr. Koegler stated that he does not recall any private roads in the last ten years being approved and that was part of the Planning Commission findings. So there is no precedent for private roads. This private road supposedly will exceed the zoning code requirement of 8 % grade. That was also referred to in the Planning Commission Minutes. Zoning Code Section 350:440, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 Subd. 8, states that, "No building permit shall be issued for any lot ..... which does not abut a dedicated, improved public street." No exceptions to that. So a building permit cannot be granted unless you have a public street for Lots 1 and 2. Also, Section 350:445, Subd. 5, states that all lots shall have direct adequate physical access for emergency vehicles along the frontage of the lot from an existing dedicated improved public roadway. Lots 1 & 2 will not have a dedicated improved public roadway. There is really no reason to allow these variances. There is the cul-de-sac length that they want to extend on Windsor Road an additional 50% beyond the code length of 500 feet to about 720 feet. No showing of why. Why can't you just have a normal length of road there. There is a cul-de-sac radius shrinkage from 50 feet to 10 feet. The end results in a paved right-of-way width along the road from 50 feet a variance down to 40 feet, a paved area of the cul-de-sac bubble with a variance going down from 40 feet to 35 feet. Also there's discussion of a street gradient variances for Windsor Road going from 8% up to 13%. Also a street width variance from 28 feet to 24 feet. All these variances fall within the subdivision code and if there is a little confusion about what pan of the variance section you use, you use the most restrictive. So if you are looking at other pans of the code, you always apply the most restrictive pan of the code and this is contained in Section 330:170. Again, it talks about other special circumstances or conditions affecting a property that would deprive the landowner of reasonable use of the land. Are there special circumstances? No. Not the bluffs. There is nothing special about the topography. That area is like the other side of the lake, steep, erosional problems, etc. Is there reasonable use of the land? There's no allegations that there can't be. There is nothing in the record that says that there can't be reasonable use without the variances." Mr. Casey. "The subdivision variances fail for that reason. They fall for the other reason, Section 330:170" ...... granting the variance will not have an adverse effect upon traffic or traffic safety." Mr. Casey. "If you shrink the road and increase the gradients, I think one would have to conclude that it's going to have a safety problem or at least raise safety issues." Mr. Casey. ~Finally, the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. We have talked about this before and other people will again, the impact of the Windsor Road retaining walls on their property and the variances needed for that. The record is loaded with reasons why not to approve the subdivision variances." Mr. Casey then addressed the retaining wall issue. He stated, "I am not going to get into the facts too much but just talk about the legal pan of this. Section 330:95, Subd. 12 says, the street arrangements shall not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting their own land and providing convenient access to their land. I would say a 6 foot wall on the south side of the property would make inconvenient access. The other part of that is there was a vacation attempt about 3 years ago. The developer came and asked to vacate Cobden Lane. That was denied because there was a lack of public interest. There was no showing that there was any public good. Now we're coming back here and doing it the other way. They MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 are saying we are not going to get our way through vacation so we're going to take Cobden Lane. That retaining wall goes right down the old Cobden Lane, depriving the public the rights of reasonable use of that right-of-way or street. In Minnesota Case Law, the Minneapolis Athletic Club vs. Kohler, 177 N.W. 2nd, 786, 1970 Supreme Court Case talks about reasonable use of public right-of-way and that would be to have a retaining wall at an unequal level on that particular parcel going down toward the wetland. "I would say this is not providing reasonable use of the property. Also, if there is going to be additional landscaping or fill or slopes on adjoining property, that would need a fill permit under Section 350:1225, Subd. 4, B., if there is 10 yards or more. ~ Mr. Casey then spoke about park dedication fees. He stated, "It is a new deal now. You're starting over again and under the Mound building plat, you have to issue park dedication fees. The citizens of Mound were robbed the last time. The ordinance is very clear. 10% of the market value of the property is how you set the park dedication fees. The developer has said in letters that the property is worth somewhere between $263,000 and $290,000. The park dedication fees that were imposed before were about $21,000 too low. You imposed $4,500 instead of the minimum of $26,300 to $29,000. We are losing $20,000 if you don't do it right and I think the public needs to see that the park dedication fees are properly charged, if this Council looks at it again and applies those fees correctly. Mr. Casey then spoke on miscellaneous procedural issues. ~Section 350:460, Subd. 2, B. says, the application for the preliminary plat shall also be submitted with all variances detailed and explained. I looked at the new preliminary plat application and there is no explanation of variances. It goes on to say that all variances must be so noted on the preliminary plat at the time of application. There is no notation of variances on there. Pretty hard to even decipher what the reasons are for the variance request when it's not part of the application." Mr. Casey then spoke about open spaces. "Section 350:1235, Subd. 5 says, .... "before final approval of a PDA, planned development area, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces." Mr. Casey. ~They are not just talking about hardcover. They are talking about additional protections to that land. In the code it talks about protecting the land from vegetative and topographical alterations and the storage of vehicles and materials. How much? 50% of the total project must be preserved as open space, not by zoning regulations but actually by, and the code suggests, restrictions, conservation easements, things of that nature, be adopted in a permanent nature. I would request that the Planning Department sit down and calculate out the 50% open spaces and see if it complies. I don't think it does and it is not protected if it is because the conservation easements only cover the bluff impact area right now. 70% of the shore impact zone must be preserved as open space with the appropriate language in the zoning code on those easements, which I haven't seen yet and I suspect are not there. So you /¢7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 need to look back and apply the zoning code to the open space provisions. Mr. Casey. "Another provision of the new zoning code is that the PDA dwelling units must be clustered into one or more groups. That is Section 350:1235, Subd. 5, D. 1. The code says in a PDA on a shoreline, those have to be clustered in one or more groups. I maintain that they are not clustered. They are in normal property arrangements. So I'd go back to the planning stage and see how that is all going to all work out. Thorough review of the documents are necessary.' Mr. Casey. "Another part is the storm water disposal plan. There was an application in that regard and the watershed district has tabled that. Section 330.130, Subd. 7, says, "In an area not having municipal storm trunk service, (this area does not have storm sewer service), there has to be a storm water disposal plan approved by the City Council before you approve the final plat." Mr. Casey. "The EAW was done several years ago with extensive comments to it. I think those comments are very important to look at and should be part of the Council packet because I think they will give you a perspective on deciding what to do with this parcel of property." Mr. Casey further stated, "that an EAW petition was filed with the EQB today and faxed to City Hall about 4:15 P.M. That petition for the EAW is not asking the City Council to redo it, but just that in the event that the project changes substantially and has a potential for significantly affecting the environment that you look at doing a new EAW first. So that petition has been filed with the EQB and under the rules it states that if a petition is filed for an EAW, a final government decision may not be made until a petition for an EAW is dismissed and a declaration on the need for an EIS is issued, etc. This petition needs to be dealt with before going forward. If it is the Council's desire to deny the plat tonight, we would withdraw that petition." Mr. Casey stated, "that there are numerous reasons to deny the plat and hoped the Council agreed." Harold Meeker, 5132 Waterbury Road - stated, ~that he has Power of Attorney for the Rogers family over Lots 1 & 2, Block 17, because Mr. Rogers is home to pass away.~ Also he requested that City Staff and developers leave the Rogers alone on Lots 1 and 2. He asked that the property be left alone so that everyone can enjoy it. John Edewaard, 5125 Hanover Road - "There are a lot of ordinances and standards, policies by the Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources that have commented on this project. Just today the DNR apparently sent a letter to the City indicating that this project should be denied citing environmental issues. They state in the letter that, at the time the city originally approved the Teal Pointe development, the city had not yet adopted their shoreland management regulations. The City has subsequently adopted the shoreland management regulations and the DNR has approved the City's regulations. The DNR felt it was not advisable to approve the plat in 1993 and now they believe it is directly contrary to existing city regulations to approve the plat MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 as it is currently proposed. DNR Hydrologist, Ceil Strauss, was recommending that the plat be denied. The DNR questioned whether development should occur in the bluff area at ail. The Hennepin County Soils Survey recommends against any construction on slo s exceeding 19%. The slopes of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and possibly Lot 4 are pretty steep. I think they reach in some areas 45% to 50%. These slopes would have the characteristics of becoming highly erodible once they are disturbed. There is no way to minimize the effect that heavy equipment would have on the bluff area itself. Any way you look at it you are going to have a significant amount of runoff. The Metropolitan Council comments on the EAW that the conclusion by the City was incorrect in that the development wouldn't have any effect on the wetland. I can't see how it wouldn't have an impact on the wetland just by increasing the erosion. If you look at the water management plan, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and back of 5 may wash directly into the wetland. The only water that is captured by the detention basin are the front yards of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Just by increasing the slope of the road to 13%, you will be increasing the runoff which will exceed the threshold by Minnehaha Watershed District Rule B which states there is no net increase in wetland for the project." Mr. Edewaard. "The developers, Mr. Bessesson, Mr. Weber and Mr. Bame, have failed to substantiate that they have a hardship here. I think Mr. Weber sold the property to the Teal Pointe Development Company with constructive notice as to what the shoreland standards were. Mr. Weber stated at one of the first Planning Commission meetings that they needed to build homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3 in order to maintain profitability for their project. Economic considerations alone, are reasons to deny this plat. ~ Mr. Edewaard. "The supplemental planning report, dated January 5, 1995, indicates that you have three aiternatives. I don't think that aiternative #1 is reasonable because you place the burden of this development on the adjoining property owners. I think that the developer has a responsibility to the Council and the people here to demonstrate that he has done the necessary things to insure that his project can go ahead by obtaining easements or whatever from the neighbors. I don't think he has been genuine in obtaining those." Mr. Edewaard. ~The DNR policy recommends that ail runoff leaving the site should be treated with retention ponds prior to discharge into the neighboring wetland. The proper treatment of storm water will help retain the existing water quaiity in nearby basins. All these are serious issues. In terms of runoff, imagine in a 10 year period lets say 200 cubic yards of soil eroding from your property at the foundation, for example.' Mr. Edewaard. "The Metropolitan Council in their examination of the EAW, in a letter to Mr. Koegler, indicated that there is no way to prevent erosion in the bluff area. Teal Pointe's surveyor even indicated to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that it is impossible to capture the runoff in the bluff area." Mr. Edewaard. "Regarding the retaining wail. The subdivision ordinance states that you cannot design roads that would be injurious to adjoining property owners. Looking at a line on a drawing does not show exactly where the retaining wail will be placed. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 A 13 % grade on the road is pretty steep and I would question whether anyone would be able to get out of there in the winter in the conditions that we had this last weekend. The retaining wall would be injurious to the Rogers' property and I think it would affect some other adjoining property owners also. I think in one of the first sketch plans in 1985, the developer, proposed to get access to the site from Drummond Road, but that again was too steep and he couldn't navigate a road there either. This really has to go back to the Planning Commission and I think there is a real need for some reconsideration here. H Mr. Edewaard. HThe City Code states that hardships used in connection with granting a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use. Mr. Casey stated, pretty plainly, that there are quite a few other things that Mr. Weber, Mr. Bame, Mr. Besseson could do with the property. He has come before the Council before threatening to increase density and all kinds of other things, so he, himself has admitted there are other options other than the one he is proposing here tonight." Mr. Edewaard. "Some additional considerations are, that the City of Mound has in the past denied application for variances, both minor and major subdivisions, through the application of the code ordinances. I don't think the City should contradict these rulings by offering Teal Pointe variances to build on the bluff. I think that is in direct conflict with some of the attempts the City has made over the last couple of years in adopting its new zoning ordinances. I think the likelihood is pretty high that in the future you are going to need to grant some variances for a lot of this property. I see in the Teal Pointe Homeowners Association documents there is some restriction regarding building but I believe that with the erosion impacts up in the higher area, that you wouldn't have a choice but to come back to the Council and ask for variances for other things. ' Mr. Edewaard. "I personally don't think this is a very well conceived project." Mr. Edewaard further complained about the timing of receiving information related to this public heating. Brad Biermann, 5106 Windsor Road - stated that his property borders the northern part of Windsor Road. "Regardless of whether you reduce the street width, get fid of the retaining wall on the north side, I still have a problem with drainage on my property. All my property slopes down to that comer and I just feel that with the road going thru there I'm going to have a problem with puddling in the Spring, or a big rain storm and I'm going to be looking at a small lake down there. Also, if I allow fill, I have mature trees on that section of my property that will probably be killed from the fill after a period of a few years and if I allow the retaining wall, I get a steel corrugated wall which doesn't appeal to me. I'm caught here. I either allow fill or I look at a steel wall. I know the developer has a fight to develop his property but by the same token I don't see why I need to sacrifice any of my property. I would think if you were developing a piece of property, one of the first things you would have done was to figure out how you were going to get into your property without affecting anyone else. I'm not real thrilled about have a retaining wall being placed in front of my property. ~ MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 Todd Rask, 5109 Dr~mmond Road - stated that his driveway is right across the sweet from the proposed private road. "I have some concerns about the private road concerning water runoff and snow removal. I think if you look at those lots and apply the bluff properties to it you will find that probably they're not dealing with setbacks you are dealing with the bluff itself. So I think there is going to be a real runoff problem there. Right now a lot of us walk down Cobden Lane, out onto the slough and out onto the lake. I would like to know if there is a provision with these walls. I know at one time they were talking about an 11 foot wall which would be insurmountable by foot. Are there going to be provisions for us to cross that somehow if the wall is installed?" Jim Brunsell, 5111 Windsor Road - stated the following: "That he has lived here 3 years and bought Neil Weber's house so he was well aware that there could be a development down below my property. I really felt that this was an area that would listen to its citizens and with all the variances and this wall, it's awful. I put a lot of money into upgrading and developing my home, trying to make it a better place for me an my community and my block and now I sit there and have to look at half my property having a wall that goes down 95 feet up to a pitch of 15 feet that comes around. On top of that, we have to look at having some kind of supports put in so that cars do not go off the road or whatever and that's going to help me? This is awful. I can't buy it. I will not, if it comes to the road coming in with that wall, I will not allow them to come and build or be on my property, or for you as the City, to come and maintain that wall on my property. I ask you one thing. If you had to be abutting property owners, looking at this, would you want to look at this? You know, for all the work you do on your homes and all the property you have, would you want to have to look at this? Isn't there a better way?" The Mayor brought the matter back to the Council. He asked if the Council had any questions of the staff or the developer at this time. Councilmember Ahrens asked the City Engineer about the storm water retention pond. She asked if anything has changed. The City Engineer stated he has not seen anything. He stated he is not sure where this stands with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It was approved originally, but there were conditions attached to the approval and as far has he knows those conditions haven't been met so they have never been issued an actual permit. He stated he is not sure where that stands. When the final plat was approved before, that was one of the conditions of the final plat, that they be issued all of the necessary permits before the final plat was signed. The Engineer stated that we have the PCA permit for the sanitary sewer extension and it is the only one we have in hand. He suggested asking the developer where the watershed district permit stands. Neil Weber stated that they were on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Agenda for approval, but because of what happened in November, they took it off. Mr. Weber stated it was a standard approval and everything was there so they just pulled it off until it gets reapproved by the City. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Polston, to direct the staff to prepare a resolution of denial with the findings of fact as listed by the Planning Commission and bring it back to the next meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 MOTION made by Hanus, to table the issue and have staff continue to work with the developer specifically in the areas of establishing some closer criteria for a shortened retaining wall and the possibility of a variance to a 13% grade to the road. Also, to work with the applicant to consider reduction of Lots 1, 2 and 3 to 2 bulldable lots, thus reducing the impact on that bluff area. Also, looking at it this has a potential for eliminating the need for the street frontage variance. Mr. Hanus explained that he thinks there is a chance with only 2 lots in the bluff area, there might be enough frontage there to abut the public roadway. The motion died for lack of a second. The City Engineer stated he believes there is enough frontage on Drummond Road to allow 2 builclable lots in the bluff area instead of 3. Mayor Polston stated that he has a problem with what is being proposed because there are 8 variances being requested which he considered major variances. He also stated that he doesn't feel the Council should get into trying to design the plat. Councilmember Jensen stated that this case involves raw land which has been proposed for a subdivision into 9 parcels using the Planned Development Area (PDA). PDA allows development flexibility. It involves, using the term variance, but it is still an opportunity for raw land to be developed in a way that does not impose the same restrictions and allows some creativity in how that is accomplished. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with conditions, with input from the Council on the conditions, and bring this resolution back to the Council at the next meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Edewaard asked that he receive a copy of the minutes from tonight. Mr. Casey stated that since an EAW petition was filed, a motion for approval is not in order. He stated that the Council needs to look at the EAW process first before this matter is brought before the Council for final plat approval, as specified in Rule 4410. The City Attorney read the statute to the Council. "An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) shall also be prepared for proposed action whenever material evidence accompanying a petition, by not less than 25 individuals, submitted before the proposed project has received final approval, by the appropriate governmental units, demonstrates that because of the nature or location of a proposed action, there may be a potential for significant environmental effects." He further stated that he understands that this process has been undertaken already in connection with this project. However, he just heard a lot of input about the project from staff and the people here and he was not aware of any material changes that have been made to the project. Mr. Weber has stated that this is the same project you reviewed before and he is asking the Council to approve it again. ,lo& MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 Mr. Casey responded that when that pefiton is filed with the Environmental Qualtity Board, you receive a copy, and the City's comment period on that, even its right to decide whether or not an EAW should be done, starts from the date the City receives it from the EQB. Mr. CASEY then stated the following: "So in a sense, you can't make a final ruling until you get the copy from the EQB and then comment within that 15 day time period. So it would be inappropriate to say tonight that the EAW is not necessary because you haven't received it yet. But it has probably been filed and kicks the statute (the rule) in that says you can't make a final order or final approval until that's done." The City Attorney asked Mr. Casey the following: "Is it your opinion that you can serially do that and forever block the project?~ Mr. Casey responded: "Well, I think any order that is taken and your not filing in good faith then somewhere down the line there could be problems, but I think these people filed in good faith. ~ The City Attorney advised that it is within the discretion of this Council to make a determination that there is no material evidence presented that indicates that this is in any way different from the project that was already reviewed in the context of an EAW and therefore, it is not necessary to do another EAW. Mr. Casey maintained that the decision has to be made after the City receives the EQB's petition that was filed. The City Attorney asked if that has happened yet? Mr. Casey stated, "No, that the fax came not from the EQB, but from the petitioner. The EQB has not sent a copy." Councilmember Jessen asked why did the petition come today. Mr. Casey responded that they had to get 25 signatures and that it was not easy to organize the neighborhood. Councilmember Jensen asked for clarification from the City Attorney. She asked if we have taken final action on this? The City Attorney answered, no. Councilmember Jensen stated since that is the case we have time between now and two weeks from now to receive said item and take action on that item prior to taking action on the proposed resolution. The City Attorney stated that he thinks that is a good point and that will enable the staff to read the regulations that Mr. Casey is referring to be in a better position to advise the Council on what is required of the Council, given the reilling of a request for an EAW. Mr. Casey argued that unless the decision is reversed to deny the proposal, he considers the action taken tonight as the final decision to approve, which Mr. Casey stated cannot be made tonight. Councilmember Jensen stated that if deliberations among the staff result in a determination that bringing this back is two weeks is not a wise action, don't bring it back in two weeks. She stated that she feels these things can move in parallel not in series. 1.2 COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-1 RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: ED SURKO AND JERRY CLAPSADDLE TO THE PLANNING COMNHSSION; DAVID MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 199~ STEINBRING, PETER MEYER AND TOM CASEY TO THE PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMM[qSION; AND DAVE WILLETTE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMI~qSION - 3 YEAR TERMS - EXPIRING 12131197 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.3 APPOINTME~ OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1995 Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LIZ JENSEN ACTING MAYOR FOR 1995 Motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RKSOLUTION//95-3 RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY CLERK FRAN CLARK ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-4 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL BONDS 1.5 Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: Councilmember Hanus questioned why the resolutions for the bonds are worded the way they are. The City Manager will get an explanation and report back to the Council. RESOLUTION g95-5 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in favor. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1.6 JANUARY 10, 1995 Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #9~-6 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR Motion carried. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g95-7 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.7 TIlE OFFICIAL The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTME~ OF COUNCIL REPRFSENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS 1.8 Polston moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ANDREA AHRENS TO THE PARK COMMISSION AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 Ahrens moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-9 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.10 Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//95-10 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LIZ JENSEN TO TIlE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 1995 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. John Edewaard stated he would like to offer caution to the City Council. He stated that two years ago Neil Weber came with the project for Teal Pointe, however well it was conceived, he MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1995 filled out the application. The Planning Commission did not review the project the way they should have reviewed it. The City Council went ahead and added condition upon condition to the project, so the project change incrementally. Every time there was a hearing, there were 3 or 4 more concessions that the City made to the proposer. He would like to see this City Council avoid that. He stated he is concerned that in two weeks the resolution that the City Council will be voting on will have more concessions on it. He hopes everyone understands. He then read part of Resolution//93-20. 1.11 APPROVAL OF SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION- NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS WINTERFEST 1995. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a sign permit application for the Northwest Tonka Lions for Winterfest 1995. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 RECOMME~ATION FROM PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE- GUIDELINES FOR PLANTINGS ON PUBLIC SHORELAND. The City Manager explained that the Park Commission has reviewed the guidelines for allowing plantings on public shoreland and they have softened the language so it is more a guideline. This is their recommendation for this. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to amend the public lands procedure manual adding Exhibit "Q" Guidelines for Allowing Plantings on Public Shoreland. Councilmember Jensen and Jessen stated that they are happy with changes and the recommendation for the guidelines. Mayor Polston commented that he has not been exposed to this for some time and in reading it changing the word "Residents" to "General Public" could be a problem because some of the commons are dedicated to the people who live in particular area and using "general public" could be ambiguous and misleading. He asked that this item be discussed at the next COW meeting so he can get a better understanding of what we are talking about. The Council agreed. The maker of the motion withdrew and the seconder withdrew the motion. MOTION made by Jensen, Jessen seconded to table this item to the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A SEGMENT OF BELMONT LANE BETWEEN SHORELINE DRIVE (COUNTY RD. 1~ AND AUDITOR'S ROAD (CONTROl, SECTION 109) AS A MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) STREET. The City Manager explained that in conjunction with the Mound Visions Program, we are looking at a realignment of Auditor's Road. There is a section coming off of County Road 15, known as Belmont, and then tums into Auditor's Road that goes to the rear of the Post Office. That segment is not designated as a Municipal State Aid street. Auditor's Road is and we are asking the State to designate that part of Belmont as MSA. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: JANUARY 10, 1995 RESOLUTION ~95-11 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID HIGHWAYS (BELMONT LANE FROM CSAIt 15 TO AUDITOR'S ROAD) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 PAYMENT OF BILL~ MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $343,898.21, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1994. B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for December 1994. C. LMCD Mailings. Do In late December, I sent you information on the Newly Elected Official's Conference. Mark Hanus has indicated that he wishes to attend. Anyone else interested? We need to send registration in by January 13, to take advantage of the early registration fee. I recommend the conference for not only the new members, but also the incumbents. Let Fran know ASAP so we can send in the registrations. Enclosed is a memorandum from Jim Miller, Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) reminding us of the annual National League of Cities (NLC) Congressional-City Conference to be held in Washington, D.C., March 11-14. Deadline for advance registration is Friday, February 10. If interested in attending, please let Fran known ASAP. The conference brochure is enclosed for your review. Fe Financial Report for November 1994 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Letter dated December 22, 1994, from Moody's Investor Service re: City's Bond Rating. Please note Moodv's has confuxned the rating of "A" which is what the City's rating has been since 1974. Memo dated December 14, 1994, from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) re: 1994 LMCIT property/casualty dividend. A check in the amount of $25,263 was received in late December. I. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of December 8, 1994. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Mo JANUARY 10, 1995 Ne Letter from Steve Erickson, Fire Chief, to City of Shorewood re: Installation of three new dry fire hydrants now in operation on Enchanted Island. At the December 13, 1994, City Council Meeting, the City Council approved amendments to the Water & Sewer Ordinance allowing for a 5 % rate increase in both the water and sewer rates for 1995 pursuant to City Council action in 1993. Questions were raised by the Council concerning provisions in the ordinance re: water and sewer connections and the apparent conflict with existing ordinances which require residences to be hooked up to city water and sewer. The Council directed staff to research these provisions to see if they should be deleted. Staff has determined that the provisions should be retained because there are instances where properties in Minnetrista which border Mound, request hookup to either water or sewer and these provisions that are being questioned would apply in those particular instances. Therefore, staff is recommending that the provisions be retained. While attending the National League of Cities Conference in Minneapolis in early December, Councilmembers Ahrens, Councilmember Elect Mark Hanus and myself attended a session entitled, "Tools for Local Leaders: Strengthening Your City Hall Team". I found the session very interesting and purchased an audio tape for each member of the City Council and myself for future reference. I've given Bob Polston and Mark Hanus their copies. Enclosed are copies for Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Andrea Ahrens. Enclosed is a letter dated December 23, 1994, re: Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting given by the Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA) for the year ended December 31, 1993. This is the fourth year in a row that we have received this distinguished award. We extend our appreciation to Gino Businaro, Finance Director for his hard work and diligence in receiving this award. Thanks also to Gary Groen, Abdo, Abdo & Eick, for his assistance on the award. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, January 17, 1995, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. REMINDER: City Offices closed Monday, January 16, 1994, in observance of Martin Luther King's Birthday. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JANUARY 17, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Bob Polston Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also present: John Cameron, City Engineer; Bruce Chamberlain, Planning Consultant and Ed Shukle, City Manager. City Manager Ed Shukle introduced Bruce Chamberlain who reviewed the progress on the Lost Lake Canal dredging project (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ISTEA - 1997). Discussed were items such as the soil testing and survey work that has been done by soil consultants and the City Engineer. Also discussed was work that is being done by an environmental firm. It was pointed out that the various permitting agencies will be asked to meet with City officials later this winter regarding the number of permits that are going to have to be required for this project. Also discussed was an open house for the public to actually see the plans for the canal dredging project and offer suggestions and provide input on the entire project. Ed Shukle then introduced John Cameron, City Engineer, to discuss the proposed alignment for Auditor's Road. Cameron presented a very preliminary drawing indicating where the alignment is proposed to be along with properties that would have to be acquired in order to obtain the necessary right-of-way for the project. Council consensus was to direct the Engineer to prepare a Right-of-Way Plan which will specifically lay out the alignment and will have estimated costs on property acquisition. Bruce Chamberlain presented information concerning ISTEA grant funds that are currently available for projects to take place between the years 1998 and 2000. He pointed out that one idea was to have a bus shelter, park and ride facility and transit related project around the Lost Lake property. He found out that these were not eligible activities, although, these types of projects might be considered this coming fall when another cycle of funding will begin. Chamberlain suggested that this application should be directed towards a trail and landscaping development plan along Auditor's Road and around to the Lost Lake site. He proposed five items: 2. 3. 4. 5. Construction of a trail from Commerce Boulevard along Auditor's Road, along the Lost Lake boat turn around area and on to the Lost Lake site. Landscape in the parkway area between Auditor's Road and Lost Lake as well as adjacent to the trail on the Lost Lake site. Installation of the landscape features including benches, trash receptacles, lighting and necessary electrical work. Construction of a floating board walk from the Lost Lake site near the ball fields to the commons area at the Lost Lake subdivision. Project administration, design and engineering. He pointed out that under item //4, that the floating board walk becomes a very expensive item. He feels that due to environmental constraints with the wetlands and Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, that this may not a feasible alternative at this time. After further discussion, it was suggested that a resolution be prepared for the January 24, 1995 regular City Council meeting which will outline a proposed project for the ISTEA program based upon items//1, 2, 3 and § above. City Manager Ed Shukle then reported on the Westonka Community Center Task Force's recommendation to the Westonka School Board. He indicated that the task force has been in existence since September, 1994. He indicated that he had been giving reports to the Council at various Committee of the Whole meetings and keeping them informed as to the direction of the task force. He gave background to the Council regarding the purpose of the task force. He indicated that the school board had assembled the task force to identify whether or not the bond amount, as part of the school district's referendum, (1.9 million) should be spent to remodel the existing high school to bring it up to code requirements. He stated that the task force reviewed many different options and concluded that the best option would be for the school district to demolish the existing facility and that a new community center be placed on the site. He talked about joint powers agreements that exist between school districts and cities related to community centers and other facilities. He explained that there is a possibility that the cities within the school district could issue revenue bonds which are not backed by the full faith and credit of the cities, but are paid for by the revenues that are pledged through the fees collected on the facility. He discussed the various uses within the proposed new facility and reviewed those with the Council. He further stated that the task force would make a formal presentation at the next Committee of the Whole meeting to present this idea and to develop support from the City in paying for a survey that would be conducted by a professional survey firm to find out whether there is any interest within the area to support a new community center facility. The City Council briefly discussed the matter and will await the presentation by the task force. The City Manager also indicated that he is currently researching specifically the bond issue idea from the standpoint that the cities would issue bonds and lease the facility back to the school district for their use and other community uses over a period of time. More information will be available at a later date on this matter. The status of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority was briefly discussed. The City Manager indicated that historically, former mayors and councilmembers have served on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. There are currently two vacancies on the board and it is necessary to fill those seats. The idea of the City Council becoming the Housing and Redevelopment Authority was discussed and after further discussion, it was agreed that an article be placed in the Laker indicating that there are two vacancies and soliciting applications for those vacancies. Proposed guidelines for plantings on commons/public lands were briefly discussed. This matter is continued until the next COW meeting. Goal setting issues as prepared by Councilmember Jensen was briefly reviewed and will be on the next COW agenda. Other business discussed included a rink for ice skating at Mound Bay Park in front of the Depot. It was noted that the next meeting for the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 1995 at 7:30 PM. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 111 PM. Res ectfully submitted, Ed Shukle, Jr. City Manager ~PLUM TEL: $$8-2625 ]an 24,95 16:22 No.O01P.02 RESOLUTION 1995-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DECLARING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL CH~%NGE H~S BEEN MADE IN THE PROPOSED TEAL POINTE SUBDIVISION AND DETERMINING THAT ]% NEW EAW IS NOT REQUIRED WHEREAS, the applicant has resubmitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Points in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the project resubmitted for approval is substantially unchanged from the project that previously received preliminary plat approval by the Mound City Council on February 9, 1993 (Resolution 93-20) and final plat approval by the Mound city Councll on May 10, 1994 (Resolution 94-65), and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed by the City as a part of the initial Teal Points subdivision approval process, and WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 10, 1995 by John Edewaard, Mr. Edewaard informed the City that a petition had been filed with the Znvironmental Quality Board (EQB) to complete another EAW for the Teal Points development project, and WHEREAS, EQB Rule 4410.1000, Subpart 5, provides: Change in propose~ project; new E~W. If after a negative declaration has been issued but before the proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented, the RGU determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, a new EAW is required. and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), finds that no substantial change has been made to the proposed project and, therefore, no new EAW is required, WPLUM TEL: $$8-2625 3an 24,95 16:22 No.O01PiO~ ~O~ ~HRR~OR~, B~ X~ RR~OLV~D by ~he City Councfl o£ the City of Mound: 1. No substantlal change has been made to the proposed Teal Pointe project since the time of the original preliminary and final plat approvals. 2. A new EAW is not required. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 176 P02 JRN 20 '95 13:00 I-Io/sinEr~n Koegler Gax)up Inc. MEMORANDUM January 20, 1995 To: Mound City Council From: Bruce Chamberlain, Plarming Consultant Re: Petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Teal Pointe. A letter dated January 10, 1995 by Mr. John Edewaard informed the City that a petition has been filed with the Environmental Quality Board to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Teal Pointe development project. The petitioners claim that the project has undergone material change which warrants a new EAW. As you know, an EAW was completed and decided by the City of Mound acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (R/3U) in I993. Mr. (3reg Downing of the Environmental Quality Board informed me that the petition submitted was incomplete and has been returned to the petitioner for clarification. Mr. Downing also indicated that should a revised petition be submitted to the EQB, the Mound City Council would again be named as the RGU. Therefore, it is the decision of the City Council to determine if there are significant changes to the project since the EAW was first reviewed to warrant a new EAW. In order for a new EAW to be completed, Minnesota Statute Section 4410.1 I00 indicates there must be material evidence of significant environmental effect. The project being proposed has not changed since it was described in the EAW in 1993. Two modifications discussed at the January 10 City Council meeting include a steeper grade on a short section of Windsor Road and a narrower Windsor Road street section. City Staff suggests that the proposed modifications to the project do not constitute material change and pose no added environmental impacts to the project. Therefore, it is Staff's opinion that the previous EAW remains valid. S~aff recommends that the City Council, acting as the RGU, determine there is no material change to the Teal Pointe project and that the decision be passed along to the EQB. If you have any questions, Staff will be available at the Council meeting. ttC:: MOUNDt9 2- J TJI£~4 ~[' IS T M ,If.M land Use / Environmental ' Planning / Design 7300 Met~ Boule~-atd / Suite 525 · Minneal~li~, Minnemu 55439 · (612) 835-9960" (612) 835-3160 January, 24, 1995 RESOLUTION #95-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND VARIANCES, AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Pointe in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the project submitted for approval is substantially unchanged from the project that received preliminary plat approval by the Mound City CounCil on February 9, 1993 (Resolution 93-20) and final plat approval by the Mound City Council on May 10, 1994 (Resolution 94-65), and WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish Teal Pointe as a Planned Development Area (PDA), together with a request for street design variances and variances from the bluff setback provisions of the Mound City Code, and WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and WHEREAS, the City Council, on January 10, 1995, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Teal Pointe Subdivision located on property described as follows: Lots 2, 3, 4, 22, 23 and 24 Block 11, "WHIPPLE"; That part of Lots 13 through 21, inclusive, Block 10, "WHIPPLE," and that part of Lot 1, Block 11, in said plat, together with that part of vacated Cobden Lane, as dedicated in said plat lying North of the Westerly extension of the South line of said Block 10, also together with that part of the North half of vacated Drummond Road as dedicated in said plat lying East of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Block 10, all which lie Southerly of a line described as beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of East along the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 22 feet; thence South 41 degrees 59 minutes 14 seconds East, 26.91 feet; thence South 44 degrees 03 minutes 39 seconds East, 43.14 feet; thence South 50 degrees 21 minutes 21 seconds January 24, 1995 East, 45.45 feet; thence South 51 degrees 20 minutes 25 seconds East, 19.21 feet; thence South 50 degrees 28 minutes 39 seconds East, 51.86 feet; thence South 68 degrees 11 minutes 55 seconds East, 43.08 feet; thence South 80 degrees 04 minutes 26 seconds East, 40.61 feet; thence North 75 degrees 57 minutes 50 seconds East, 41.23 feet; thence North 78 degrees 41 minutes 24 seconds East, 40.79 feet; thence on a bearing of East, 40 feet; thence South 47 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds East to the South line of said Lot 21, Block 10; thence East to the Southeast corner of said Lot 21; thence South along the extension of the East line of said Lot 21 to the centerline of vacated Drummond Road and there terminating. ALSO Lots 1 to 26 inclusive, Block 15, and Lots 1 to 26, Block 16, "WHIPPLE"; That portion of vacated Windsor Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of "WHIPPLE" as Windsor Place, which lies Easterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of Lot 13, Block 16 to the Southwest corner of Lot 14, Block 15, and Westerly of a line drawn from the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 16 to the Southeast comer of Lot 26, Block 15, said addition, That portion of vacated Drummond Road, dedicated to the public in the plat of "WHIPPLE," which lies South of the centerline thereof, Easterly of a line drawn from the Northwest comer of Lot 13, Block 15 to the Southwest comer of Lot 14, Block 10, and Westerly of a line drawn from the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 15, to the Southeast comer of Lot 26, Block 10, said addition, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat, the planned development area, the variances, and the final plat taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement, location, width of streets, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and WHEREAS, the street variances for Drummond Road and Windsor Road will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing paved streets, and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and WHEREAS, the applicant prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project, the project was modified to reflect information collected during the preparation of and comment period for the EAW and the Mound City Council acting as the RGU determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not warranted for the project, and January 24, 1995 WHEREAS, the Indian Affairs Council has reviewed the project as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and has given their approval, and WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations, and WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided, and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the existing land use in the area, and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is exceptional in that it is irregularly shaped and has unusual topography, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature vegetation which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography of the site requires some variation from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the Zoning Code to allow the preservation of existing trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, and WHEREAS, due to the shape of the parcel, existing topography and existing vegetation, a variation from the requirements of the bluff setback provisions of the Zoning Code will allow the distribution of home sites throughout the property avoiding a concentration of homes on the peninsula area off of Windsor Road, and WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty created by the shape and topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing vegetation, and WHEREAS, the granting of variances will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same district, and WltEREAS, the granting of variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: January 24, 1995 Preliminary Plat approval, Final Plat approval, approval of issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Development Area including the designation of Outlot A as a private street and the following variances: · Street frontage variances for Lots 1-3 which will front on an extension of Drummond Road. Lot 1 requires a 36 foot variance, Lots 2 and 3 each require a 20 foot variance from the 60 foot minimum frontage standard. Lot width variances for Lots 2 and 3. Lot 2 requires a 6 foot variance and Lot 3 requires a 17 foot variance from the minimum 60 foot width requirement. A variance from Section 330:1225, Subd. 4(B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the bluff impact zone and/or bluff area. A 220 foot variance from the maximum 500 foot cul-de-sac length on Windsor Road. A 10 foot variance from the required 50 foot right-of-way width for Windsor Road and a 10 foot variance from the required 50 radius cul-de-sac bubble on Windsor Road. A 5 foot variance from the 40 foot standard on the paved area of the cul- de-sac bubble and a 4 foot variance from the standard 28 foot street width, both on Windsor Road. A variance on lots 1-3 from the bluff area setback requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance section 350:1225. A 5% street grade variance from the maximum 8% on Windsor Road. are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements and those found within the City Engineer's memo dated December 7, 1994: The preliminary plat drawings labeled as Exhibit A and the final plat drawings labeled as Exhibit B are hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. o The Homeowner's Association documents labeled as Exhibit C are hereby incorporated into this Resolution. The Conservation Easement labeled as Exhibit D is hereby incorporated into this Resolution. o o o January 24, 1995 The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of $155,000 (125% of estimated construction costs) as per plans approved by the City Engineer. Outlot B as shown on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the City of Mound. The Developer shall furnish the City Attorney with all necessary information and assistance to transfer Outlot B to the City. This transaction shall be completed prior to the City releasing the final plat and shall be filed at the same time the plat is placed of record. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the City showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Teal Pointe. o 10. 11. 12. Outlot A shall be limited in use to a private street and utility extension of Drummond Road to serve Lots 1, 2 and 3. An undivided 1/a interest in Outlot A shall be conveyed to each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and bound to those parcels in the property tax records. It is further understood that all tax parcel descriptions shall include the individual lot and the 1/a undivided interest in Outlot A and this may not be divided off in the future. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall become null and void. The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Windsor Road and in any other portion of the plat shall be borne by the developer, including a sanitary sewer pumping station design approved by the City Engineer. Street and Utility plans prepared by the developer shall indicate grades which accommodate pedestrian access through the Cobden Lane right-of-way. Plans are to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the City releasing the final plat. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. January 24, 1995 A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision according to the homeowner's documents attached as Exhibit C. All these documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The retaining wall proposed along Windsor Road shall be constructed using a stone-faced modular block retaining wall system or other stone retaining wall system. Color, material and construction drawings shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the City releasing the final plat. Sanitary sewer service for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be provided by private individual lift pumps with the forcemains combined into one common line located in Outlot A. This private line shall discharge into the public system located in Drummond Road. The maintenance and/or replacement of these lift stations shall be the responsibility of the owners. The City shall not have responsibility for the maintenance or replacement of the lift stations. Homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and cantilevered structures. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement. Impervious cover on individual residential lots shall be limited to no more than 30% of the lot area. Building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Official. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the property. Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $4,500 is to be paid prior to the City releasing the final plat. Any outstanding cash balance in the escrow account plus an additional $2,500 necessary to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative fees shall be deposited with the City prior to the City releasing the final plat. January 24, 1995 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: I I EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B Teal Pointe Final Plat Resolution//95- EXHIBIT 'C' 1. Articles of Incorporation of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association 2. By-Laws of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association 3. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF TEAL POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THE UNDERSIGNED, for the purpose of forming a corporation under and pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation Act, Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes, and laws amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, does hereby adopt the following Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE I. NAME The name of this corporation shall be Teal Pointe Homeowners Association. ARTICLE II. PURPOSES The purpose of the corpo~ ation shall be to acquire, manage, construct and maintain association property, and also to promote the health, safety and welfare of residents within the plat of Teal Pointe, according to the plat thereof filed of record with the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the corporation by annexation as provided for and in accordance with the provisions of recorded declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to said Teal Pointe, hereinafter referred to as the "Properties", and specifically for the purpose of constituting and acting as an association of the owners of lots in the platted subdivision known as Teal Pointe. For the purposes aforesaid, the corporation shall have the following powers: a. To operate and function exclusively as a non-profit corporation with rights, powers and privileges permitted by Chapter 317A, Minnesota Statutes; b. To exercise all the powers and privileges and perform all the undertakings of the Corporation as set forth in that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, filed or to be filed for registration in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Declarations"), as the same may be amended or supplemented fxom time to time as therein provided; Co To exercise all the powers and privileges and perform all the undertakings of the Corporation as required, authorized, or otherwise permitted under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515A, as amended from time to time, to the extent consistent with the Declarations and the purposes set forth herein; d. To fix charges and assessments to be levied against the Properties; eo To promulgate and enforce such rules and regulations as are reasonably deemed necessary to achieve the Corporation's proper objectives, and duly enforce all covenants, restrictions and agreements applicable to the Properties, including architectural control of the resident lots; fo To pay all real estate taxes and assessments, if any, on any common areas or outlots owned by the Corporation and to pay all expenses in connection with the conduct of the affairs of the Corporation; go To do each and every thing necessary, suitable or proper for the accomplishment of any of the purposes or the attainment of the objectives herein enumerated or which should appear at any time conducive to the protection or benefit of the corporation. The foregoing enumeration of powers is made in furtherance and not in limitation of the powers conferred upon the corporation by law and is not intended, by mention of any particular power, to limit or restrict any lawful power to which the corporation is othemrise entitled. ARTICLE III. NON-PROFIT STATUS This corporation is organized as a non-profit corporation. The corporation shall in no way, directly or indirectly, incidentally or otherwise, afford pecuniary gain to any of its members, directors or officers. 2 ARTICLE IV. DURATION The duration of this corporation shah be perpetual. ARTICLE V. REGISTERED OFFICE The registered office of this corporation in the State of Minnesota shall be follows: ARTICLE VI. INCORPORATOR The name and post office address of the Incorporator of this corporation are as Name Address Neil Weber P.O. Box 33 Waverly, MN 55390 ARTICLE VII. BOARD OF DIRECTORS The number of directors constituting the first Board of Directors is three. The first Board of Directors shall serve one (1) year or Until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The first Board of Directors of the corporation shall be elected by the Incorporator as provided by law. The second Board of Directors and all successive Boards shah be elected by the members of the corporation, and such boards shall consist of not less than three or more than ten members. The exact number of directors shah be determined by the members. Each director shall be either the owner of a lot in Teal Pointe, have an interest therein, or in the event of corporate ownership or interest, be an officer or designated agent of the corporation. The Board of Directors or the members shall create one non-voting position on the Board to be filled by a community member who resides within 300 feet of the Properties, such position to be appointed by the Mound City Council, under such terms and conditions as it shall deem appropriate, consistent with conditions as have been imposed by the Mound City Council for approval of the final plat. The Board of Directors shall conduct the affairs of the corporation and shall have the authority to alter and amend the By-Laws of the corporation. ARTICLE VIII. MEMBERSHIP Voting membership of this corporation shall consist of those persons who are the owners of the lots in Teal Pointe or the developer of Teal Pointe (as those terms are defined in the Declarations). Membership shall be transferable only in connection with the transfer of right to possession of a lot. The other qualifications of members, the manner of their admission to the Corporation, and voting by such members shall be as set forth in the By-Laws. ARTICLE IX. LIABILITY Members, Directors and officers of this corporation shall not be personally liable for the payment of any debts or obligations of this corporation of any nature whatsoever, nor shall any of the property of the members, Directors and officers be subject to the payment of the debts or obligations of this corporation to any extent whatsoever. This corporation shall indemnify every member, Director or officer of this corporation against expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which 4 such member, Director or officer may be made a party by reason of being a member, Director or officer of this corporation to the full extent permitted by law. ARTICLE X. STOCK This corporation shall have no capital stock. ARTICLE XI. MEETINGS This corporation shall meet annually at such place and at such time as may be fixed by the Board of Directors from time to time. Special meetings of the corporation may be held as provided by the By-Laws of the corporation. ARTICLE XII. BY-LAWS The Board of Directors of this corporation may adopt and amend (by a majority vote) such By-Laws not inconsistent with these Articles of Incorporation or with the laws of the State of Minnesota as is deemed to be in the best interest of the corporation or to carry out and make effective these Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE XIII. AMENDMENTS These Articles of Incorporation may be amended from time to time at any regular or special meeting of the Board-of Directors of this corporation by majority vote. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-named incorporators has executed these Articles of Incorporation this day of ,1994. INCORPORATOR: Neil Weber January 24, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95-12 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DECLARING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PROPOSED TEAL POINTE SUBDIVISION DETERMINING THAT A NEW EAW IS NOT REQUIRED WHEREAS, the applicant has resubmitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Pointe in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the project resubmitted for approval is substantially unchanged from the project that previously received preliminary plat approval by the Mound City Council on February 8, 1993, (Resolution//93-20) and final plat approval by the Mound City Council on May 10, 1994, (Resolution//94-65); and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed by the City as a part of the initial Teal Pointe subdivision approval process; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 10, 1995, by John Edewaard, Mr. Edewaard informed the City that a petition had been filed with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to complete another EAW for the Teal Pointe development project; and WHEREAS, EQB Rule 4410.1000, Subpart 5, provides: Change in proposed project; new EAW. If after a negative declaration has been issued but before a proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented, the RGIJ determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, a new EAW is required. and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), finds that no substantial change has been made to the proposed project and, therefore, no new EAW is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 12 January 24, 1995 1. No substantial change has been made to the proposed Teal Pointe project since the time of original preliminary and final plat approvals. 2. A new EAW is not required. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Ahrens, lensen, and lessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Polston. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk 13 Jarluary 24, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95-12 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DECLARING THAT NO gUBgTANTIAL CHANGE HAg BEEN MADE IN THE PROPOSED TEAL POINTE SUBDIVISION DETERMINING THAT A NEW EAW IS NOT REQUIRED WHEREAS, the applicant has resubmitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Pointe in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the project resubmitted for approval is substantially unchanged from the project that previously received preliminary plat approval by the Mound City Council on February 8, 1993, (Resolution #93-20) and final plat approval by the Mound City Council on May 10, 1994, (Resolution #94-65); and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed by the City as a part of the initial Teal Pointe subdivision approval process; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 10, 1995, by John Edewaard, Mr. Edewaard informed the City that a petition had been filed with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to complete another EAW for the Teal Pointe development project; and WHEREAS, EQB Rule 4410.1000, Subpart 5, provides: Change in proposed project; new EAW. If after a negative declaration has been issued but before a proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented, the RGU determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, a new EAW is required. and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), finds that no substantial change has been made to the proposed project and, therefore, no new EAW is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 12 January 24, 1995 1. No substantial cl~ange l~as been made to the proposed Teal Pointe project since the time of original preliminary and final plat approvals. 2. A new EAW is not required. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Al~rens and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Ahrens, Jensen, and Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Polston. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk BY-LAWS OF TEAL POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I. OFFICES The principal office of the corporation in the State of Minnesota shall be located in the City of Mound, County of Hennepin, or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall designate. The registered office of the corporation, required by the Minnesota Non-profit Corporation Act, Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes, to be maintained in the State of Minnesota, may be, but need not be, identical with the principal office in the State of Minnesota, and the address of the registered office may be changed from time to time by the Board of Directors. ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS Section 1. "Developer" shall mean Teal Pointe Development Company, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. Section 2. "Common Area" does not exist on this plat. Section 3. "Lot" means any of Lots 1 through 9, Block 1, Teal Pointe, as shown under any recorded subdivision plat or map of Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Outlots included in Teal Pointe shall not be deemed "Lots" for the purposes of these definitions. Section 4. "Owner" shall mean the one or more persons or entities, who, as record owner, contract vendee, tenant, or subtenant (including an under-tenant from a subtenant) or assignee of a contract vendee, tenant or subtenant, or of such an assignee, is entitled of record to possession of any Lot which is part of the Property, or if there is no such person, then the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any such lot, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section 5. "Property" shall mean Lots 1 through 9, Block 1, Outlot A and Outlot B, Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be annexed by amendment to the Declaration. Section 6. "Community Facilities" do not exist in this plat. Section 7. "Declaration shall mean and refer to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, to be filed for registration in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and shall include any amended or supplemental Declaration executed in accordance with the provisions thereof. ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS Section 1. Membership. Every Owner, except as herein provided to the contrary, shall be entitled and required to be a member of the Corporation. If the right to possession to a Lot, whether by contract, lease, sublease or assignment of title, is held by more than one person, each of such persons shall be a member. An Owner of more than one Lot shall be entitled to one membership for each such Lot. Each such membership shall be appurtenant to the LOt upon which it is based and shall transfer automatically by voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the right to possession (as the case may be) of that LOt. No person or entity other than an Owner or Developer may be a member of the Corporation, and a membership in the Corporation may not be transferred except in connection with the transfer of right to possession to that Lot. Section 2. Transfer. A membership in the Corporation shall not be transferred, pledged or alienated in any way, except upon the transfer of the right to possession of a Lot and then only to such transferee by intestate succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosure of mortgage or record, or other legal process. It shall be the responsibility of each Owner upon becoming entitled to membership, to so notify the Corporation in writing and, until so notified, the Corporation may continue to carry the name of the former Owner as a member, in its sole discretion. Any attempt to make a prohibited transfer is void and will not be reflected upon the books and records of the Corporation. In the event the Owner of any Lot should fail or refuse to transfer the membership registered in the Owner's name to the transferee of the right to possession of such LOt, the Corporation shall have the right to record the transfer upon the books of the Corporation and issue a new membership to the transferee, and thereupon the old membership outstanding in the name of the transferor shall be null and void as though the same had been surrendered. Section 3. Voting. The Corporation shall have two classes of voting membership: A. Class A. Class A members shall be all Owners of Living Unit Lots, with the exception of the Developer prior to , and shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot in which they have the right to possession. When more than one person has the right to possession in any Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such LOt shall be exercised as they, among themselves, determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any one LOt. There can be no split vote. Prior to or at the time of any meeting at which a vote is to be taken, each co-Owner or other person entitled to a vote at such meetings shall file with the Secretary of the Corporation the name of the voting co-Owner or other person entitled to a vote at such meetings, unless such co-Owner or other persons have filed a general voting authority with the Secretary applicable to all votes until rescinded. B. Class B. The Class B members shall be the Developer who shall be entitled to two votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs first: 1) When the fight to possession of the last Lot within the Property is conveyed by Developer; 2) ,19 Developer shall be entitled to Class A membership for all Lots to which it holds the fight of possession or after the termination of Class B membership. Section 4. Suspension of Voting Rights. In the event any Owner shall be in arrears in the payment of any amounts due under any of the provisions of the Declarations or these By-Laws for a period of fifteen (15) days, or shall be in default in the performance of any of the terms of the Declaration or these By-Laws for a period of fifteen (15) days, such Owner's right to vote as a member of the Corporation shall be suspended and shall remain suspended until all payments are brought current and all defaults remedied. Section 5. Quorum. The presence in person or by proxy of a majority of Lots shall constitute a quorum for holding a meeting of the members of the Corporation. If a quorum shall not be presented or represented, the members entitled to vote thereat shall have power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than the announcement of the meeting, until a quorum shall be present or represented. Section 6. Proxies. Votes may be cast in person or by proxy. Proxies must be filed with the Secretary of the Corporation before the appointed time of each meeting of the members of the Corporation. Cumulative voting shall not be permitted. Section 7. Majority Required. A majority shall be sufficient for the transaction of all business of the Corporation except on matters where a greater vote is required by the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, the By-Laws or by statute. Section 8. Meetings. Meetings of the Corporation shall be in accordance with the following provisions: A. Annual Meetings. The first annual meeting of the Owners as members of the Corporation shall be called within ninety (90) days from the date deeds or leases for eighty (80%) percent of the Lots in the Property have been delivered and the grantees, of same as qualified members, but in no event later than , 19 Annual meetings of the Corporation shall be held each year thereafter on the first Monday in the month of February, or such other date as the Board of Directors shall determine, subject to notice requirements as set forth in these By-Laws. B. Special Meetings. It shall be the duty of the President to call a special meeting of the members when requested in writing by three (3) members of the Board of Directors or upon a petition signed by twenty-five (25%) percent of the members of the Corporation. Notice of any special meeting shall state the time and place of such meeting and the purpose thereof. No business shall be transacted at a special meeting except as stated in the notice unless by consent of four-fifths (4/5) of the members present in person or by proxy at such meeting. C. Notice of Meetings. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to serve a notice of each annual or special meeting, stating the purposes thereof as well as the time and place where it is to be held, upon each member of record at least ten (10) days prior to such meeting. The mailing of a notice to each member at the address shown for such member of the Corporation's records shall be deemed notice served. D. Order of Business . The order of business at all meetings of the members shall be as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) g) Section 1. Roll call Proof of notice of meeting or waiver of notice Reading of minutes of preceding meeting Reports of officers Report of committees Election of directors Unfinished business New business ARTICLE VI BOARD OF DIRECTORS Number of Qualifications. The affairs of the Corporation shall be governed by a Board of Directors composed of not less than three nor more than ten voting members as is determined from time to time by the members (except for the first Board of Directors, which shall be comprised of three persons). Each director with voting rights shall be either the Owner of a Lot, have an interest therein as Owner or otherwise, or in the event of corporate ownership or interest, be an officer or designated agent of such corporation. Section 2. Non-voting Director. In addition to the voting members of the Board of Directors, one non-voting member shall be appointed by the City Council of Mound from the neighborhood within 300 feet of the plat. If no one wishes to serve from the community, the position may remain vacant. 4 Section 3. First Board of Directors. The first Board of Directors named in the Articles of Incorporation shall maintain, manage and administer the affairs, the real estate and other property of the Corporation until the first annual meeting of the members and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified, unless said directors sooner resign. Section 4. Powers and Duties. The Board of Directors shah have the following powers: A. To adopt and publish rules and regulations governing the use of the facilities of the Corporation and the personal conduct of the members and their guests thereon and to establish penalties for the infraction thereof. B. To suspend the voting rights of a member during any period in which such member shall be in default for the performance of any term of the Declaration or these By- Laws. Such rights may also be suspended after notice and hearing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for infraction of published rules and regulations. C. To exercise for the Corporation all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to this Corporation and not reserved to the membership by other provisions of these By-Laws or the Articles. D. To declare the office of a member of the Board of Directors to be vacant in the event such members shall be absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have the following duties: A. To cause be kept a complete record of all its acts and corporate affairs and to present a statement thereof to the members at the annual meeting of the members or at any special meeting when such statement is requested in writing by one-fourth (1/4) of the membership entitled to vote. B. To supervise all officers, agents and employees of this Corporation and to see that their duties are properly performed. Section 4. Term of Office. The term of office for each director shall be one (1) year, but the directors shall hold office until their successors have been elected and qualified. There shall be no limit on the number of terms a director may serve. Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy in the Board of Directors shall be filled by vote of the majority of remaining directors, even though they may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall be a director for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor or until his or her successor is elected. Section 6. Removal of Directors. At any regular or special meeting of the Corporation duly called, any director may be removed with or without cause by a majority of the directors and a successor may then and there be elected to fill the vacancy thus created. Section 7. Organization Meeting. The first meeting of a newly elected Board of Directors shall be held within ten (10) days of its election at such place as shall be fixed by the directors at the meeting at which such directors were elected, and no notice shall be necessary to the newly elected directors in order legally to constitute such meeting, provided a majority of the whole Board shall be present. Section 8. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held at such times and places as shall be determined from time to time by a majority of the directors, but at least one (1) such meeting shall be held during each fiscal year. Notice of regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be given to each director personally, by mail, telephone or telegraph, at least five (5) days prior to the date named for such meeting. Section 9. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the President on three (3) days' notice to each director, given personally, by mail, telephone or telegraph, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of the meeting. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be called by the President or Secretary in like manner and on like notice on the written request of at least three 93) directors. Section 10. Waiver of Notice. Before or at any meeting of the Board of Directors, any director may, in writing, waive notice of such meeting and such waiver shall be deemed equivalent to the giving of such notice. Attendance by a director at any meeting of the Board shall be deemed a waiver of the time and place thereof. If all the directors are present at any meeting of the Board, no notice shall be required and any business may be transacted at such meeting. Section 11. Quorum. At all meetings of the Board of Directors, a majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the acts of the majority of the directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the acts of the Board of Directors except as otherwise provided in the Declaration, Articles or these By-Laws. If, at any meeting of the Board of Directors, there be less than a quorum present, the majority of those present may adjourn the meeting from time to time. At any such adjourned meeting, any business which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally called may be transacted without further notice. ARTICLE V OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES Section 1. Enumeration of Officers. The officers of this Corporation shall be a president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer, and such other officers as the Board may from time to time by resolution create. Any two officers except that of president and vice president may be held by one person. Each officer shall be either the Owner of a Lot or have an interest therein, or in the event of corporate ownership or interest, be an officer or designated agent of such corporation. 6 Section 2. Election of Officers. The election of officers shall take place at the first meeting of the Board of Directors following each annual meeting of the members. Section 3. Term. The officers of this Corporation shall be elected annually by the Board and each shall hold office for one (1) year unless he or she shall sooner resign, be removed or othen~ise disqualified to serve. Section 4. Special Appointments. The Board may elect such other officers as the affairs of the Corporation may require, each of whom shall hold office for such period, have such authority, and perform such duties as the Board may, from time to time, determine. Section 5. Resignation and Removal. Any officer may be removed from office with or without cause by the Board. Any officer may resign at any time giving written notice to the Board, the president or the secretary. Such resignation shall take effect on the date of receipt of such notice or at any later time specified therein, and unless other~dse specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. Section 6. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office may be filled by appointment by the Board. The officer appointed to such vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term of the officer he or she replaces. Section 7. Duties. The duties of the officers are as follows: A. President. The president shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors. He or she shall see that orders and resolutions of the Board are carried out. He or she shall have the power to appoint committees from among the members of the Corporation from time to time as he or she may, in his or her discretion, deem appropriate to assist in conduct of the affairs of the Corporation. B. Vice President. The vice president shall act in the place and stead of the president in the event of his or her absence, inability or refusal to act, and shall exercise and discharge such other duties as may be required by the Board. C. Secretary. The secretary shall record the votes and keep the minutes of all meetings and proceedings of the Board and of the members; keep the corporate seal of the Corporation and affix it on all papers requiring said seal; serve notice of meetings of the Board and of the members; keep appropriate current records showing the members of the Corporation together with their addresses, and shall perform such other duties as required by the Board. D. Treasurer. The treasurer shall receive and deposit in appropriate bank accounts all monies should they exist of the Corporation and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution of the Board of Directors. ARTICLE VI BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; FISCAL YEAR Section 1. Books of Account. The Corporation shall keep detailed books of account showing all expenditures and receipts of administration which shall specify any expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Corporation and the members. Such accounts shall be open for inspection by the members and other persons having an interest in any Lot during reasonable working hours and shall be audited annually by qualified auditors. The cost of such audits shall be a common expense. Section 2. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be on a calendar year basis. ARTICLE VII AMENDMENTS Section 1. The By-Laws may be amended, at a regular or special meeting of the members, by a vote of a majority of a quorum of each class of members. Section 2. In the case of any conflict between the Articles of Incorporation and these By-Laws, the Articles shall control. The foregoing were adopted as. the By-Laws of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota at a meeting of the Board of Directors on ,19 Secretary 8 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF TEAL POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THIS DECLARATION, made this __ day of ,19 by TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter called "Developer" and TEAL POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, hereinafter called "Association", both ofwhich are hereinafter collectively called "Declarants": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the following described real estate: Lots 1 through 9 and Outlots A and B, Block 1, Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof; all of which above-described land together constitutes and is hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Property, by means of the plat "Teal Pointe" has been subdivided into nine residential lots (and two outlots); and WHEREAS, Developer is building upon said Property a single family home development for the general benefit of the residents of the homes in said development; and WHEREAS, Declarants wish to provide for the preservation of the values and amenities in said development and to this end are hereby subjecting the Property to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said property and each Owner thereof (as hereinafter described); and WHEREAS, the Association has been formed as an agency to receive the power to attend to and effectuate policies and programs that will enhance the pleasure and value of the development, and administer and enforce the covenants and restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarants declare that the Property is and shall be held, transferred, conveyed sold, leased and occupied, subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, which are for the purpose of protecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property, and which shall run with the Property and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof, and the heirs, successors and assigns of each Owner. This Declaration hereby established a general plan for the individual ownership of real property estates consisting of residential lots. Every conveyance of any of such residences, or premises, or an part thereof, shall be and is subject to these easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions, as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following words, when used in this Declaration (unless the context shall prohibit) shall have the following meanings: A. "Owner" shall mean the one or more persons or entities, who as record Owner, contract vendee, tenant or subtenant (including an under-tenant fi-om a subtenant) or assignee of a contract vendee, tenant or subtenant, or of such an assignee, is entitled of record to possession of any Lot which is a part of the Property, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. B. "Property" shall mean Lots 1 through 9 and Outlots A and'~ Block 1, Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereinafter be annexed by amendment to this Declaration. C. "Association" shall mean Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation. D. "Lot" shall mean any Lot, as shown upon any recorded subdivision plat or map of TEAL POINTE, Hennepin County, Minnesota. E. "Member" shall mean any person or entity holding membership in the Association as provided in Article II hereof. F. "Developer" shall mean Teal Pointe Development Company, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. G. "Mortgage" shall mean any mortgage or other security instrument by which a Lot or any part thereof or any structure thereon is encumbered. H. "Mortgagee" shall mean any person or entity named as the Mortgagee under any such Mortgage or any successors or assigns to the interest of such person or entity under such Mortgage. I. "Living Unit" shall mean a residential housing unit consisting of a group of rooms and hallways which are designed or intended for use as living quarters for one family. For the purpose of determining membership in the Association, each Living Unit as constructed by Developer shall be considered as a separate and individual unit. ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION The real property which is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is more particularly described as follows: Lots 1 through 9, Block 1, Outlot A and ~ Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS IN ASSOCIATION Section 1. Membership. Every Owner, except as herein provided to the contrary, shall be entitled and required to be a member of the Association. If fight to possession to a Lot, whether by deed, contract, lease, sublease, assignment or title, is held by more than one person, each of such persons shall be a member. An Owner of more than one Lot shall be entitled to one membership for each such Lot. Each such membership shall be appurtenant to the Lot upon which it is based and shall transfer automatically by voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the right to possession (as the case may be) of that Lot. No person or entity other than an Owner or Developer as appointed by Mound Council may be a member of the Association, and a membership in the Association may not be transferred except in connection with the transfer of right to possession to that Lot. Section 2. Transfer. A membership in the Association shall not be transferred, pledged or alienated in any way, except upon the transfer of the right to possession of a Lot and then only to such transferee, by intestate succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosure of mortgage of record or other legal process. It shall be the responsibility of each Owner upon becoming entitled to membership, to so notify the Association in writing, and until so notified, the Association may continue to carry the name of the former Owner as a member, in its sole discretion. Any attempt to make a prohibited transfer is void and will not be reflected upon the books and records of the Association. In the event the Owner of any Lot should fail or refuse to transfer the membership registered in his name to the transferee of the right to possession of such Lot, the Association shall have the right to record the transfer upon the books of the Association and issue a new membership to the transferee, and thereupon the old membership outstanding in the name of the transferor shall be null and void as though the same had been surrendered. Section 3. Voting. The Association shall have two classes of voting membership: a. Class A. Class A members shall be all Owners of Lots, with the exception of the Developer prior to ,19 , and shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot to which they have the right to possession. When more than one person has the right to possession to any Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any one Lot. There can be no split vote. Prior to or at the time of any meeting at which a vote is to be taken, each co-Owner or other person entitled to a vote at such meeting shall file with the Secretary of the Association the name of the voting co-Owner or other person entitled to a vote at such meeting, unless such co-Owner or other person have filed a general voting authority with the Secretary applicable to all votes until rescinded. b. Class B. The Class B member shall be the Developer who shall be entitled to two votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs first: (i) When the right to possession of the last Lot within the property is conveyed by Developer; or (ii) ,19~ Developer shall be entitled to Class A membership for all Lots owned by it on or after the termination of Class B membership. Section 4. Suspension of Voting Rights. In the event any Owner shall be in arrears in the payment of any amount due under any of the provisions of this Declaration for a period of fifteen (15) days, or shall be in default in the performance of any of the terms of this Declaration for a period of fifteen (15) days, such Owner's right to vote as a member of the Association shall be suspended and shall remain suspended until all payments are brought current and all defaults remedied. ARTICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS Section 1. General Provisions. a. All easements described in this Declaration are easements appurtenant, running with the land. They shall at all times inure to the benefit of and be binding on the Owner and the Mortgagee from time to time of any Lots, and their respective heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns. b. The covenants, restrictions, conditions and reservations imposed or established by or created under this Declaration shall run with and bind the land for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of the recording of this Declaration and may be enforced by the Developer, the Association or any Owner through any proceeding at law or in equity. Failure to so enforce shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. After the expiration of said thirty (30) year period, all of such covenants, restrictions, conditions and reservations shall continue to run with and bind the land for successive periods of ten (10) years each unless revoked, changed or amended in whole or in part, by a vote of not less than two- thirds (2/3) of the Members and evidenced by an instrument executed by duly authorized officers of the Association recorded. Section 2. Right of Enjoment. Every Owner shall have a non-exclusive right and easement of enjoyment, which right and easement shall include, but not be limited to, easements for ingress and egress to his or her Lot, for lateral support, utility, water and sewer easements, vehicular parking, and pedestrian ingress and egress. Such fight and easement shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the ~2~) 4 rights of the Association and Developer reserved under this Article IV, Sections 3 and 4 below. Section 3. Association's Rights. The Property shall be subject to easements of record on the date hereof and any easements which may hereafter be granted by the Association. The Association has the right to enforce easements and other restrictions as described in this document. Section 4. Developer's Rights. a. Developer's agents, employees, guests and invitees shall have the right of access described in Article IV, Section 2 hereinabove, so long as Developer owns any unsold Lots and Developer shall have the same fights as any other Owner as to Lots owned by it from time to time, except as otherwise specified herein. b. Developer shall have the right to execute all documents and do all other acts and things affecting the Property which, in Developer's opinion, are desirable in connection with its rights hereunder, provided any such document or act or thing is not inconsistent with the property rights of any Owner or of the Association. Section 5. No Dedication to Public Uses. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be construed or be deemed to constitute a dedication, express or implied, for any public use or purpose whatsoever. However, in compliance with the provisions of Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, a condition of the approval of the Plat of Teal Pointe by the City of Mound requires the payment of a park fee in the amount of $500.00 per lot, to be collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. Section 6. No Dock Rights. Neither the Association, the Developer, or any of the Owners shall have any rights to erect or maintain private docks on the shoreline of the wetland adjacent to the Property. ARTICLE V ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLS Section 1. Architectural Control Committee Authority_. No exterior additions, removals or alterations (including changes in color or appearance) to any building on the Property shall be commenced, erected or maintained except such as are installed or approved by the Developer in connection with the initial construction of the buildings of the Property, until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, location and approximate cost of same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of the external design and location in relation to surrounding buildings in the subdivision by an Architectural Committee composed of the Board of Directors of the Association or three (3) or more representatives appointed by the Board of Directors. In the event said Board, or its designated Committee, fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or if no suit to enjoin the making of such additions, alterations or changes has been commenced within sixty (60) days of application, such approval will be deemed to have been given. If no application has been made to the Architectural Committee or their representatives, suit to enjoin or remove such additions, alterations or changes may be instituted at any time by the Association, any Owner. During the time which the Association has a Class B member, the Developer shall serve as the Architectural Committee. Section 2. Restoration in Accordance with Original Plans. Any restoration or repair of Living Units and garage, after a partial condemnation or damage due to an insurable hazard, shall be performed substantially in accordance with the Declaration and the original plans and specifications. Section 3. Specific Design and Construction Restrictions and Controls. a. Each building within Teal Pointe shall be of "natural" colors, which shall consist of earth tones. Acceptable exterior coverings shall be rough sawn wood or shingles (cedar). No changes in such materials or colors shall be permitted without the approval of the Architectural Control Committee. b. The type of construction to be employed for any Living Units to be constructed on Lots 1 through 3 shall be caisson foundation design with cantilever construction - California style. c. At the time of the construction of each Living Unit there shall be submitted to the Architectural Control Committee a landscape plan. After the landscape plan is approved by such committee, material changes to the plan may be made only with the written approval of the Architectural Control Committee. d. At the time of building permit application for Living Units on Lots 1, 2 and 3, there shall be submitted to the City, for review and approval, a set of plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect. The plans shall contain a master site plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement. Plans should illustrate how development will minimize environmental impact to the site. e. The Environmental Protection Agency's Best Management Practices shall be used and followed in the construction and management of all lots in the Teal Pointe Development. Plans submitted to the City at the time of building permit application shall indicate how the BMPs have been addressed. ARTICLE VI OWNERS' MAINTENANCE Each Owner shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of his or her Living Unit, garage, patio, and all other associated areas of such Lot. An Owner shall do no act nor any work that will impair the structural soundness or integrity of any building or adjoining Living Unit or garage, or impair any easement or hereditament. ARTICLE VII CERTAIN MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS - LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 ONLY The Developer shall be responsible for the initial expense of the construction of the roadway on Outlot A, of which undivided one-third interests shall thereafter be conveyed to the owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3, subject to cross-easements for all of such owners to utilize Outlot A for ingress and egress to and from their Lots. The Owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall be responsible for the maintenance of that roadway, snow removal, and the like. The Owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall also be responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer lines and the individual lift stations servicing Lots 1, 2, and 3. ARTICLE VIII GENERAL RESTRICTIONS - OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF OWNERS Section 1. Prohibited Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, boat, camper-bus, basement, tent or shack shall be maintained on any Lot nor shall any garage or other building except a permanent residence, be used on any Lot at any time as a residence or sleeping quarters, either temporarily or permanently. Section 2. Storage. Outside storage of any items, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, sporting equipment, toys, outdoor cooking equipment, yard and garden tools and equipment and trash and garbage containers, shall not be allowed unless screened from view by enclosures so as to be effectively screened from view outside the Lot. The design of such screened enclosure must be approved by the Association in accordance with the architectural control provisions thereof. The storage or collection of rubbish of any character whatsoever, any material that emits foul or obnoxious odors, the growing of any noxious weed or other natural substance, and the harboring of the source of any noise or activity which disturbs the peace, comfort or serenity of residents is prohibited. Usual household trash and garbage shall be regularly collected and may be kept outside only if in sanitary containers which are so screened. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no boats, snowmobiles, trailers, camping vehicles, tractor/trailers or trucks in excess of 9,000 pounds gross weight, or unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall at any time be stored or parked on any Lot outside of a house or garage or on any part of the Common Area with the express written approval of the Board of Directors, which may be withheld without stated reason. Section 3. Signs. No sign of any kind (other than designations, in such styles and materials as the Association shall be regulation approved, of street addresses and names of occupants) shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot, except that a "For Sale" sign may be displayed provided that it is in such form as the Association may require, and except that Developer shall be permitted to erect and maintain upon the Property such signs as it deems appropriate to advertise the development during the construction and sale periods. ARTICLE VIII GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions and of the provisions contained in the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Association may be by any proceeding at law or in equity instituted by the Association or by any Owner against any person violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Attorneys' fees and costs of any such actions to restrain violation or to recover damages as determined by the Court shall be assessable against and payable by any persons violating the terms contained herein. Section 2. SeverabiliW. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by legislation, judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Amendment. The provisions of this Declaration, except those provisions relating to the rights of Developer, may be amended by action of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the Owners. No amendment shall take effect until recorded. The provisions relating to the rights of Developer may be amended as aforesaid with the written consent of Developer. Section 4. Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any Member of the Association under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such Member appearing on the records of the Association at the time such mailing. Section 5. Captions. The Article and Section headings are intended for convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Teal Pointe Development Co. and Teal Pointe Homeowners Association have caused this document to be executed as of the day and year first above written. TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 8 TEAL POINTE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS Neil Weber Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The foregoing instrument was ,19__, by of Teal Pointe Development Company. acknowledged before ., the me this day of Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged , 19__, by Neff Weber, the Pointe Homeowners Association. before me this day of of Teal Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Abdo and Abdo, P.A. 710 Northstar West 625 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 9 Teal Pointe Final Plat Resolution #95- EXHIBIT 'D' Conservation Easement CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT, made this day of , 19 , by and between TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation ("Grantor") and the CITY OF MOUND, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Or~t~¢"). The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by the Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby convey to the Grantee a permanent easement for conservation purposes (the '~Easement Area"), which easement is described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, as follows: 1. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, declares and agrees that the following prohibitions shall continue in perpetuity in the Easement Area: a) Constructing, installing or maintaining anything (specifically including docks) made by man. b) Cutting or removing trees or other vegetation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, trimming trees to maintain their health, removing diseased trees and removing selected trees to allow sunlight to penetrate to limited parts of the Easement Area may be permitted, but only when approved by the Grantee. c) Excavation or filling within the Easement Area. d) Application of chemicals for destruction or retardation of vegetation, unless first approved by the Grantee. e) The deposit of waste or debris. f) The application of herbicides, pesticides and insecticides. g) The application of fertilizers. h) Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife in the Easement Area. 2. Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, further grants to the Grantee the affirmative right, but not the obligation, to do the following in the Easement Area: a) Grantor. Enhance the slope, trees, vegetation and natural habitat at no cost to the b) Enter upon the Easement Area at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. c) Take such other action as the Grantee deems necessary or advisable in its sole discretion, to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor and Grantee have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY GRANTEE: CITY OF MOUND Its Mayor Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF FIENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,1994, by , the of Teal Pointe Development Company, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNE n'0 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 1994, by , the Mayor and City Manager Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. day of and of City of Notary Public 2 COFFIN ~ GRON'aERG, INC. 25, 1994 Proposed f]owage and conservation easements in Block 1, TEAL POINTE An easement for fIcwage and conservation purposes over those parts of the following described prop- ertles' The Northeasterly 50.00 feet of Lot 1; The Northeasterly 50.00 feet of Lot 2; The Northeasterly 50.00 feet of Lot 3; The ~ortherly 50.00 feet of Lot 4; The Northerly 50.00 feet of Lot 5; The Northerly, Northeasterly, and Easlerly 50.00 feet of Lot 6; The Easterly 50.00 feet of Lot 7; The Easterly, Southeasterly, and Southerly 50.00 feet of Lot 8; The Southerly 50.00 feet of Lot 9; All in BIock 1, TEAL POINTE, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the off~ce of the Registrar of Titles in and for Nennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 2391 FAIRVIEW LANE, L.P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36, LAFAYETTE PARK, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, PID #13-117-24 43 0089 P&Z CASE #95-01 WHEREAS, the owners, David and Lynne Laube, have applied for a variance to construct a 26' x 26' garage addition that would encroach 7.5 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback to the west, Hiddenvale Lane. Also part of this proposal is a 20' x 8' +/- deck that is fully conforming to the Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet (to all three street fronts), and a side yard setback of 6 feet to the north, and WHEREAS, existing and proposed hardcover is conforming as a lot of record at 40%, and WHEREAS, there is an existing single car garage with the driveway serving Maywood Road has a Iow ceiling height, and WHEREAS, there is an additional 6'4" of boulevard between his property line and the actual curb on Hiddenvale, therefore, the proposed garage will be about 19 feet from the curb, and WHEREAS, the property located across the street from Hiddenvale is zoned B-1 Central Business, and therefore, the impact of the reduced setback is lessened, and WHEREAS, the lot has three street frontages with a required setback of 20 feet to all three streets, and across Hiddenvale is a business, and across Maywood is a Church, and WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance to allow the garage addition based on the following findings to allow for reasonable use of the property: The lot fronts on three streets and has larger setbacks than if it were just a corner lot. Proposed Resoluaon, Laube January24, 1995 Page 2 There are not any other residences that would be negatively impacted by the reduced setback as the property across Hiddenvale is zoned B-1 Central Business, and the property across Maywood is a church. 3. No site triangle problem would be created. o There is 6'4" +/- boulevard which reduces the impact of the decreased setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 7.42 foot front yard setback variance to Hiddenvale l_ane to allow construction of a 26' x 26' garage addition, and the construction of a conforming deck at 2391 Fairview Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 26' x 26' garage addition and a conforming deck. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 16 and 17, Block 3, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of Part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1995 CASE #95-01: DAVID & LYNNE LAUBE, 2391 FAIRVlEW LANE, CREVlERS LAFAYETTF PARK, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, PID #13-117-24. 43 0089. VARIANCE FOR GARAGI' ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. This property is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet (to all three street fronts), and a side yard setback of 6 feet to the north. The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage that would encroach 7.5 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback to the west, Hiddenvale Lane. Also part of this proposal is a future deck as shown on the site plan. The deck is fully conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. Existing and proposed hardcover is conforming as a lot of record at 40%. There is an existing single car garage with the driveway serving Maywood Road. Although the additional garage space would enhance the use and storage space of this property, it also puts the property into a nonconforming status. A minimally sized conforming garage can be constructed in this area without encroaching into the required setback. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed. This denial allows the applicant to obtain a permit to construct a conforming garage and deck, and further does not result in the creation of a nonconforming property. The Building Official apologized to the applicant because he did not have a chance to discuss the request with him prior to the writing of the Staff Report. Applicant, David Laube, explained to the Commission that the existing tuckunder garage does not have a normal ceiling height, it is too Iow. He is a life-long resident of Mound. He emphasized the additional 6'4" of boulevard between his property line and the actual curb, therefore, the proposed garage will be about 19 feet from the curb, so if the setback were measured to the curb, his variance request would be for only one foot. Mueller commented that this is a big lot and the owner should be able to improve his property, and it is his opinion that if the property was not conforming a variance approval would be recommended. Jensen commented that she understands, with our current zoning ordinance, that if the deck were not proposed at this time, but in the future if he wanted to add the deck he would have to apply for a variance. It creates a hassle for the homeowner the way the laws exists today and we may have to take a look at that. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 Jensen questioned the zoning district across from Hiddenvale. The Secretary confirmed that this property is zoned B-1. Jensen feels the impact of the reduced setback is less because of the adjacent B-1 district. A hardship could be that the lot has three street frontages with a required setback of 20 feet to all three streets. There is no house on the other side. Across the street on Hiddenvale is commercial property. Jensen would tend to support the request due to the logical, special circumstances, and businesses across the street. Weiland also pointed out that across Maywood is the church. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance to allow the garage addition based on the following findings to allow for reasonable use of the property: The lot fronts on three streets and has larger setbacks than if it were just a corner lot. m There are not any other residences that would be negatively impacted by the reduced setback as the property across Hiddenvale is zoned B-1 Central Business, and the property across Maywood is a church. 3. No site triangle problem would be created. There is 6'4" +/- of boulevard which reduces the impact of the reduced setback. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 24, 1995. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Agenda of January 9, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request David and Lynne Laube 95-01 2391 Fairview Lane, Creviers Lafayette Park, Block 3, Lots 16 & 17 PID #13-117-2443 0089 R-2 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: This property is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet (to all three street fronts), and a side yard setback of 6 feet to the north. The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage that would encroach 7.§ feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback to the west, Hiddenvale Lane. Also part of this proposal is a future deck as shown on the site plan. The deck is fully conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. Existing and proposed hardcover is conforming as a lot of record at 40%. There is an existing single car garage with the driveway serving Maywood Road. COMMENTS: Although the additional garage space would enhance the use and storage space of this property, it also puts the property into a nonconforming status. A minimally sized conforming garage can be constructed in this area without encroaching into the required setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed. This denial allows the applicant to obtain a permit to construct a conforming garage and deck, and further does not result in the creation of a nonconforming property. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 24, 1995. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer DN-R Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~.~__ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~,_:]9'/ /--.~t~'~/ Addition (O~Yc,,x-¢~,_ a5 O--- bec x_ . District~~. Use of Property. Owner's Name ~/~,Nt/t4~ C_ Z~O.~/ ~y-<:.,z~-/X2/4tJtg~_.Day Phone Owner's Address o~77~/ /_~/,r~,.,~,r~./ ~/~./ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Block '~ -~ PID No. I?)' I['~. '7_4 4:5 Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply w~th all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonink district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): }z,la:u~£~:Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) (N S~W) ~0 ft. .~to '3 ft. ~ ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. (N SEW__) ft. ft. ft. (NSF:~ ~.C)' ft. ._[~,,a_.(~ ft. '-/· ~lr ' ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft .sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft .sq ft Does the present/use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (,r), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ~ffother: specify Please describe: .~Tn. e e r~ t~ ~ Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~k~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~--~ ~--~-h --~ Date /.2 - ~ / - ?'~ , Applicant's Signature Date I-t~rivE¥ ^, CAR rwrllc. H i ST£nLIN(~ ~'3OI HAt, OLD R. OL~ON CARTWR'IGHT '& OLS0'N LAND SURVEYORS RE~-., IS TE'RED UNDrR LAW5 OF' BTATE OF MI~.~NE~OTA LICENSED aY ORDINANCE OF CITY OI~ MINNEAPOLIS 337 PLYMOUTIt BUILDING L I ~COL~ /? :';/ 14/.ooo /=£//~ /.7 C. P'. SA~IDHOFF. JAMrr~ NELSON. BUSINESS LOT ,~UR VE.Y~ PLATTING PLAT OF A SURVEy OF Lots 16 and l? Crev.[ers ::;u :,:,-; vision o£ Lafayette Park· P.~. ,., of Lot 36 AS SURVryIrD BY US THlS___.t:.:...~._.~'...i.; ..... DAY OI~ .... "'~"~".C~R~',R,~,,, CARTWRIGHT &OLS()N ' · ' ' ' .~ . "I~DUBTRIA~ BOX 174, ROUT~ I wE~TWOOD SHO~eS LOT ,gURVEY~ MOUNO, MINNEgOTA ~ '' ' PLATTING ,.. 8760 ~ozman Yule Inv. · '.' .. ...~¢o- '::- ~ .' . · ~ . , . , ' ..' .I I~ - ~ .x. ,/ <;.,~ : /.. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE Is A TRUE A~O, CORRECT PLAT OF A SURVEY Or WE '" Lots 16 and 17 ~~- L. P. Cl'eV.[ers. ::;u:,r, ivisio~ of P,t~'t of Lot 36 La~ a,;e; t e Park SURVEYED BY US THI$___,J- ~_!.,..~_~ ...... DAY OF CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS.;,,,j..,~/ /~-~/~K/~.2 ~/~ v,,~,e~,..~,,,O. OWNER'S NAME: ~.,~V/,,O c~ ~...,y...~.,¢~,~. 11 LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~(~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PAR KI NGo/~ ~.~. AREAS, SIDEWALKS,/0~,'o ETC. ~cbj ~)~z~~ ~_ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted es hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x = ~ x ~ = ~7~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... /~ X /?'~' x TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. // /~ = ?/~- ! _'~ = ,.e..5':~-- TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... 15 7c~ TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I$~ ~o ~ER (indicate difference) ............................... I/"~-~ PREPARED BY DATE {REV. 8/29/94) summary of hardcover rules Excerpts from the Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:310. Definitions,. Impervious Cover. Any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture. Impervious cover shall include, but not be limited to all driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios, and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards) shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. Section 350:645. General Requirements Applicable to All Residential Districts. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. - Accessory buildings shall not exceed 1 5% of the total lot area. ction 350:1225, Subd. 6. Shoreland Management. ~ -- ', ! 1. Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. I On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent ~ providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable. Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. Co Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. / Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby incre__.~asinn_ soil absorption. ~ Impervious surface coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. In business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an approved stormwater management plan, impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total lot area. Z 0 " 0 < GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET I -- I ~U~RED STaEET F~ONTA~E~TU: ~ O X REQUIRED SETBACKS LOT AREA: ~bo-C-~ SQFT FRONT: N FRONT: N SIDE: SIDE: E W REAR: S E W LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) .ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W .,4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O,H.W.) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BU.,.I'L~ING/HOUSF FRONT: N FRONT: N '~7 . (,., · ~ )-) F~. C--,~;, F · SIDE: N S E"I~ '- I SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: n nu ~ e ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 I? WOODRIDGF (26) '- ? 3 23 9 ' (31) 3 _~ ' (4?) 8 .... 1444. II RES GOVT LOT 7 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A CONFORMING DECK AT 3106 PRIEST LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID #23-117-24 34 0075 P&Z CASE #95-02 WHEREAS, the owner, Don Anderson, has applied for recognition of the following variances to allow construction of an addition above the garage that follows the existing footprint and therefore does not further expand the existing nonconform- ing setbacks. The proposal itself does not increase the existing footprint except for the deck that is fully conforming Existing Required Variance Front (W) 26' +/- 30' 4' +/- Side (N) 19.5' +/- 20' 0.5' +/- Lake 16' +/- 50' 34' +/- and WHEREAS, existing and proposed hardcover is conforming, and WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-1 Zoning District which allows only single family dwellings and requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to Priest Lane, a front yard setback of 20 feet to Ridgewood Road, and a side yard setback of 8 feet to the south. A 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required, and WHEREAS, the existing nonconformities have been previously recognized by Resolution #88-716, and WHEREAS, the proposed floor plan indicates that the only exit from the new room addition is through the garage, there is no current access to the existing dwelling from the proposed addition. There is concern about creating another dwelling unit, and WHEREAS, the applicant has been notified by staff and was further informed by the Planning Commission during a public meeting that the Mound Zoning Code specifically prohibits two dwelling units on the subject property, and Proposed Resolution, Anderson January 24, 1935 Page 2 WHEREAS, the applicant has been informed and understands that subsequent owners of the subject property shall only be permitted to use the home as a single family dwelling, and WHEREAS, a doorway connecting to the existing dwelling is planned to be framed, so in the future the room may be used as the master bedroom, however at this time, they do not want the doorway installed, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance request, subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a second story addition and a deck that is conforming to setbacks, subject to the following: Existing Required Variance Front (W) 26' +/- 30' 4' +/- Side (N) 19.5' +/- 20' 0.5' +/- Lake 16' +/- 50' 34' +/- a~e!ease of this Resolution, some type of ~s~Ch as a ~ished b~t in a form that is acceptable to the City At--sure that this house will not be _~.used b y~er or subseq~e occupancy. b. Any use o t e s a h -cupat~on shall b~~-r~"ance with~. 6~ of t e ' ' ce. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24' x 24' second story addition, and a 4' x 20' deck. Prol)osed Resolution, Anderson January 24, 1555 Page 3 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Block 2, Highland Shores. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 174 P02 JAN 20 '95 10:11 Ho'zsington Koegier Group Inc. DD MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland Mark Koegler January 20, 1995 Resolution pertaining to P & Z Case g95-02 As per our telephone conversation yesterday, I have examined the information that you sent me pertaining to the Anderson variance case, #95-02. After reviewing the material, I must admit that I don't fully understand why someone would desire to complete the proposed house addition without providing a direct connection to the existing home. It is stated that the room will ultimately be used as a master bedroom but may first be used as a guest bedroom or home office. Even as a home office or guest bedroom, would it not be desirable for the sake of the homeowner or guests to have a direct connection to the rest of the home? I am not aware of any specific stipulations in the Zoning Code which would require a direct connection to the existing home. As long as the new space is encompassed within the overall envelope of the existing structure, it is technically considered part of that structure. [ share the Planning Commission's concern that the potential exists for this space to become a rental unit which would be in violation of the Zoning Code. This concern is offset somewhat since the new addition docs not have kitchen facilities. Despite this fact, I think that it is important that the resolution approving the variances (if that is the final action of the City Council) should directly address the concerns that have been raised and should provide some level of guarantee that the space will not be eventually converted into a second dwelling unit, As a result, I have the following comments pemining to thc draft resolution that you sent me: Pa~e 1 · In the first Whereas, modify the first sentence as follows: "...the existing footprint and ~~..:: does not further ~ ~ the existing footprint and does..." · In the third Whereas, modify the fa'st sentence as follows: "...located in the R-1 Zoning ~'"~!~ ':o · · ~'" ~?~:,:~. ' ~ a:~ ~' .' ~',~ ';~';'"';"y",:~' ,. :~., ..:....: .,~:~:~.~.:~:~:. , ~ .., .., I~ .... requires a minimum lot men..." District ~.~.~~.,.,~~~~ 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 Land U~c / Environmental · Planning / Design · Minnea~lis. Minnesota 554~9 · if1 ~l 612-83S-3160 HOISINSTON KOEGLER 194 P03 JRN 20 '95 10:12 P & Z Case #95-02 Memorandmm J3nuary 20, 1005 Page 2 · Modify the fifth Whereas as follows: "...there is concern about creating another dwelling unit Insert a new Whereas immediately following the fifth Whereas to read as follows: ," : ' :' :: r "' ~ '~' ....~:''~i' !~ ' ' '''~: :'~ ~': :~:~.~ ' ........... · '~' 'S '~ :,~am~, :.*~:~:'.*,~' :~. I :m~ ' ~: ' ~.~:".,'.":"'":'-"":.4:'!v'~., ";""~" '.~.~ '.i:~ "*'~:' ;~' 'e' '~.n~ ~j. .'v · ~.,~~' t. ~. ' ~,.. ~,.. ~ . , ..~.~ .. ........, ~. ~.~ Modify the laa ~ere~ on page I to inseathe follo~g: '...W~AS, a door Page 2 Modify item 1 a. to read as follows: "Prior to release of this Resolution, some ~ of ..,.:~.~:a~;~:~.55:~:~; ~:~:~:~:~, ~ ~.20~1g:~..~2 ,~is~ "~.., .............. . ,~ ~:~., ', - , shall be pr~vidM ~'~ by the applicant ~~ guarantee ~-~:.:~.',,:~I~~~ that is acceptable to the City Attorney, to ensure that this house will not be ~ ~i~g~tlli~g~gt!~~~R~l~~.~ double occupancy." Page 3 No changes Please call me if you have any questions or comments on these items. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1995 .CASE #95-02: DONALD B. ANDERSON, SR., 3106 PRIEST LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID #23-117-24 34 0075. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION This property is located in the R-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to Priest Lane, a front yard setback of 20 feet to Ridgevvood Road, and a side yard setback of 8 feet to the south. A 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required. The existing structure is nonconforming to setbacks as shown below: Existing ~ Variance Front (W) 26' +/- 30' 4' +/- Side (N) 19.5' +/- 20' 0.5' +/- Side(S) 13' +/- 10' n/a Lake 16' +/- 50' 34' +/- The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an addition above the garage that follows the existing footprint and does not further encroach into the existing footprint and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setbacks. The proposal itself does not increase the existing footprint except for the deck that is conforming to setbacks. Existing and proposed hardcover is conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach and follows the existing footprint. In addition, the existing nonconformities have been previously recognized by Resolution//88-716. Weiland confirmed with the applicant that the only exit from the new room addition is through the garage, you could not access the existing dwelling from the addition. Weiland expressed a concern about creating another dwelling unit and noted that this property does not allow two units in the R-1 zone. The applicant explained that his wife is a writer and plans to use the room as her office, and it will also function as a guest room. He explained that a door is planned to be framed which they intend to open in the future so the room may be used as the master bedroom, but at this time, they do not want the door installed, it will be a solid wall. Plannin~ Commission Minute~ January 9, 1995 Weiland commented that he would like some guarantee that this house will not have a double occupancy. The applicant was not opposed to this. The Building Official suggested that staff work with the applicant and the City Planner prior to the City Council meeting to review the stipulations that could be put on a recommendation for approval. Mueller questioned the required number of exits. The Building Official explained that he has not completed a plan review yet, however, he commented that it does not appear the exits conforming to the building code. He also noted that the winding stairway may not meet code, and the 2'6" door should be a 3' door. The Building Official suggested that a favorable recommendation, with conditions, could be forwarded to the Council, and if there is a change in the footprint, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission. MOTION made by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance request, subject to the plans being modified to be conforming to the Building Code, and that some type of an agreement or guarantee be established to ensure that the dwelling cannot be a double occupancy. Clapsaddle seconded the Motion. MOTION CARRIED 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Surko, Weiland, Michael, Jensen, and Crum. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that he is uncomfortable approving a variance w~tnout KnowIng how the floor plan is going to be revised. Mueller also asked that the applicant consider some type of architectural detail to the north wall. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on January 24, 1994. 0 O~ I1 BOX-OUT FLR TRUSSES FOR STAIR VVELL OPNO mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm sC iEXI~NG HOLI~ / 5/.8" T"FmE 'X' FC- " SHEETROCK ON STAIR / VFZLL & CEILING -- 2x~' WALL FRMG ~.,,/R-13 INSL, W/ RIGID INS:.... £- 2x10 HDR / ~-~V',//POLY VAmOR =_,AR. STEPS TO LOWER LEVEL I LONG EXISTING SERVICE DR FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4."= 1'- 0" ~ ~'JF,, CdT WALL TO MATCH ~ ~ & i ST~'_P DN tNT3 EXT. w -.%----" ............ L_-- .-~__---_ ._--__. _--r-I--- Il ~.: ~,' %.. . // ,, '~' .' _-:'- !l i .,_ ,,, ...%~ '~x,i:~ ..... _ ,., :, i ~ , ,7, , _ INSL. i 2-2x10 HD~ 1~'-.. ')'' SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCAL:.: 1/4"- 1'- 0" MATCH - ~) J SE /--ICE & WATER / --VENT BAFFLES EVERY $~ACE FASCIA SYST~_Id TO SOFFIT SYSTEM TC: MATCH --SIDING TO MAT3," 2-:./Z2" BdLT-=,:TE S,-.'T-'3 ~: -- ~-15 IN$'J~. ~ / TREAT ~At,'DtNG GARAGE STIN HOUS~ CROSS ~c^,~: ~/~,,=,S_~CTION ~ - 1 -~ BATH STAIR ~ I L ,O,:xN HEADE~ OF'F F'OI~ rUT. INTO ~xISTING 2x: 2xic JST'S 16" 0.~. "--:-.3.: i'<S...",DE: S"A~: ~ Tr~ JCTJRE --2x!2 STINGERS i,CROSS SECTION --EXfST~NG GARAGE gLA= CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of January 9, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Donald B. Anderson, Sr. 95-02 3106 Priest Lane, Lot 1, Block 2, Highland Shores PID #23-117-2434 0075 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to Priest Lane, a front yard setback of 20 feet to Ridgewood Road, and a side yard setback of 8 feet to the south. A 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required. The existing structure is nonconforming to setbacks as shown below: Existing Required Variance Front (W) 26' +/- 30' 4' +/- Side (N) 19.5' +/- 20' 0.5' -F/- Side (S) 13' +/- 10' n/a Lake 16' +/- 50' 34' +/- The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an addition above the garage that follows the existing footprint and does not further encroach into the existing footprint and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setbacks. The proposal itself does not increase the existing footprint except for the deck that is conforming to setbacks. Existing and proposed hardcover is conforming. printed on recycled paper Staff Report 3106 Priest Lane Page 2 COMMENTS The addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. A previous resolution in 1988 (attached) recognized the narrowness and shape of the parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach and follows the existing footprint. In addition, the existing nonconformities have been previously recognized by Resolution #88-716. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 24, 1995. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution; City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other DEO 2 219m Application Fee: $50.00 . Case No. q2~ ~OZ , Please type or print the follo~Sng information: Address of Subject Property ~ [ L~ (~ Lot .J- Block Addition [.--~'~ {4 fav~Z ~ ~c>r--a--:5' PID No. 2 District ~x.~. Use of Property: ~e.~c[o~ c_ ~- Owner's Name Owner's Address ['"~>,~[~ ~.'~. ~~om ,,.~r-- Day Phone /-'~'72.- O-/5c/- Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning proceuure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) no. ix' yes, list date(s) of appiication, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. /'4,.,o3 q tq'~; e.o_~d,~'~-,. ,~ Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonin,. district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACKS: required Front Yard: (~N S E~__~) .30 ft. 2"/ Side Yard: ~ E W ) ~--,QO ft. Iq ,5 Side Yard: ( N(~)E W ) IO- ' ft. 2.~5, Rear Yard: ( N SC~V ) ft. . 65, ~ ft. Lakeside: ( N(,~E W ) ~0 ft. ~o,,~ Z~ ,~ ft. t-c~.~..~2J,.,.: ( N~)E W ) ~C> ft. ,t~[~ h~, 5 ft. Street Frontage: ' ft. 2q'0,3~ ft. Lot Size: sq ft 1~2c1~,c~ sq ft Hardcover: sq ft 2_ ch t ~, [ sq ft VARIANCE ft. ~ ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes {~[, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)9. Yes (), No ¢~1. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition9. Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ~wner's Signature ~~~)~~0 !_~._~ Applicant's Signatur~~ ~ ~2 _ Date [Z - ~ 7..- Date [Z-7-L' NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND' HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS /z//. 2c~5, °/O SQ FT X 30% = ,/z{. 2c~,~ ,~(:> se FT X 15% = gl qr4, ocl HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) LENGTH WIDTH lO,I x ZG.'+ = X II-.i-.G = X = TOTAL HOUSE ******************* X = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** ~"7.'Z x ZO,~ = ?_q.'7__ x ~ ,,..p = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** OTHER: %t-<~o p '~,<:2::) X 3,h.) = o[ X = TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY: ~~? ~ ~/~ _.!,.._... DATE: X YES___NO r ,I I PID #23-117-24-34-007S (3%01 PR~BST ii, lB)! P & I C~Sl J88-7%6, WllBRBAI, ~ha applicant has applied for m variencs to r.cognize an existing nonoonformLnq lakeshore setback of feet to alloy structural modifications ~o · desk and sc~oened-~n po~ fo~ ~ ~, B~ock 2, H~ghland Sho~esl P2D ~23-LL7-24-34- 007S~ and, · llEItFJ~I, the sub, act propmr~y is located within the single family zoning district, which according to the city coda requires a 50 foot setback to lakashore, l0 foot side yard set- back, and a 30 foot front yard setback; and, I~RRBAB, Section 23.404'Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may bo Bade to a building containing a lawful noncon- forming residential uni2 when ~e alteration rill improve or ~L~s, and, WKIRIII, ~he Planning Commission hag reviewed ~he rm~es~ and does reco~end approval wi~ nodAfica~ions ~o ~e ~OWt TB~iKIFOIWt BB IT ItBSOLV~D by ~he City Council of 1. ~a~ ~o oXty does hereb~ au~or~%o ~he exXl~nq non- con~o~ng principal st~cture setback ~o lakeshore a2 3106 ~iewt ~ne; PID ~23-117-24-34-0075 vt~h an ap- proximate L9 ~oot Bedeck. 2. The C~y Co~cX1 sugar, zee the existing ot~c~ural lo.ack v~olat~on and au~or~zem ~e al~erat~on~ set fo~ ~1~ pursuant ~o Section 23.404, ~v~sion (8) vl~ ~e clear and e~resled ~deratanding ~a~ ~e use remains aa a lawful,, nonconfo~lng use, s~ec~ ~o all of the provisions and reo~ric~iona .of sec~Aon 23..404. ~ :'' It il determined that the livabllity of the residential unit vii1 ~ approved by authorizing the following al- tsrationl to a nonconforming usa property dui to ~1 ~.~:~ and shape ~e parcel t EXHIBIT C 8) No commercial activ~y of any kind ah'& on upon any lot with the exception that this restriction shall not Pr6el- ]u~ the pursuit of hobbies which are wholly confined with the dwelling an' which are not offensive or of a kind which in any way would become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. m~a au=u'st 22, 19¢1 Doc. No. 885683 AU~I'C 9, 1988 bo reconstructed 4 feet to the south of the ax~ot- Sng miss boule, oond~tioned upon ~ho survey be£ng revised to indicate the exact location of the Bar. caere and Thil variance il granted for the £olloving legally ~escr~bsd proper~¥t I~t 2, Block 2, Highland Shorel PID $ This variance ih&Il bi recorded vl~h the county re- p~suant to Xi~elo~a State Statutes, section 4~a.~ , S~ivision (4). Th~m shall be considered a restriction on how this propo~y nay ~ used. ' ~il~ng ~l resolution v~ ~e~ep~n all coo~a for such recording. The bu~ld~ng porni~ shall not be ~ssusd until proof of recording has been £iLed v:Lth the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution val ~oved by Xayor S~ and leoonded by Co~c~L~er ~e~ Jenlen~ ~elsen~ ~ohnson and Sn~h. The t6~lov~ng Co~c~lm~eFs vo~ed ~n ~e nega~ve~ none. -' I ~DeDs '(8) No commercial activity of any kind shall be undertaken o~ on upon any lot with the exception that this restriction shall not preclu~ the pursuit of hobbies which are wholly confined with the dwelling and which are not offensive or of a kind which in any way would become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. No. 885683 REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LOl OF RECORD?( YES.JNO / 7 LOT AREA: SQ FT REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDINg/HOUSE....., FRONT:/~S Et/W/~ '"z')0 FRONT:r N~' E~¢~ .~ SIDE: ~(S~E W -~ ~ SIDE: N~W ~ REAR: N s~W ~15~ LAKESHORE: ~measured from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O,H,W,) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ;EWOOD PRINCIPAL BUILD/hN~/HOUSE FRONT:/~ S E W(__~ '"~ , 7 X~. FRONT:( N~S E W ~', ~ ~ SIDE: ~S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: ~ :~ ~ HA~CO~R CONFORMING?( YES ~NO /7 ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES~NO,/)7 I::; '3 I 612-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 166 P02 JAN 19 '95 1~:19 RESOLUTION #9~5-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION FOR ISTEA FUNDING FOR THE CREATION OF TRAILS, LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG LOST LAKE AND AUDITORS ROAD FROM COUNTY ROAD 110 TO COUNTY ROAD 15 AND TIlE FUTURE BOAT MARINA. WHEREAS, the City of Mound has conducted a three year planning process called Mound Visions involving extensive citizen participation, and WHEREAS, the primary emphasis of the Mound Visions design concept is to refocus downtown on the County Road 15/Auditors Road/Lost Lake area, and WHEREAS, the design concept holds broad public approval and was adopted by the City Council in the Spring of 1992 as the framework for future public inve,~-,cnt and solicitation of private investment, and WHEREAS, the City has begun preparing plans for the phase I downtown redevelopment which includes ISTEA funding for restoration of the Lost Lake Cmial, and WHEREAS, the trails project being proposed is adjacent to the Lost Lake Canal, and will greatly enhance the useability and desirability of thc area, and WHEREAS, the trail will provide a vital pedestrian and bike transportation link to County Roads 1 $ and 110 and a future ~ park and ride facility, and WHEREAS, without the tra~, the downtown area will lack the convenience necessary to encourage non-motorized forms of transportation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RF_~OLVED by the City Council of thc City of Mound, Minnesota: A. The City of Mound supports the application for ISTEA funding for the construction of a trail and related site improvements extending from County Road 110, around the north side of Lost Lake adjacent to Auditors Road, to County Road 15 and terminating near the proposed marina facility. B. The City of Mound has identified adequate unencumbered funds which can be used for the local match if the project is approved for ISTEA funding. January 1B, 1995 R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES, INC Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager Mr. Gino Businaro, Finance Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55 364 Dear Ed & Gino: The proposed premium for all of your Property/Casualty and Workers; Compensation insurance policies is $153,026 for the 95/96 policy year, This is $354 more than last year. There are three areas of insurance that generate thc majority of the premium: 1) Municipal Liabi,lil;y - including public officials errors and onfissions coverage. This accounts for $54,803 of the premium, and includes a 6% rate increase. 2) Automobile Liability_a.n_.d Physical Damage- This coverage is $24,566 for thc 95/96 policy year for the 51 vehicles. Last year there were 49 vehicles, which accounts for the difference in premium, including a slight rate increase in physical damage coverage. 3) Workers' Compensation - The 95/96 policy premium is $51,790, which is subject to payroll audit. '].'his is less than your current policy premium, even though the Experience Modification has increased from .79 to .gg for the new policy. Two coverage options that are included for your consideration are: LMCIT Excess Liabiliw Coverag~..,Limits: Thc Minnesota statutes limits the city's tort liability to $600,000 per occurrence. LMCIT provides a standard $600,000 liability coverage limit to match the statutory limits. However, there are several ways in which that coverage could turn out to be inadequate, and there is always the possibility that this statute limitation could be overturned by the courts. The premium for a $1,000,000 excess liability policy is an option in the proposal. 10261 Yellow Circle Drive * MInnO~OnkO. MN 55343-9307 · 612.033-7488 · 800-G88-5324 · gOx: 612.933,-0916 Ed Shukle/Gino Businaro Page 2 January ! 8, 1995 LMCIT Package Deductible Option: (Excluding Workers' Compensation and Non-LMCIT policies.) You presently have a $500.00 deductible, which applies to the actual loss payment and legal defense costs of each claim. A deductible option offered is: Deductible: $10,000 each occurrence $30,000 annual aggregate $ 1,000 per loss thereafter (Per line of coverage) Approximate Savings: $26,175 premium A large deductible could possibly reduce any potential future LMCIT dividend because there would be less premium paid. Dividends are at the discretion of the LMCIT Board of Directors, and cannot be gu-aranteed by law. It is a pleasure working with Council and Staffto provide for Mound's insurance needs. I look forward to your decision on the above options and working with you during the next policy year. Sincerely, Carl A. Bennetsen Commercial Representative CAB/bk PREMIUM SUMMARY 1995 PROPERTY 8,088 INLAND MARINE 1,787 LIABILITY 54,803 AUTO LIABILITY 13,488 AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE 11,078 MISC EQUIPMENT/AUTO 993 CRIME 195 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 51,790 BOILER & MACHINERY 2,489 AD&D BENEFIT 300 LIQUOR LIABILITY 5,880 EMPLOYEE DISHO~ 1,313 OPF, N MEETING LAW 822 1994 8,793 2,351 50,257 11,706 10,011 1,112 365 55,554 2,339 300 8,505 625 754 TOTAI~ 153,026 152,672 CITY OF MOUND OPTIONS FOR 1995 LMCIT PACKAGE POLICY COVER.AGE 1. Deductible (Including Legal Defense Costs): F~ch Occurrence - AH Lines Aggregate - Ail Lines If the Annual Aggregate of $30,000 is exceeded, then the following deductible applies: Each Line, per loss PREMIUM 10,000 30,000 1,000 Approximate Premium Savings on LMCIT Package Poficy 26,175 CITY OF MOUND OPTIONS FOR 1995 EXCF_,SS LIABILITY POLICY COVERAGE 1. Excess Liability $1,000,000 Limit With Waiver of Immunity Without Waiver of Immuity PREMIUM 19,679 14,550 JRF, 19 '95 Oi:ISPM MCCOMBS FRRMK ROOS McComb Frank Roes Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue Nor~, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-473g Telephone 61 ?./476-6Ol o 612./476-~532 FAX Engineers Plsnners Survey0m January 19, 1995 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 May"wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Water Meter Read System Payment Request NO. 5 MFRA 910622 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Schlumberger's Payment Request No. 5 for work completed through November 15, 1994, on =he subject project. The amount of this payment reques= is $?3,205.59. Also included is Change Order NO. 1 which shows a net deduct from the con%fac= in the amount of $3,901.12. This deduct is for compensa~ion to the Ci=y for extra time span= by City personnel because the computer system was no% fully operational by the time specified in the contract. There is also seven (?) sites that had de,acts which Schlumberger agreed to pay the City to correct. We have reviewed both ~he payment reques: and change order and ere recommending approval of the amounts sta~ed. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK Roes John Cameron ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,1C: pry Enclosures An Eq~l O~o~unity Employer JAN 19 '95 Oi:lgPM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS P.3x4 CHANGE ORDER NO'. 1 WATER METER READ SYSTEM MFRA #10622 DEDUC? - Additional time of City Staff Utility Billing Clerk 144.5 hours @ Sl7.00/hrS- 2,456.50 F&nance D&reCtor 20.0 hours @ $32.00/hr8- 640.00 Public Works Superintenden= 20.0 hours @ S26.00/hr$. 520 00 Installation Defeo=s Corrected ' by City 7.0 each @ $40.66/ea ~. 284.62 Tot&l Deduc~ From Con~ra¢~ S -3,901.12 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - DEDUCT REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT S330,390.00 - 3.901.12 S326,488.88 APPROVED: S~HL~R.GE~,~ INDUSTRIES APPROVED: MFRA APPROVED: CITY OF MOUND BY: DATE: DATE: DATE: RESOLUTION//95- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MARCH 5-12, 1995, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America, a Christian human service organization, is celebrating its 99th year of service to the people of Minnesota and the nation; it is therefore certainly appropriate for us, the City of Mound, to join in the observance of this milestone with the commemoration of March 5-12, 1995 as Volunteers of America Week; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is making a valuable contribution by providing these services to adults and the elderly: 6 homes for mentally disabled, mentally ill, chemically dependent and/or elderly adults; congregate dining for seniors at 45 sites in Anoka and I-Iennepin Counties; transitional housing for women and their families in Aitldn, Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, and Pine counties; home delivered meals for persons 60 years of age and over; semi-independent living services and supported living services; 3 housing complexes for families, the handicapped, and the elderly; and 4 long-term health care facilities; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America provides these services for children and youth: a children's daycare, programs serving autistic, autistic-like, and/or developmentally disabled youth; children's shelters; in-home services; 52 foster treatment homes and correction group homes; a residential treatment center for emotionally handicapped boys; a specialized behavioral program for boys with severe problems; short-term after care for youth with special needs; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America provides 2 correctional services: a pre- release and work release correctional program serving men and a jail; workhouse and work- release correctional program serving women; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America, though its dedicated staff and volunteers and the many people who help support their work through financial contributions make a significant impact on the lives of people in the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is commemorating its founding in 1896 and urges others to join them in bringing the gap between human needs and the resources of the public and private sector. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I Bob Polston, Mayor of the City of Mound, do hereby proclaim the week of March 5-12, 1995, as VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK in the City of Mound; t copie 's procl ~~ansm"--'~tq._the January 24, 1995 AND, BE IT RF~OLVED, that copies of this proclamation be transmitted to the Volunteers of America as evidence of ouCesteem. IN WITNESS WHERF_X)F, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the City of Mound to be affixed this 24th day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety five. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA 5905 Golden Valley Road · Minneapolis, MN 55422.-4490 · (612)546-3242 January 13, 1995 The Honorable Robert Polston Mayor of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mayor Polston: The Volunteers of America has been serving others for 99 years. Volunteers of America Week, March 5-12, commemorates the founding of our organization on March 8, 1896. We are one of Minnesota's largest.~human service Qrganizations. Year after year, more than 92% of every dollar we receive; we spend d~irectly on program services. Through the years, Volunteers of America has demonstrated it is a dynamic organization keeping pace with the everchanging world. We recognize the need for developing creative ways to solve problems and meet community needs for all members of our society. I hope you will recognize March 5-12, 1995 as Volunteers of America Week and ask that you join us in celebrating our 99th year of service. Your letter acknowledging our service to people in the Mound community will be appreciated. Your proclamation, along with other proclamations and letters will be duplicated and put into booklet form. A booklet commemorat- ing our 99th birthday will be placed in the reception area of each of our programs and senior dining sites. Something wonderful is happening in Minnesota, because of you! Your interest and support makes a significant impact on the success of our organization. And, as you know, our success is measured through the lives of those we touch. Respectfully Yours, ~ameC~s E.~ Ho~i~ ,~j~. President Enclosure Volunteers of America Minnesota · 1994-1995 PROGRAM SERVICES Bar-None Residential Treatment Center serves boys who are emotionally/behaviorally disturbed. 612-753-2500 Children's Day Care for infants and preschool aged children. 612-495-3344 Children's Emergency Shelter social services in a protective environment for children in crisis. 612-753-2319 Children's Shelter Annex long-term care with sodal and educational services for children. 612-753-2500 Congregate Dining hot noon meals in a community setting, to anyone 60 years or age or older. 612-546-3242 CornerStone Supportive Transitional Housing for homeless/high risk families. 612-495-3344 Correction Foster Group Homes therapeutic homes for teenagers with a delinquent history. 612.546-3242 Emergency Shelter Foster Care Homes provide short-term care for children. 612-546-3242 Evaluation Shelter Unit determines appropriate treatment plans for troubled youth. 612-546-2500 Foster Homes for Children where traditional family care is provided for children. 612-546-3242 Home Delivered Meals hot noon meals delivered to homebound seniors. 612-546-3242 In-Home Respite Care for families or children who are autistic, autistic-like and/or disabled. 612-546-3242 In-Home Supportive Living Services and Respite Services for disabled adults. 612-495-3344 Intensive Treatment Center for boys with severe behavioral problems in a secure setting. 612-753-2554 Mora Senior Supportive Living Services for mentally disabled elderly who have special needs. 612.546-3242 Out-of-Home Respite Care for families of children who are autistic, autistic-like and/or disabled. 612.546.3242 Ponderosa Board and Lodging services for adults. 612-495-3344 Princeton Supportive Living Services a home for mentally disabled adults. 612-495-3344 Regional Corrections Center a jail, workhouse and work-release program for women. 612-488-2073 Residential Center a pre-release and work-release correctional program for men. 612-721-6327 Semi-Independent Living Services learning opportunities for individuals with special needs. 612-495-3344 Settevig Supportive Living Services a home for developmentally disabled adults in Mora. 612.495-3344 Settevig Center serves emotionally and/or behaviorally disturbed boys. 612-753-2500 Short-Term Aftercare prepares a child for a successful transition from treatment to home. 612-753-2500 Specialized Behavioral Program serves emotionally/behaviorally disturbed boys and their families. 612-753-2500 Specialized Foster Homes for children who are physically and/or mentally challenged. 612-546.3242 Stevencroft Apartment Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled young adults. 612-644-2514 Stevencroft House Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled young adults. 612-644-2514 Supported Independent Living Services are provided for adolescents and adults with special needs. 612.495-3344 Treatment Foster Homes provide a supportive, directive environment for children and youth. 612-546-3242 White House Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled adults near Wahkon. 612-495-3344 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA..; founded March 8, 1896 in New York City. On April 24, 1896 services began in Minneapolis. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, a national Christian human service organization, has a 98 year history of serving people in need; regardless of their raee~ color or creed. It seeks to develop programs in areas where needs are not being met by existing services. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA staff is comprised of individuals who not only have administrative and/or professional social work expertise~ but who also have a commitment to the Christian mission of the organization; the reaching and uplifting of all people. Last year, in addition to 340 staff, more than 2,100 persons volunteered their talents to help enrich program services in Minnesota. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, a 501(c)(3) organization, is eligible to receive tax deductible donations. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA meets all regulatory standards, publishes an annual report, has a certified audit, and files with the Charities Division of the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Ronald E. Britz, Chairman James E. Hogie Jr, President Mary E. Adams Katie Erickson Walter W. Faster James W. Fell Mark. T. Flaten Gordon M. Haga Peter L. Hauser Barbara A. King Ross E. Kramer William W. McDonald W. Lyle Meyer John T. Richter William F. Rieckhoff Erling W. Rockney William E. Sandvig Clayton W. Strandlie Renee J. Tait Robert E. Van Valkenburg Dr. Harm A. Weber VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA DISTRICT OFFICE administrative, accounting, and development offices are located at 5905 Golden Valley Road, Minneapolis, MN 55422-4490 (612) 546-3242 ADD-ON ITEM CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 24, 1995 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW Please set Tuesday, April 25, 1995, as the date for the Local Board of Review Meeting. We can start this meeting at 7:00 P.M. Thank you. printed on recycled paper ~ ~~t, ~/;d~ .lst -~ ~;~ February . l~ 95 , bN~be~w~..--2k~ C~ty of Mound, a Minnesota Municipal CQrporationf Lots 1, 2, 3, & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood, PID #13-117-24 12 0223 ao{~,., ~ ~n~ ~,~,~n~ th/0.~ ~ o! ............. ~n~....y.~an .................................................. /rom ~.~ __.%_s..~. .................................................. &,,~ of.......E~.k,r.u.ar..~.. ................... ,1~_.9.5 .... It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties that the lessees shall only have a right to use the aforedescribed lands and that the only use that they may put this property to is to plant a garden. The lessees further agree that they will maintain the site, mowing the grass, cutting the weeks and keeping the site clear of litter during the term of this lease. The only purpose for which the lessees may use this ground is to plant a vegetable garden, which may not be used as a commercial garden plot, and there shall be no storage, parking or other uses of this property by the lessees. ......................................... : ................................................................................................. ;'or and d~rin for t~ Delivered in Pre~ene~ of · ~'~'~I'~--w~Tr/~ ...................................... ($.~) ..................................................... Mayor, City of Mound ............................................ City Manager, City of Mound' RECEIVSi 2 3 1995 I2%KE MIN-NETON-KA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 pm, Wednesday, January 25, 1995 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd ~ALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL (~H~IR ~?NOUNCEMENTS, Chair Johnstone 1. Save the Lake Recognition Dinner, Thurs., Feb. 23, Lord Fletchers RE~DING OF MINUTES - 12/7/94 Board Meeting P~BLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min) CONB~T AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from consent agenda. ~FATER STRUCTURES, Chair Doug Babcock Approval of minutes, 1/14/95 meeting Be De Harborage Home Owners Assn recommending approval of a minor change to extend dock from 90' to 96', changing west side dock configuration from angled to perpendicular, per survey; Foxhi11 Home Owners Assn recommending denial of minor change to increase one slip size, decrease another, Code provision not allowing increase in slip size for non-conforming dock. Minnetonka Yacht Club new multiple dock license recommending denial to change the dock configuration to convert 15 slides to 10'x24' slips; F® Excelsior Park Tavern recommending denial of minor change to the multiple dock license to add eight slips per 4/25/90 Special Density License granted for different configuration, recommending new dock license application and public hearing further recommending approval of 1995 renewal without change for 32 slips as originally licensed for this site; Excelsior Park Pavilion new dock license, minor change, to add a 100' pier to accommodate MN Transportation Museum Minnehaha Steamboat charter and one additional charter boat, exchanging two slips to maintain 1:10 density at 42 boat storage units, as proposed by the committee for staff review, recommendation; Ge Carlson Real Estate Co., Halsteads Bay, Minnetrista, recommending approval of the variance request for the north dock site to allow the dock to extend 200' from shore, with the condition that slips lengths be reduced from 32' to 24'. Carlson Real Estate Co., Halsteads Bay, Minnetrista, request for four multiple dock licenses recommending approval with the following conditions: NORTH- 23 BSUts subject to: 1) slip lengths reduced to 24', 2) the variance being approved, 3) an EAW be conducted, 4) review of the covenants, and 5) a no pre-build condition. PENINSULA- 14 BSU's subject to: 1) an EAW be conducted, 2) review of the covenants, and 3) a no pre-build condition. 3 ) CHANNEL- 4) SOUTH- 31 BSU's subject to: 1) an EAW be conducted, 2) review of the covenants, and 3) a no pre-build condition. 20 BSU's subject to 1) an EAW be conducted, 2) review of the covenants, and 3) a no pre-build condition. I. Additional Business LAKB USE AND RECREATION, Chair Bert Foster A. Approval of minutes, handout of 1/23/95 meeting Bo D® Public hearing report, findings and committee recommendation for consideration of amending the observer requirement while towing water skiers during selected dates, times; Lake Access Task Force Report Implementation Priorities recommendation per committee evaluation; Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Special Deputy Candidate recommendation for Save the Lake Dinner Recognition; E. Additional business o SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Craig Mollet Approval of minutes, meeting of 1/5/95; B. Informational report per 1/5/95 minutes; C. Additional business o ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Bill Johnstone Approval of minutes, meeting of 12/7/94; Bo Report of 1/25/95 meeting held prior to board meeting with recommendations or informational report on: > Proposal to develop an RFP for Eurasian Water Milfoil contractual harvesting; > Auditor selection; > Legal counsel appointment; Prosecuting attorney appointment~ Official newspaper selection; Bank depository resolution for fiscal year 1995 Performance/compensation evaluation for executive director C. Additional business BUR~Z~N NATER MZLFOIL T~K FORCE, Chair Herb Suerth * A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 1/13/95, handout; B. Informational report per 1/13/95 minutes; C. Additional business FIN~NCI]%L REPORTS, Treasurer Bob Rascop A. Year-end financial summary and balance sheet B. Audit of vouchers for payment (handout) · xecutive Director Report, Gene Strommen A. Personnel progress B. February meeting schedule ~. NEN BUSINESS and ~DJOURNMENT DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, December 7, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Road CALL TO ORDER Chair Johnstone called the meeting to order at 7530 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present= Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary; Ross McGlasson, Tonka Bay; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director; Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician. Members Absent= Tom Reese, Mound. Orono has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES Zwak moved, Bloom seconded to approve the minutes of the 10/29/94 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Babcock requested that items 2F and G be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. MOTION: Babcock moved, McGlasson seconded to approve the consent agenda items identified by an "*" excluding items 2F and G. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Doug Babcock B. HOWARDS POINT MARINA, new multiple dock license application changing dock width to 10' and extension of gas dock length. MOTION: Babcock moved, Mollet seconded to approve the multiple dock license as recommended. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Envelope Committee Report on Multiple Docks, MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to adopt the report as recommended by the committee for further review and subsequent direction to committee or staff. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 2 DISCUSSION: Johnstone asked Babcock to comment on the report and what would occur if the report is adopted. Babcock stated that the envelope concept would allow reconfiguring within the dock envelope at legal non-conforming sites as long as the following requirements are maintained: 1) Boat Storage Units (BSU) are not increased. 2) Total square footage occupied does not increase relating to these BSU's. 3) Dock does not extend beyond 100 feet further than it currently extends beyond 100 feet. 4) Dock does not extend into the side setbacks further than it currently extends into side setbacks. Babcock indicated that if the concept was adopted, it would be directed back to the committee and staff to resolve any outstanding issues and then draft ordinances accordingly. Rascop indicated he would vote against the motion. He was concerned about weakening LMCD's 100 foot requirement. He also indicated that he thought it would increase, not decrease, staff time in the inspection process. Johnstone asked staff to address whether this concept would increase or decrease staff time. Strommen indicated that enforcement would be different than currently used. Their could be difficulty for staff to determine side setbacks without a land survey mark or definite permanent structures to serve as a base of property line demarcation as slips are moved in the envelope. Measuring to assure square footage has not increased is necessitated. Also, measuring to assure docks have not moved beyond the previous length if beyond 100' is necessitated. LMCD may have to require a survey of the site every time a dock is reconfiqured. This would require the applicant to notify LMCD before a change is made, applicant to make the change, perform the survey, and then notify LMCD staff to conduct an inspection following the change. This would be % burden on the applicant as much as the LMCD staff. This would be the only way LMCD staff could keep track of changes being made. Markus expressed a concern of boats that extend beyond the slip length. Zwak questioned the increase in staff time. He believes that since minor changes currently require a variance, it would not increase staff time. (STAFF MEMO: Minor changes do not necessarily require a variance.) Zwak also believes that in the cases of marinas, side setbacks will not be difficult to determine. LeFevere addressed the Board on the issue of conforming versus non- conforming dock uses. He expressed a concern that the Board should LMCD Board of Directors, Minutesv December 7, 1994v Page 3 address all changes which can occur in the 100' to 200' range from shore even though density has not changed. Foster arrived at this time. Johnstone indicated to the Board he will vote in favor of the envelope concept. He indicated that he thought it will simplify the process and also reduce the cost of administering the code. He recommended drafting the ordinance changes necessary so the committee can move on to other business. VOTE: Motion passed, (11) ayes, (1) nay (Rascop) D. Draft Ordinance to Establish a Special Rule for Continuous Shoreline of bock Use Areas in Close Proximity, reco~mending removal of Item e, "Neither transferor site nor transferee site may have shoreline comprised in whole or in part of wetlands," and recommending m second reading as emended. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to approve the second reading as recommended by the committee to establish a special rule for continuous shoreline of dock use areas in close proximity, recommending removal of item e, "Neither transferor site nor transferee site may have shoreline comprised in whole or in part of wetlands,". VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Draft ordinance emending Sect. 2.07, Temper&fy Structures, recommending third reading. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to approve a third reading of draft ordinance amending Sect. 2.07, temporary Structures. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F. Draft Ordinance to Establish Planned Usage Development (PUD) Procedures and Standards and a Definition for Public Piers, recommending addition of new Item "m", "Overnight boat storage is not allowed at any location along the pier," for board recommendation on the amendment and draft ordinance following the public hearing. Babcock questioned whether the board wanted to make any specific recommendation at this time immediately following the public hearing unless the board believes it is necessary. It was pointed out that the board may want to act on the addition of new Item "m" noted above. DISCUSSION. Rascop asked how this would affect the Minnehaha Steamboat Charter. Partyka responded his understanding that the Minnehaha Steamboat would be home based in Excelsior for overnight storage. Rascop then pointed out the occasional need for public LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 4 safety overnight storage, and that this could be handled as an exception. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to approve the addition of item "m" to the "PUD" draft ordinance. DISCUSSION: Johnstone questioned whether formal board action was LMCD necessary on a draft ordinance. He recommended referring it back to committee. Babcock and Grathwol withdrew their motion. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded to refer this back to committee. VOTE. Motion carried unanimously. Bloom recommended that law enforcement be included in the standards. He pointed out the need for trash disposal being in the standards. McGlasson was concerned that the applicant has left out some needed stahdards for trash, lighting and others. Foster suggested these standards be in the applicant's plan. Babcock agreed. Bloom supported having specific standards on what can and cannot be done. LeFevere offered additional guidelines. There really are two ordinances in this process. The ordinance before the board establishes a process. When someone applies for a PUD it goes through the hearing, etc. If it Ks approved, it is approved by oud%nance, For example, if Wayzata comes in, it should include a trash disposal plan that says the receptacle on the pier will be emptied as necessary. The board can put this in the ordinance for the Wayzata Lakewalk. Enforcement or compliance is through the ordinance governing the particular public pier. G. Additional Business. No additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION, Chair Foster B. Draft ordinance amending Sect. 3.07, Watercraft for Hire, adding Coast Guard safety standards in new Subd. $ - 9, recommending the deletion of Subd. 10 requiring m 36" deck railing height, and third reading for the final adoption and publication. Foster provided a background on charter boat railing height requirements. He mentioned that LMCD has not had such requirements in its current code. He believes that this will put undue burdens on the charter boat owners. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded to delete Subd. 10 on the railing height requirement and to recommend third reading approval. DISCUSSION. Babcock suggested more language is needed to provide LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 5 better safety standards. However, he also agrees that LMCD should not put undue burden on charter boat owners. He suggested referring the ordinance back to committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F. Charter Boat license 1994 fee refund of $175, which excludes $75 for administrative costs, for Chuck Gross, Elisabeth~nn Charters, recommending approval. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to accept the recommendation of committee to a partial 1994 license refund of $175 to Chuck Gross for the Elizabeth Ann Charter Boat which was not put in service. DISCUSSION: Babcock questioned whether LMCD has the ability to refund this license. He referenced that specific provisions are in ordinances which do not allow refund of licenses. He addressed this question to LeFevere. LeFevere indicated that there should be no problems. Foster and Zwak amended their motion to include, "if it is prohibited by code, to refer the matter to legal counsel." VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. Deicing license and deposit refund recommending approval for Excelsior Park Tavern of $187.50, excluding $37.50 charge for administrative costs to the license deposit. Foster moved, Partyka seconded to refund $187.50 to Excelsior Park Tavern as recommended by the committee, provided it is allowed by code. DISCUSSION: Babcock brought up the same concerns as those expressed in 2F. VOTE: Motion Carried unanimously. H. Recommendation to hold a public hearing for public comment on a draft outline being prepared by subcommittee to amend code Provisions requiring an observer for towing while water skiing, Public Hearing proposed for $:30 pm, Monday, January 15 prior to the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve committee recommendation to hold a public hearing prior to the 1/23/95 Lake Use Committee to consider the possibility of amending the code provision requiring an observer for the towing of water skiers. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 6 DISCUSSION: Babcock expressed doubts about the benefit of holding a public hearing. He indicated that the issue has been addressed twice by this Board and defeated both times. Strommen addressed the Board concerning the time of the hearing. Attendance would be diminished with a 5:30 p.m. hearing. He recommended a 7:00 p.m. public hearing time. Foster and Rascop amended their motions to adjust the time to 7 P.M. VOTE: Motion carried, 12 (ayes), i (nay) I. Special Event proposal by Albert A. Livingstone to conduct a for- hire para-sail event on limited lake areas at restricted times and days, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol requesting LMCD recommendation based upon the Sheriff's initial evaluation to deny the event as a week day and weekend event. Foster introduced applicant Livingstone who present a five minute video demonstrating the para-sail system he intends to use. The Board addressed a wide variety of questions to the applicant. Markus was interested on economic viability of the project including how much the boat costs, how much it would cost per ride, etc. Livingstone addressed these questions. Johnstone asked what the issue is? Strommen and Foster addressed the question, stating that the Water Patrol has asked for assistance from the LMCD concerning this unusual request, asking a board recommendation. Foster noted that Livingstone's initial request was denied by Water Patrol because of vagueness and their request to operate on holidays as well as weekends. Since then, Livingstone has modified his plan to meet guidelines suggested by the committee. Babcock expressed two concerns. He indicated that the busiest days boating days on Lake Minnetonka are not necessarily weekends and holidays. Also the LaFayette Bay zone may not be suitable for weekend para-sailing. He cited safety problems and two no-wake zones in the vicinity of this bay. Strommen added that the northwest corner of LaFayette Bay is infested with milfoil and also shallow.. Bloom concurred with Babcock. He has concerns that this project can be safely conducted in LaFayette Bay Foster moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend approval of this application to the Hennepin County Water Patrol Zwak noted that the problem with the event is the number of variables LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 7 including wind direction, wind speed, density of boat use in the areas, and other restrictions already cited. Markus was interested on Water Patrol's stance on the resubmitted application. Strommen indicated he had talked to Sgt. Chandler that day. Chandler was encouraged by the improvements made in the application, but there are still concerns. Some of these concerns include traffic flow in LaFayette Bay, the length of the tow rope, although that can be waived by the sheriff, and safety issues if someone landed in the water. The Water Patrol would have the right to shut down the operation if problems occur. Bloom again stated concerns with LaFayette Bay. He reemphasized that the size of the bay could add to the frequencies of accidents. Johnstone indicated he will vote no against since the activity does not promote a public benefit. MOTION AMENDMENT: Babcock moved, Bloom seconded to amend the motion to eliminate LaFayette Bay from the proposed activity. VOTE (AMENDMENT): Amendment Failed, 5 (ayes) 7 (nays) VOTE (ORIGI1TAL): Motion Failed, 4 (ayes) 8 (nays) Babcock stated for public record he is willing to reconsider his position at the next Board meeting. K. 1994 Boat Density Study presente~ without reoommen4ation to oomplete the contraotor's obligation for 1994, an4 refer to committee for further comment. Strommen briefed the Board that a meeting has been set up for 8:30 a.m., Friday, December 16, with Tim Kelly, DNR Planner and representatives of DNR Trails and Waterways for final comment on the report. DNR is a co-sponsor of the density study. Kelly has already expressed full satisfaction that the data is properly presented and that the conclusions are well supported. Babcock was interested in some more specific data by bay. noted working papers would have more such detail. Strommen MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to accept the report as submitted to complete the contractor's obligation for the study. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. L. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS- no additional business. 3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December ?, 1994, Page 8 B. Vision Statement recommendation establishing criteria for board allocation of reserve funds, per attachment to minutes. MOTION= Grathwol moved, Zwak seconded to approve recommendation establishing criteria for board allocation of reserve funds. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously C. Progress report on mail solioitations compared to budget. Mollet reported that approximately $27,000 had been collected year- to-date through 10/31/94. Strommen added that the November mailing has also resulted in $2,000 more making it likely that the final total would reach $30,000. D. ~mergency rescue inflatable boat purchase to augment Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol e~uipment, recommending expenditure for boat and trailer to not exceed $$,000, for purchase in December. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to recommend approval of the purchase of the boat and trailer for Water Patrol not to exceed $5,000. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Additional Business MINNEHAHA STEAMBOAT FUNDING. Grathwol addressed a contribution question of the Save the Lake Advisory Committee for a possible additional contribution to the Minnehaha Steamboat restoration. He added that he is looking for a response to take back to Excelsior city officials. Mollet indicated that this has not been discussed recently by the committee. He invited Grathwol to the next committee meeting. 4. EURASIAN NATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Executive Director Strommen A. Presentation of 11/10/94 meeting minutes. (handout) Strommen highlighted the meeting minutes. He expanded on his visit to the Minnesota Lake conference October 27- 29. He noted that the conference focused on the impact of aquatic exotics and particularly the Zebra Mussel threat. Introduction of exotics by foreign vessels entering the Great Lakes continues to be the largest source of aquatic exotics reaching inland lakes and rivers. The high quality of government and industry officials speaking at the conference were exemplary this year, Strommen added.. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone A. Report of 10/26/94 meeting was accepted as presented. LMCD Board of Directors Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 9 B. Yinanoial Procedure Recomuendation. MOTION= Zwak moved, Narkus seconded to recommend authorizing the executive director and treasurer to pay appropriate bills relating to 1994 business through 12/31/94. VOTE= Motion carried unanimously C. Committee and Subcommittee Chair&ppointments The following chairs and vice chairs were recommended: Water Structures Chair - Doug Babcock Lake Use Eurasian Water Milfoil "Save the Lake" Administrative Committee Zebra Mussel and Exotics Subcomm. Vice-Chair - Gene Partyka Chair - Bert Foster vice-Chair - Mike Bloom Chair - Herb Suerth Vice Chair - Tom Reese Chair - Craig Mollet Vice Chair - None Chair - Bill Johnstone Vice Chair - None Chair - None Vice Chair - None MOTION: Zwak moved, Babcock seconded to approve the above committee chairs and vice chairs as recommended. VOTB: Motion carried unanimously. D. Draft Re~uest for Proposals for Eurasian Water Milfoil Contract Harvesting and recommendation. Johnstone indicated that a recommendation is not ready for the board at this time. Strommen and Reese are still reviewing a proposal to present in January. B. "Lake Bummit" concept proposal. Johnstone asked the Board to allow him to formalize his ideas on the "Lake Summit" for the Board meeting in January. The Board agreed. Y. Quarterly Mayors Report next meeting date The next meeting date was set for 7:30 am, Friday, February 24, 1995. G. Save tho Lake recognition dinner date, place selection. The date and place of Thursday evening, February 23, 1995, Lord Fletchers of the Lake, was agreed by the board. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 10 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Gene Strommen Strommen discussed the secretary position status. He indicated that the secretary of three months resigned unexpectedly and without notice . Strommen,s intention is to utilize a temporary service in the next few months with an option to hire the temporary person after a period of time. The compensation rate will be kept within the allowances budgeted for hiring purposes (salary, employer payroll costs and benefits). The board concurred with this process. Greg Nybeck's service as administrative technician was reviewed. Strommen advised that Nybeck's performance is meeting expectations. The calendar of meetings for 1995 was presented. Babcock asked the Board to move Water Structures committee meeting in November from the 18th to the llth. The public official's lake inspection tour was not specified as to date in August, with the format of the tour to be discussed by the Administrative Committee as it is now impacted by new state laws governing gifts to public officials. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasttrer Rascop Rascop indicated that because of the early December meeting date, the financial report ending 11/30/94 is not yet complete. The Audit of Vouchers for expenses of $22,796.37, check numbers 9988-10028 and payroll checks 1307-1314 through 11/30/94 were presented for approval. Babcock asked about a Visa expenditure. Strommen indicated it was used for conference registration fees and hotel room for the MN Lakes Association annual conference in Alexandria. Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to approve the Audit of Vouchers as presented. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ~ BU811~88 - Zwak litigation suit was introduced by Chair Johnstone for a board update. Zwak stepped down from the board for this discussion. LeFevere reviewed the pending litigation between the LMCD and Joseph Zwak. The case started in 1992 when LMCD staff observed five boats stored at a site owned by Zwak and three other defendants. Upon investigating the need for a multiple dock license, staff discovered that the outlot only qualified for storage of two restricted watercraft. Upon suggestion by LMCD staff the defendant presented no evidence that the site was grandfathered for more than two restricted watercraft. The Board position supported allowing only two restricted watercraft at this site based upon the information provided, and that it should enforce the code. Zwak and the other defendants continued to store four restricted watercraft, removing one to avoid the multiple dock license requirement. LMCD then proceeded to bring this case to court. LMCD Board of D£rectors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 11 LeFevere mentioned the discovery period has expired. He indicated that the judge has listened to or received affidavits from both parties in this matter for summary judgement. The possible outcomes are: 1) The court would rule in favor of the LMCD; 2) The court would rule against the LMCD or 3) There are material facts in dispute and they cannot e decided without a trial. There is some middle ground where the court might decide some issues in summary judgement and other issues would go to trial. A trial would be set for some time in January. LeFevere pointed out that an affidavit and memorandum on the case are available in the LMCD office if board members would like to see them. The central question before the court is that whether Zwak and the other owners of Lot 7, Strickland Addition, City of Greenwood, are entitled to store four watercraft under the last code exception, which states three or four boats are allowed stored only if they are "owned by and registered to the residents of the site." The LMCD position is that there is no residence on the site, and therefore Zwak and the three other defendants are not residents of the outlot site. Lot 7 has a homestead ad valorem tax status in connection with their residential property. This was decided by the city assessor because the interest in lot 7 is legally attached to their lots so they cannot sell their undivided 1/4 interest in lot 7 without selling their lot with the residence on it. Rightly or wrongly the city assessor has made the determination that this lot is a homestead for ad valorem tax purposes. Zwak responded on behalf of the defendants. He agreed that the question in this case revolves around language, specifically Section 2.04 , Subdivision 4. He indicated that the LMCD ordinances have no definition of a residence. He indicated that the city of Greenwood agrees that they are residents of the outlot based upon their homestead status. The council passed resolution indicating this. Zwak continued in regards to the ad valorem tax, the city assessor has authority through the state statute. The statute says in order for an assessor to grant the homestead exemption, the assessor must come to a decision that the party is a resident of the property. That decision was made by the city assessor in this case. Statutory laws and city ordinance do not require contiguous parcels of property in order to have two parcels of land considered as a residence. It is a matter of intent, do you intend to occupy that property as a part of your residence, and you do in fact so occupy it. We believe the state law says we are residents of that lot. There is no house on it. The State of Minnesota does not require that there be a house on a lot in order for a lot to be considered a residence Both parties appeared before Judge Crump last Thursday, Zwak continued. The judge said he would have a decision quickly. LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, December 7, 1994, Page 12 Zwak then said the judge went off the record by saying that at the least the defendants are entitled to a trial. The judge also said he feets the defendants complied with the LMCD regulations, that they are residents of the site. The judge indicated that if the LMCD intended otherwise, they made a mistake in their setting up their ordinances in this regard. Zwak then continued that LeFevere responded to the judge that the LMCD can amend their ordinances and would suggest that at the December board meeting. The judge replied that the LMCD cannot amend its regulations to the detriment of the defendants. Zwak added that LeFevere believes that he can. Zwak added his concern that LMCD not change its law to legislate he and the defendants out (of their lake access). Zwak~s point is that the judge is leaning off the record that the defendants have strong support for their case and that they are at least residents of that site. I think we will prevail, if not on the mo~on, at least at a trial. The judge also added that the parties should settle their dispute. He believes enough time and money has been spent on this case by both parties. He believes they have the right to keep four boats at this site under Subd. 4, which could have been demonstrated had he and the defendants had adequate notice to present their case to the LMCD committee and board. Several board members directed questions to Zwak on further details of the case which Zwak answered. Babcock moved, Foster seconded motioned to call Executive Session to further discuss this topic. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnstone declared the meeting adjourned at 11:05 pm. William Johnstone, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary RECEIVED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 8:45 am, Saturday, January 14, 1995 Room 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata Members Present: Doug Babcock, Spring Park, Chair; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Joseph Zwak, Greenwood; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician; Carlson Real Estate Co.- variance application for North Dock to extend dock beyond 100' to 200' at its furthest point from shore. Babcock invited the committee to discuss findings from the public hearing or to ask further questions from the applicant. Partyka questioned the 89 BSU's for the project since the city has approved only 88. He favored the committee recommending 88 BSU's until the City of Minnetrista approves the extra BSU. Marc Carlson, Lundgren Brothers Construction, representing Carlson Real Estate Co., requested approval of 89 BSU's conditional on approval from the city. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Foster seconded to approve the variance application as submitted. DISCUSSION: Babcock was concerned with a variance request for non- riparian lots. He indicated from his experience that the LMCD has granted variances to riparian land owners, not non-riparian land owners, to improve access to the lake. Strommen commented that cases similar to this have been granted, most recently Gideons Point HOA. The shoreline is dedicated to provide for the non-riparian access. Rascop pointed out that the applicant needs to know that approval of this variance does not grant vested rights to the lakeshore. Instead, these rights are reviewed annually and could possibly be amended in the future. Babcock recommended to Anderson to include in their covenant agreements that further restrictions on multiple docks could be made in the future to address boat density problems on the lake. Foster expressed a concern with granting a variance when a low water site exists and the use of larger boats at this site which could require more than a 4' water depth. He felt a relationship of shallow water and slip size needs to be established. He indicated he would accept the variance on the condition that slip sizes at the north dock site be reduced from 32' to 24'. He does not see this as a hardship. Jeff Fox responded to Foster's concerns. He indicated that the January issue of Motor Boating Sailing has a listing of all power boats and their draft. This issue, according to Fox, indicates that most power boats will not have a draft greater than 30" to 32" WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 2 Foster responded that this may be true, but experience with marina operators differs. Experience indicates that a greater draw exists with 30' cruisers versus 24' runabouts. He expressed that some dock sites may not be adequate for larger boats because of shallow water. MOTION: Foster moved, Markus seconded, to amend the motion to require slip lengths reduced from 32' to 24' on the north site. DISCUSSION: Anderson pointed out that traffic in Halsteads Bay around the north dock site is not heavy. The applicant maintains that the 32' slips are needed to achieve the development program they have planned. Strommen indicated that an EAW would be required with 32' slips, or for 24' slips if 24 instead of 23 are installed. Included in the EAW would be the effect of larger boats on the bay. Zwak mentioned that he thought was inappropriate to amend the variance until response from an EAW is available. Johnstone indicated he will vote in favor of the amendment. He finds it reasonable to grant the variance, but the dock size should be reduced to the smaller size. Anderson said if the committee is concerned with large boat drafts, further research should be done before action is taken. He recommended that the committee table the variance application until this is done. Johnstone responded that besides draft, his concern is the size of boats and the structure. He indicated that action taken today is only a recommendation. Final action is taken at the Board of Directors meeting. The board meets next on January 25. Anderson withdrew his request that the variance application be tabled after discussion with his associates. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Ayes (6), Nays (1) Markus; Amendment passes. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes (6), Nays (1) Markus; Motion carried. 2. Carlson Real Estate Co.- Four new multiple dock license applications requesting 89 BSU's on 8,810' of lakeshore. a) North Dock, seasonal docks, requesting an amended 24 BSU's on an amended 1,570' of lake frontage : Johnstone asked if all four multiple dock license applications could be voted on as one single motion. Foster supported one motion. Babcock preferred voting on each one separately since they are separate applications that could be changed in the future. MOTION: Johnstone moved, seconded by Foster to approve the application as amended to 24' dock slip length, conditional on the variance being WATER STRUCTURES COM_~ITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 3 approved, subject to an EAW be conducted if required by the board, and review of the covenants. DISCUSSION: The committee decided that an EAW was required for this dock site. Babcock indicated that even with the 24' slip amendment that the site will be over the 20,000 sq.ft, requirement. The applicant questioned whether an EAW needs to be performed. With 24 slips, they realize the site is over 20,000 sq.ft. However, at 23 slips, this figure is somewhat below 20,000 sq.ft. The applicant would consider using 23 slips versus 24 slips if they are required to reduce the slips to 24' length and thus avoid the EAW. Babcock questioned how 23 - 24' slips would reduce the sq.ft, below 20,000 sq.ft. He estimates 70,000 sq.ft, are involved in the lake area occupied. Strommen responded that he calculated the EAW figures based upon the length and width of the dock structure, plus a full slip length beyond the docks for maneuvering space as identified in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) guidelines. Upon request from the applicant, EQB staff was contacted regarding the method of calculating the area occupied by dock structure and maneuvering space. EQB staff advised it is not required to count the water space from shore to the inside portion of the docks. Rascop agreed with this guideline. In this case emergent vegetation between the shore and the dock removes water surface from public use. Anderson indicated in order to stay under 20,000 sg.ft, they would prefer having 23 BSU's on the north dock and 32 BSU's in the channel dock to avoid an EAW being conducted on the north dock. Charles Dayton, counsel for the applicant, mentioned that are no regulations which require the area between shore and the dock itself to be included in the calculation of square feet for an EAW. Babcock disagreed. Babcock believes that an applicant is being licensed for a dock use area. The DUA in this case is well over the 20,000 sq.ft. Dayton indicated he is referring to EQB's regulations. He cited the EQB regulation which requires an EAW for an expansion of a marina or harbor project in excess of 20,000 sq.ft. He questioned whether this is a marina or harbor project since it is not commercial. MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded, to amend the motion to reduce the BSU's from 24 to 23 and to not require an EAW. DISCUSSION: Babcock indicated that he recalls the DUA being used to determine whether an EAW needs to be done. He prefers to conduct an EAW to be on the safe side. Rascop recommended using the DUA in the calculation and opposes Foster's motion. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 4 Anderson added the multiple dock site plan is different than if docks were installed by individual riparian land owners. In this case, they would each have right to access the lake. In these cases, an EAW would not be required. He feels that an EAW is not justified since this is a grouping of private home owners and not a marina or a harbor. AMENDMENT VOTE: Ayes (3), Nayes (4); amendment fails. Foster moved, Zwak seconded to amend the number of BSU's from 24 to 23 on this dock site. AMENDMENT VOTE: Amendment carried unanimously. Babcock recommended two friendly amendments to the original motion. They are: 1) Review of the covenants by LMCD counsel, and 2) Not allow building of dock structure until the houses are built. Anderson inquired whether the conditions of the motion are only for the north dock. The committee affirmed that they are. Strommen asked Babcock for a review of the motion. Babcock indicated conditions of the motion are approval of 23 BSU's, subject to: a) the variance being approved, b) an EAW being done, c) review of the covenants, and d) a no dock pre-build condition. VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. b) Peninsula Dock, seasonal docks, requesting a total of 14 BSU's, six facing north, eight facing south, on 4,090' of lake frontage. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Rascop seconded to approve the license application as submitted subject to review of the covenants, subject to an EAW being conducted and subject to a no dock pre-build condition. DISCUSSION: Babcock indicated that this application is for two separate docks combined on one dock license application. While each dock separately is not exceeding 20,000 sq.ft., he questioned whether an EAW should be conducted because the two combined docks under one license application exceed 20,000 sq.ft. He recommended performing an EAW on all four license application to simplify it. Strommen concurred that doing one EAW for all applications would simplify staff time involved in preparation, distribution and processing. Babcock proposed a friendly amendment that the covenants be reviewed for this dock. Dayton felt that a EAW was not necessary since they are not a harbor or a marina. Also, since they are separate docks, the square footage should not be combined. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 5 It was questioned whether the covenants should be reviewed for this license. The covenants submitted with this application will stay the same since it is the master document for the development as a whole. Foster recommending eliminating the EAW from all licenses, address it as a separate issue, and then determine whether we want one. Markus supports Strommen's suggestion to perform one EAW for all the multiple docks. Johnstone recommended because this is a substantial development, as a matter of policy we should require an EAW even though it may not be required technically. Rascop concurred and expressed an interest in the results of an EAW, especially in the channel. Anderson added that an EAW was performed by the City of Minnetrista in the channel. The EAW did not address dock related issues, but it did address the dredging, the natural vegetation, and other issues. A copy of it has been provided to LMCD staff. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. c) Channel Dock, permanent dock, requesting 31 BSU's on a total of 1,750' of lake frontage. MOTION: Johnstone moved, seconded by Partyka to approve the application subject to review of the covenants, subject to an EAW being conducted and subject to a no dock pre-build condition. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. d) South Dock, seasonal dock, requesting 20 BSU's on a total of 1,400' of lake frontage. MOTION: Johnstone moved, seconded by Rascop to approve the application as submitted subject to review of the covenants, subject to an EAW being conducted and subject to a no pre-build condition. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock expressed his concern on the north dock. He recommended to the applicant to consider a second finger out to the docks for safety concerns, especially in case of a fire. Harborage Home Owners Association - minor change to extend dock from present 90' to 96' and changing dock configuration on west side to resolve shallow water problem on slip #1. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to consider this application a minor change and recommend approval to the board. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, p. 6 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Foxhill Home Owners Association - minor change to multiple dock ~ license of a nonconforming dock to enlarge the width of slip ~1 from 12' to 15' (96 sq.ft increase) and reduce width of slip #10 from 12' to 8' (96 sq.ft, decrease) including provision to allow a 40' canopy on the 32' slip ~1 as approved 1/26/94 for a 13-slip full configuration. MOTION: Zwak moved, seconded by Johnstone to approve application as submitted. DISCUSSION: Babcock discussed that this could be allowed if the envelope concept is approved. Under current code (Sec. 2.05, Subd. 9, Non-conforming Mooring Areas or Structures) does not allow increase in size of slips at non-conforming sites without applying for a Special Density license. (Homeowner associations are not eligible for special density licenses.) Babcock would oppose approving the application. Johnstone asked Babcock where the committee is at with the envelope concept. Babcock indicated it is his intention to address what ordinances should be drafted for consideration for the February Water Structures Committee meeting. In one year the applicant may be eligible to incorporate this change. Johnstone asked why it would take wait one year. Babcock said three readings are normally required prior to an ordinance being passed. In doing so, it would put it well into the boating season. MOTION: Motion failed, all votes nay. Rascop asked the committee if a positive motion could be made instead of a negative on. MOTION: Rascop moved, seconded by Zwak to deny the application as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. Minnetonka Yacht Club - New multiple dock license to convert 15 unrestricted watercraft slide storage spaces to 15 - 10'x 24' slips plus three tie-on storage spaces. Babcock asked for committee approval to proceed with this item due to the presence of interested parties and because the representative of the scheduled agenda item 5 is not present. The committee consented to proceed with agenda item 6. Jack Strothman, legal counsel for the Minnetonka Yacht Club (MYC), introduced J.D. McRae, representing MYC for the application in 1994, Chuck Gorgen, MYC Commodore, Tom Burton, MYC Vice Commodore. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 7 Strothman reviewed the original proposal to convert 20 buoys into slips for a total of 56 BSU's. He indicated that a question arose concerning a piece of property that the MYC thought it owned. This issue was resolved 1/4/95 by legal proceeding which proved title of that property to the MYC. A total of 383 ft of lakeshore exists at this site. A 1/12/95 letter to the executive director outlines the current request for reconfiguration on Carsons Bay. The letter states that MYC wishes to keep its 36 BSU's by converting 15 slides into 15 - 10'x 24' slips. It indicates that the site is currently conforming to 1:10 density for BSU purposes and that the reconfiguration will continue to conform to LMCD code. It points out that financially this reconfiguration will benefit the MYC. The letter finally states MYC has an interest in lake density concerns and preservation of the lake. The proposal reconfigures the Carson Bay site. In the past, there was a combination of 15 slides and 15 slips and boat tie-ohs for a total of 36 BSU's. The MYC believes the reconfiguration will reduce congestion at the Deephaven public access by moving slips to the west with the slides converted to slips to the north. The change does not change the density (the number of BSU's). Strothman referred to a letter circulated to residents of Carson Bay speaking against the reconfiguration. Burton responded to this by contacting 26 families. After talking with these families about the plans and their concerns, he said the majority backed off of their concerns. Strothman mentioned that the MYC is doing everything they can to be a good neighbor. They are hiring a professional manager to assure laws are complied with and neighbors' concerns are met. St. Louis and Carsons Bays are different, Strothman continued. He says the City of Deephaven Carsons Bay like a harbor. The MYC will not add to this. He does not think larger is necessarily bad. He believes smaller boats also cause problems on the lake. Strothman admitted that approval of this application would economically benefit the MYC. He feels more importantly that this will allow for a larger membership at the MYC. By having more slips available the MYC will hook both adults and youth into the sport of sailing. A copy of the McGoldrick letter referenced by Strothman was distributed Rascop felt that the Board cannot support a decision based upon the MYC's need for more income. Strothman agreed and mentioned that this should not be the basis for the committee's and board's decision. Foster questioned how access to the buoy field would be handled if the rowboats and dingy's were eliminated from the slides. Strothman said only a few slides were used as sailboat dinghies. The other boats on slides were used to reach sailboats at the islands. A pontoon will be used to transport persons in place of the boats on WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, p. 8 slides He believes wakes from a pontoon are minimal in comparison to boats with outboard motors. Rascop believes the individual boats on slides are not a detriment to the bay and allow for economic diversity among the people who prefer to use them. Babcock reviewed circumstances at the site. A special density and multiple dock license were granted in recent years. This is a conforming site with a density of 1:12. Markus believes that since the bay is so dense the LMCD should be taking slips away rather than converting slides to larger slips. He maintains that this application is strictly a financial effort. Babcock feels that the financial issue is not relevant in this application since the density would be conforming. Zwak addressed a socio-economic question. He feels that if you have to be a MYC member to use a slide for your 14 foot boat, how this would be feasible for the average citizen. Addressing the costs to be a MYC member, Strothman said a basic membership costs $375. To rent a slide costs $250 additional Slips for a 24' boat cost $1,500. ' Partyka asked whether LMCD converts slides to slips normally. Babcock said if a site is non-conforming, then it probably could not. Because this site is conforming, this is treated as a new application. Foster said there are circumstances in which the committee could deny the application (based upon review criteria). The major factor is because the bay is so crowded. He believes the committee could reject the application on slip size, not the number of slips. He views the public access, not just MYC, as a major contributor to the density in Carson Bay. There are not enough facts to say we have a density problem to reject the application. He recommends approving the application and reviewing it in one year. If this creates a problem, we could deny the renewal. Johnstone expressed a concern with the density of Carson Bay. He points out that by LMCD's standard, the bay has critical density. Burton indicated that the MYC can do a better job of addressing problems in the bay. He addressed the letter of Tom McGoldrick which stated an increase from 15 slides to 35 slips. He explained that the plan was to convert 15 slides to 15 slips. He indicated the majority of families are ambivalent or in favor of the project. To the best of his knowledge, all 15 boats on the slides are motorized and not used to provide access to the Carsons Bay buoy field. Tom McGoldrick, 19575 Chimo West, spoke as a neighbor of the MYC. He WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 9 reminded the committee of the public response in opposition of changes in the MYC last February. He limited his response to overcrowding in Carson Bay. He circulated pictures from his dock documenting the problem. His concern is the density evaluation which shows the bay exceeds standards for critical density established by the LMCD. He reviewed the indices used to determine critical density: 1) Boats stored per acre of water is 3.0 (exceeds 1.0) 2) Boats stored per mile of water is 130.4 (exceeds 100) 3) Boats in use per 20 acres of water is 3.3 (exceeds 1) 4) Existence of multiple docks, mooring areas, launch ramps, and dry land storage impact the bay. McGoldrick encouraged a moratorium on the bay for any further expansion until remedial action can be taken place to address this problem. He added that he felt Babcock had a conflict of interest with MYC. Johnstone asked McGoldrick if he felt larger boats would increase density or have an adverse impact on Carson Bay. McGoldrick responded yes because larger boats take up more room, they are generally louder, create more evening traffic, require more car parking with multiple passengers and other problems associated with larger boats. Zwak asked if larger boats increase density on the bay. He suggested that by spreading boat use out throughout the day, that this may not have an adverse effect. Babcock addressed the question of his conflict of interest. He indicated that he is a 1/12 owner of a boat that races out of the MYC. The boat is not stored at MYC. He is not a member of the MYC and never has been. He is satisfied that he does not have a conflict of interest to vote on this application. Clarkson Lindley, attorney for McGoldrick, said the proceeding should be treated formally in case the issue is brought to a court of law. He has a concern with incomplete application information. Key details needed to review the application were missing. He finds this is a procedural issue that needs to be completed. Lindley reaffirmed that a moratorium needs to established in order address critical density in Carson Bay. Lindley questioned how the land issue was resolved in the courts. He maintained that the City of Deephaven was not given proper time to comment on this issue. He indicated that the City of Deephaven is interested in providing access to the lake and this was an opportunity to do so. He referred to the LMCD Management Plan and indices in the LMCD Boat Density Policy Statement used to determine critical density in bays. Language in plan express "Shall" or "should", not "may", when discussing remedial action on crowded bays. He feels that the application and a complaint by the citizens justifies remedial action. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 10 Lindley finally mentioned that as a public body, the LMCD is able to make decisions on the rational basis standard. This gives LMCD broad latitude to set a policy, to come up with criteria and to write ordinances. Once this has been done, LMCD has to apply this to the facts it receives. He noted the LMCD Code indicates that a commercial dock is being run at the MYC. He recommended that staff investigate if all applications have been received and approved by the City of Deephaven for operating a commercial facility in a residentially zoned property. He questioned the conversion of slides to slips and felt they were directly motivated by finances. This could create a problem if other marinas hear of this. Babcock replied that the property issues have been resolved by the MYC. Land zoning concerns need to be addressed with the City of Deephaven. Babcock believes remedial action has already taken place in Carsons Bay with the bay being a no-wake zone and being enforced. The question of conversions from slides to slips is unique in this application since they are a conforming dock, where most marina owners are not. He maintained that he would have a problem denying the application unless the-committee can properly document why it should be denied. Lindley said the code does not allow licensing more dock storage on the lake to provide increased value to non-riparian property. By approving this application, LMCD is essentially increasing revenues to the MYC. Markus questioned the conflict of interest issue with Babcock. He felt since Babcock had fiscal interest in the boat stored at MYC, that a conflict of interest exists. Bob Loeffel said density and congestion are a problem in Carson Bay. He is concerned with speeding in the bay, especially boats from MYC. He observed boats at MYC slips and slides disregarding the no-wake zone He does not agree that pontoon boats do not make waves. Pat McGoldrick felt that this project would not be fiscally prudent for the..MYC to try for one year. She asked about the area between the mooring and the proposed docks which presently provides a channel between the two structures which would be eliminated with the new plan. Randy Boyd feels the application is an erosion of the environment with 15 boats being added to the bay. He strongly opposes anything that erodes the environment. He says this is purely an economic issue. He mentioned that the issue of a new manager cannot be controlled by the LMCD. He concurs with Pat McGoldricks comments on circulation between the dock and mooring fields. He indicated that parking would be increased since larger boats generally would require more parking spaces. He indicated that parking is already a problem in the bay and this would add to it. Bigger boats will create more noise and enforcement problems. He asked if DNR has been contacted concerning permits. He maintains that remedial action should take place. He felt that the committee chair as well as Foster have a conflict of interest and should abstain from voting on the application. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. Foster stated that he is an active member of the Wayzata Yacht CluB. Competition between the two clubs does exist. Denial of the application would improve the Wayzata Yacht clubs position, therefore voting against this application would improve the WYC. He stated that he is not member of the MYC and has no financial interest in it. He has been contacted by citizens from both sides of this issue. As representative of the City of Deephaven, he feels he is obligated to vote on an issue that effects the residents of Deephaven. Boyd continued that the MYC is receiving a $20,000 rebate on their property taxes because they cannot expand their use of the property and because of restrictions placed on the property by Hennepin County. Chuck Gorgan, Commodore of the MYC, mentioned the purpose of the club is to promote sail boat racing. One reason for the expansion is to increase power boat support for public safety purposes for the races. He stated that there is no question there is an economic issue. Hugh Jaeger, 20185 Cottagewood Avenue, was concerned about the application. He was concerned about the title which granted the land to the MYC. He felt that further investigation need to be done. Parking is a problem and will be increased with 15 more slips. Speeding is a problem with the MYC heavily contributing. He encouraged that the City of Deephaven should get involved. Babcock asked if there were any other comments from the public or the conunittee. No further con~nents were offered. MOTION: Zwak moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend approval to the board as submitted. DISCUSSION: Johnstone opposes the motion since converting slides to slips would increase the density in Carsons Bay. Markus voiced opposition to the motion. Zwak feels that approval of the motion would allow the LMCD to react properly next year. This would allow for data to be collected to base a decision on what is known rather than is thought would happen While respecting Zwak's position, Johnstone said he believes that changing the use of boats in the bay will have adverse effect on the quality of the bay. He also stated that with the capital investment needed to construct 15 slips, it would be difficult for the LMCD to expect them to remove them in one year. Foster questioned whether speeding and wake problems are related to larger boats. In fact, he maintains that the smaller boats contribute to these problems. Rascop believes denial of the application is easy and appropriate, and that applications need to be evaluated individually, not lakewide. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 12 Partyka said denial of this application would be the first step in taking remedial action in Carson Bay. Babcock made a friendly amendment in that staff found it exceeds 20,000 sq.ft and that an EAW should be performed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes (2) Babcock, Zwak; Nays (4) Markcus, Partyka, Johnstone, Rascop; Abstain (1) Foster Foster indicated that his abstention is not related to a conflict of interest. He said he has not had sufficient time to discuss the application with the City of Deephaven. He said he will be prepared to vote at the board meeting. 5. Excelsior Park Tavern Multiple Dock License- minor change to add eight slips to existing configuration originally licensed for 32 slips, the additional eight slips granted under special density license of 4/25/90 issued to Excelsior Bay Yacht Club, with amenities as amended 7/28/93, decreasing size of three 50' slips, and adding slips to docks locations not previously licensed and designating 20 transient and 20 storage slips. Babcock stated two issues need to be addressed. One is the special density license which will expire because of a non-construction clause in March, 1995. The other is whether the addition of the 8 slips now on the special density license about to expire should be considered a minor change. Babcock reviewed the new dock and special density license granted 4/25/90 for 40 BSU's with amenities issued to the previous site owner, Excelsior Park Yacht Club. The Excelsior Park Tavern took over operation of the site but did not build the new docks, although it kept the new dock license current by paying fees and providing the amenities. A two year deadlfne for special density licenses to be constructed or forfeited was adopted in February, 1992, the ordinance adopted March 10, 1992. The ordinance enactment date, not the date of approval of the license approval, governs the special license expiration. Babcock continued that the committee is now advised that the applicant does not intend to build the new dock as granted in the license. Babcock believes there may be justification not to allow the applicant to build the 40 slips, but retain the 32, because the build condition of the multiple dock license was not complied with. This details a much more complex issue than a minor change. Rascop asked the applicant if an additional eight slips will be constructed this winter. Babcock responded it is his understanding they do not intend to build additional slips, but rather the applicant is asking to relocate eight BSU's within the current slip structure now licensed for 32 slips. It is Babcock's contention that a new dock license and special density license with a public hearing is WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 13 needed at this time. He views this as a substantial change requiring this process. Amenities need to be reviewed since the Code requirements for amenities have changed in the past four years. Fred Bruntjen, Excelsior Park Tavern owner, discussed the use of charters and other significant amenities he has provided over the years. A summary of amenities provided for 1994 were distributed in writing to the committee. Foster was concerned that action taken by the LMCD would require removal of expensive dockage to meet the build conditions. Babcock mentioned his concern is that the build conditions mentioned in the special density license have not been complied with. Johnstone asked Babcock for clarification on this agenda item. Babcock said that a special density license was granted conditioned on reconfiguration happening. The applicant intends not to reconfigure, would like to leave the configuration as is and add eight more BSU's. Foster asked if eight more BSU's will be constructed. Babcock responded that application asks for eight BSU's to be inserted in the current dock structure. Zwak asked what implications eight more slips would have on an existing dock. Babcock indicated there are concerns with the special density license and the requirement for reconfiguring. Partyka agreed that a public hearing needs to be conducted because it is a condition of the special density license. The special density license should be rescinded since the applicant did not meet that condition, of the permit. Foster asked how much shoreline the applicant has. Babcock said just over 400' of shoreline exists allowing the 40 BSU's granted in 1990. Foster recommended tabling this issue until the committee is better prepared to deal with this issue. Foster sees the issue as designating new slips in an existing structure, rather than a new structure, as the issue with which the chair and committee finds question. MOTION: Babcock moved, Partyka seconded that the applicant resubmit a new dock license and special density license applications for 40 BSU's, with variance to place slips beyond 100', to include a public hearing. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Wayzata Yacht Club Site 1 and 2 - annual renewal application identifying "dolphin" poles between slips and at the end of dock walkway structures WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, P. 14 The representative had to leave the meeting and was not able to make their presentation, requesting that the item be tabled. MOTION: Babcock moved, seconded by Zwak to table this agenda item until the next Water Structures Committee meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously Public Hearing Report - An ordinance for Planned usage Development procedures and standards and definition for public piers MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to table this agenda item until the next Water Structure Committee meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously Markus left at this time. 9. Additional Business MN Transportation Museum Dock Addition to Excelsior Park Pavilion Docks. Leo Meloche, MN Transportation Museum, reviewed the overall plan for the Minnehaha Steamboat project which also involves a street car restoration and track connection to serve the Minnehaha Steamboat. Meloche said the Minnehaha is near completion. It is a replica the steamboat system used on Lake Minnetonka from 1906 to 1926. The boat is schedule to launch for testing and training the crews this summer. Passengers service will start in 1996. The boat will is planned to be stored at the Excelsior Park Pavilion. The Excelsior Park Pavilion owners are granting a shoreline easement to allow a 100' dock to be added in the Excelsior Park Pavilion dock use area. Access to and from the dock will require dredging. Shallow water exists and the draft of the boat requires eight feet of water depth. Dredging will also provide maneuvering room for the boat. Meloche would like to build the pier while the ice will support construction equipment in February. MOTION: Rascop moved, Partyka seconded, for staff to evaluate the license of and work with the owner of the Excelsior Park Pavilion in preparing an application to accommodate the MN Transportation Museum for a possible addition of the 100' pier to store the Minnehaha Steamboat Charter and one additional charter boat provided by the Excelsior Park Pavilion, if possible as a minor change, retaining the boat storage units at 42 slips for a 1:10 density, for consideration by the board at its 1/25/95 meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 1/14/95, p. 15 ADJOUR/~NT: Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 12:40 pm. FOR ~HE COMMITTEE Douglas E. Babcock Chair Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director RECEIVED .'.".,H LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Save the Lake Advisory Committee Minutes 5:00 pm, Thursday, January 5, 1995 LMCD Conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Building Present: Chair Craig Mollet, LMCD Board; Co-chair Bob Pillsbury; Jim Grathwol, Bob Rascop, LMCD Board; Frank Mixa, Len Kopp, Executive Director Gene Strommen; Administrative Technician Greg Nybeck; MEETING MINUTES. Minutes of the meeting of 11/17/94 were accepted as mailed. MAIL SOLICITATION PROGRESS. Contributions through 12/31/94 were reported at $30,000, compared to $22,500 budgeted. Strommen circulated the master list of 1994 contributors. Mollet asked what the committee felt resulted in the contributions increase this year. Pillsbury felt it was attributed to three mailing solicitations this year versus the two last year as well as the new prospects added by various committee members. Strommen agreed and added that Gabriel Jabbour had supplemented the data base with about 400 prospects. Mollet complimented the committee on the results. UPDATE ON ZODIAC BOAT. The Zodiac emergency rescue boat and trailer ordered for the Water Patrol was delivered the last week in December, Strommen reported. Pillsbury circulated a memo from Water Patrol Deputy Labatt indicating that a 25 hp outboard motor was needed for the boat. Strommen said he was advised by Captain Peterson that the Water Patrol had outboard engines use on the boat. Rascop recommended the need for an outboard motor be clarified with Water Patrol officials before proceeding. Strommen added that such an item could be included in the 1995 Save the Lake budget which is due to be prepared. MINNEHAHA STEAMBOAT FUNDING. Grathwol asked for committee consideration of possible funding for the Minnehaha Steamboat. The Excelsior city officials are seeking support for this project. Strommen asked Grathwol on the plans on where the boat will be docked. Grathwol replied that departures and pickups will take place from the Excelsior city docks as well as at the Excelsior Park Pavilion which is being studied for adding a dock for that purpose. Further discussion identified an interest in providing additional funding for the project. ($5,000 was ccntributed for the engine in 1993.) Mixa identified a need to see the a financial statement on the entire project to get a better idea of where the funds have been spent and where the need SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Minutes, 1/5/95, P. 2 for additional funds exists. Rascop concurred with idea and recommended to bring the report back to this cormnittee and the Board of Directors. 1995 FUNDING PRIORITIES. Tke committee explored potential projects for 1995 funding. The committee identified the following potential projects: I) Outboard motor for the Water Patrol rescue boat. 2) Excelsior Steamboat Project 3) Creating an educational slide or video program introducing the LMCD 4) An historical video about Lake Minnetonka 5) Restaurant placemat which would be self-supporting 6) Treasure Hunt Diving lake bottom clean-up 7) Clean-lakes/lakeshore clean-up grocery bag comraunity service message with Super Value, Inc., confirmed for May, 1995 Strommen encouraged the committee to create action groups to ~nitiate and carry out these projects. Committee members were encouraged to contact and team-up with interest groups to maximize efforts. It was also suggested that some action groups may be able to attract matching funds to maximize projects. FUNDING CRITERIA. Rascop expressed an interest in making an amendment to the Save the Lake Program Funding Criteria outline presented as a reference piece to the committee as previously adopted by the LMCD board. He believes that emphasis on the environment was not defined clearly in the criteria. He recommended making an amendment to these criteria to emphasize environment as part of education. He encouraged doing this through the public schools, through conferences, news articles, and other means available. The committee concurred. CREATION OF SMALL ACTION GROUPS ON PENDING PROGRAMS Lakeshore clean-up program - It was recommended that the committee get more information before proceeding with a small action group. Some of this information included contacting the cities and Hennepin County to determine how they are involved in lakes shore clean-up. It must also be determined when and where to clean-up. The safety of those involved must also be considered. Strommen noted this is a difficult task to assign to volunteers due to the unusual nature of getting public equipment on the lake or near the public lakeshore where clean-up is to occur. > Restaurant place mat promotion - needs to start quickly. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Minutes, 1/5/95, P. 3 Divers Lake Bottom Clean-Up - Pillsbury recomraended continuing the program. However, he recon~nended the date of the project be moved one week earlier in June. The 1994 project date fell on Father's Day. He also stated the need for more chase boats to protect dive areas. Pillsbury volunteered to chair this project. Lake Water Monitoring - Strommen advised the 1994 report came in late December. He will distribute it to interested persons. Co-sponsor Tonka Bay Marina has asked to review the 1995 plans with LMCD. Grocery Bags - Strommen confirmed that the agreement with Super valu stores is set and bag distribution possibly state-wide will be ready to go by the fishing opener. The MN DNR is a co-participant on the message as developed. Additional Projects- Strommen suggested investigating providing radar detectors for the two MN DNR boats operated on Lake Minnetonka by their conservation officers. The committee recommended a letter be sent to determine their interest. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND RECOMMENDATIONS - A 1995 committee benefit would be to add members who can carry out special projects. Strommen indicated that Stewart Frick will continue to participate in committee reviews but is unable take on special project assignments.. Rascop indicated that he would try to attend more meetings. Grathwol indicated that his schedule would make it difficult to regularly attend. The committee agreed to search for more members, to bring their names to the next meeting, and to invite those interested to attend the next meeting. DRAFT 1995 BUDGET- Strommen indicated that he will be on vacation for the February meeting, but he will draft a budget for opening discussion. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. ~pectful 1~ Executive Director RECEIVED ..'.:,;; 2 3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Save the Lake Advisory Committee Minutes 5:00 pm, Thursday, January 5, 1995 LMCD Conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Building Present: Chair Craig Mollet, LMCD Board; Co-chair Bob Pillsbury; Jim Grathwol, Bob Rascop, LMCD Board; Frank Mixa, Len Kopp, Executive Director Gene Strommen; Administrative Technician Greg Nybeck; MEETING MINUTES. Minutes of the meeting of 11/17/94 were accepted as mailed. MAIL SOLICITATION PROGRESS. Contributions through 12/31/94 were reported at $30,000, compared to $22,500 budgeted. Strommen circulated the master list of 1994 contributors. Mollet asked what the committee felt resulted in the contributions increase this year. Pillsbury felt it was attributed to three mailing solicitations this year versus the two last year as well as the new prospects added by various committee members. Strommen agreed and added that Gabriel Jabbour had supplemented the data base with about 400 prospects. Mollet complimented the committee on the results. UPDATE ON ZODIAC BOAT. The Zodiac emergency rescue boat and trailer ordered for the Water Patrol was delivered the last week in December, Strommen reported. Pillsbury circulated a memo from Water Patrol Deputy Labatt indicating that a 25 hp outboard motor was needed for the boat. Strommen said he was advised by Captain Peterson that the Water Patrol had outboard engines use on the boat. Rascop recommended the need for an outboard motor be clarified with Water Patrol officials before proceeding. Strommen added that such an item could be included in the 1995 Save the Lake budget which is due to be prepared. MINNEHAHA STEAMBOAT FUNDING. Grathwol asked for committee consideration of possible funding for the Minnehaha Steamboat. The Excelsior city officials are seeking support for this project. Strommen asked Grathwol on the plans on where the boat will be docked. Grathwol replied that departures and pickups will take place from the Excelsior city docks as well as at the Excelsior Park Pavilion which is being studied for adding a dock for that purpose. Further discussion identified an interest in providing additional funding for the project. ($5,000 was contributed for the engine in 1993.) Mixa identified a need to see the a financial statement on the entire project to get a better idea of where the funds have been spent and where the need SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Minutes, 1/5/95, P. 3 Divers Lake Bottom Clean-Up - Pillsbury recomraended continuing the program. However, he recommen~e~ %he ~a~e of the project be moved one week earlier in June. The 1994 project date fell on Father's Day. He also stated the need for more chase boats to protect dive areas. Pillsbury volunteered to chair this project. Lake Water Monitorinq - Strommen advised the 1994 report came in late December. He will distribute it to interested persons. Co-sponsor Tonka Bay Marina has asked to review the 1995 plans with LMCD. Grocery Bags - Strommen confirmed that the agreement with Super Valu Stores is set and bag distribution possibly state-wide will be ready to go by the fishing opener. The MN DNR is a co-participant on the message as developed. Additional Projects- Strommen suggested investigating providing radar detectors for the two MN DNR boats operated on Lake Minnetonka by their conservation officers. The committee recommended a letter be sent to determine their interest. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND RECOMMENDATIONS - A 1995 committee benefit would be to add members who can carry out special projects. Strommen indicated that Stewart Frick will continue to participate in committee reviews but is unable take on special project assignments.. Rascop indicated that he would try to attend more meetings. Grathwol indicated that his schedule would make it difficult to regularly attend. The committee agreed to search for more members, to bring their names to the next meeting, and to invite those interested to attend the next meeting. DRAFT 1995 BUDGET- Strommen indicated that he will be on vacation for the February meeting, but he will draft a budget for opening discussion. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee AGENDA 6:30 pM, Wednesday, January 25, 1995 Tonka Bay City Hall, Council Chambers ® 10 Review, comments on 12/7/94 meeting report; Executive director report on proposal to develop an RFP for Eurasian Water Milfoil contract harvesting, recommending retaining the operation in-house for 1995; Quarterly Mayor's Report preparations for Fri., 2/24/95: a) Topics suggested by board members b) Reservations count of board members who will be in attendance Auditor selection recommending Babcock, Langbein and Co., who have served in this capacity for the audit of 1993 and 1994 financial operations; Legal counsel appointment, recommending Charlie LeFevere, Holmes & Graven; Prosecuting attorney appointment, recommending Steven M. Tallen; Official newspaper selection, recommending Weekly News; Bank depository resolution naming officers to sign checks and other financial instruments as directed by the board; Lease agreement to add Eurasian water milfoil storage space to administrative remote storage at 401 East Lake St., Wayzata, amending lease rate from $30/mo to $80/mo, the $50 increase to be charged to the milfoil budget; Performance/compensation review for the executive director; 11 Additional business 12 Adjournment LAKE MINNETONKACONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report Minutes 6:05 pm, Wednesday, December 7, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall Present: Chair Bill Johnstone, Doug Babcock, Jim Grathwol, Ross McGlasson, Craig Mollet, Gene Partyka, Bob Rascop, Herb Suerth, Tom Reese, Joe Zwak, executive director Gene Strommen and administrative technician Greg Nybeck. 1. MEETING REPORT. Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to accept the meeting report of 10/29/94 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. YEAR END FINANCIAL PROCEDURES. Strommen requested authorization for him and the treasurer to pay bills from the current date through the end of the month in order to stay current with invoices due and contractual obligations. Reese moved, Partyka seconded that the committee recommend to the board that the Executive Director and treasurer be authorized to pay all relevant bills through the end of the month. Motion carried unanimously. 3. COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR APPOINTMENTS. Johnstone outlined the recommended appointments to the following committees based upon response from the board members: Water Structures Chair - Doug Babcock Vice chair - Gene Partyka Lake Use Chair - Bert Foster Vice chair- Mike Bloom Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Chair - Herb Suerth Vice Chair- Tom Reese "Save the Lake" Chair - Craig Mollet Vice Chair - not filled Administrative Chair - Bill Johnstone Zebra Mussel and Exotics Subcommittee Chair - not filled Vice chair - not filled ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Minutes, 12/7/94, P. 3 Johnstone questioned the committee on pricing the contract service, recommending that a determination be made as to it being incentive or unit based. The issue of whether this RFP needs to have a formal bid process was discussed. McGlasson questioned whether such a proposal would receive sufficient number of bids from prospects. He maintained that when dealing with the cities, the bidding process needs to be utilized. Mollet arrived at this time. Suerth recommended bidder qualifications be developed. Johnstone requested that Strommen and Reese further develop the RFP . He noted the item it is on the committee agenda for informational purposes, not for formal action at this time. A recommendation should be made at the January meeting. The committee concurred. Zwak arrived at this time. 5. "LAKE SUMMIT". Johnstone provided background that the LMCD board had agreed in the past to serve in a limited role concerning the lake environment. Johnstone sees this limited role involving public education. He proposed that the LMCD convene interested parties to discuss and publicize major lake issues, raising their visibility. He would envision doing this in early spring -- late March or April. Rascop concurred that a role of the LMCD is that of an educator. He reminded the board of a January, 1994 Environment Committee proposal for (1) in-house board education programs on environmental issues, and (2) an outreach program to the schools, especially junior highs. Johnstone said this idea is still in the conceptual stages. He expressed an interest to formalize it for the January meeting. The committee concurred. 6. QUARTERLY MAYOR'S REPORT. Johnstone reported the need to schedule the next quarterly mayor's report meeting. The BILLS January 24, 1995 BATCH 4124 $ 66,976.71 BATCH 4126 26,756.26 BATCH 5012 TOTAL BILLS 110,685.07 $204,418.04 °o~oo§ I I I ! ! ! o o LLJ o IIIIIIIIIIII I I ! ! I I I I I ~J ' o I I I z I 0 Z. Z I 0 ~ o Z I I o o w :r~' ,o z Ill IIII II ! I ~"~ I,--- ~ Z · ~ 'sD o_CD ~J~ IIIIII 3 C) z Z Z 0 0 W ~3 .J .J i 0 I I I ! ! z ~ Z J z 0 > ~ u I I 777 ! I I I I I I I I I g 0 m o o v o o 0 v ._J oo Z Z o o ~ ~ Z ~ i Z n~ u Wig o CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Dec. 1994 100.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits I nte rg over nm ental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments Dec. 1994 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,231,780 595,473 1,207,183 9,450 10 7,854 59,850 10,091 111,976 884,960 389,420 886,112 49,500 453 11,620 65,000 5,243 53,648 60,800 25,864 68,320 15,000 784 11,232 (24,597) 98.00% (1,596) 83.11% 52,126 187.09% 1,152 100.13% (37,880) 23.47% (11,352) 82.54% 7,520 112.37% (3,768) 74.88% TOTAL REVENUE 2 376 340 I 027 338 2,357~945 (18~395) 99.23% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 308,817 11,884 294,363 108,000 3,295 104,711 1,300,000 145,224 1,368,288 380,000 29,116 370,075 680,000 54,968 676,524 5,650 0 2,730 72,000 0 72,698 (14,454) 95.32% (3,289) 96.95% 68,288 105.25% (9,925) 97.39% (3,476) 99.49% (2,920) 48.32% 698 100.97% 01/17/95 rev94 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Dec. 1994 100.00% GENERAL FUND Council Pro motions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Sum met Recreation Contingencies Transfers Dec. 1994 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 63,130 2,000 1,380 1 80,330 11,320 48,350 151,080 24 2oo 81 500 795.240 5 400 157 85O 397 520 102 860 136 620 33,930 4O,0OO 134,240 VARIANCE PERCENT EXPENDED 2,640 55,680 7,450 88.20% 0 0 2,000 0.00% 0 621 759 45.00% 18,363 176,267 4,063 97.75% 162 12,324 (1,004) 108.87% 0 50,229 (1,879) 103.89% 15,636 148,121 2,959 98.04% 344 17,449 6,751 72.10% 4,970 99,464 (17,964) 122.04% 93,187 776,231 19,009 97.61% 2,172 3,750 1,650 69.44% 19,458 148,495 9,355 94.07% 62,753 384,397 13,123 96.70% 4,404 99,683 3,177 96.91% 12,158 130,009 6,611 95.16% 29,114 29,114 4,816 85.81% 783 6,757 33,243 16.89% 10,026 120,320 13,920 89.63% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~366~950 ,276~170 2~258~911 108~039 95.44% Area Fire Service Fund 240,190 30,569 224,694 15,496 93.55% Recycling Fund 104,330 (22,102) 120,461 (16,131) 115.46% Liquor Fund 1 90,840 20,561 198,893 (8,053) 104.22% Water Fund 834,990 68,133 777,729 57,261 93.14% Sewer Fund 1,390,280 21,303 1,306,534 83,746 93.98% Cemetery Fund 5,240 62 3,242 1,998 61.87% Docks Fund 53,680 604 62,650 (8,970) 116.71% exp94 01/12/95 G.B. RECEIVED "" 1 3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:00 pm, Monday, January 23, 1995 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) 7:00 PM, PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD OF DIRECTORS Proposal to amend the observer requirement while towing water skiers on Lake Minnetonka related to LMCD Chapter III, Section 3.10, Subd. 1. The proposal would exempt the observer requirement for persons towing water skiers only, any time Monday through Thursday, before Friday noon, except on holidays, and any time prior to Memorial Day and after Labor Day. A wide angled curved rear-view mirror would be required when an observer is not required; 7:15 PM, LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, AGENDA Evaluation of public hearing testimony and findings of the 7:00 pm public hearing for consideration of amending the observer requirement while towing water skiers on Lake Minnetonka, with findings and recommendations to the board; 1994 Boat Density Survey discussion as conducted by Clear Air, Inc. in cooperation with MN DNR, Dave Dotzenroth invited to offer comments and answer questions, (survey copy provided for 12/7/94 Board meeting, please bring to meeting); Lake Access Task Force Report Implementation Priorities outline as presented to the conunittee 11/17/94 for discussion, held over for the next committee meeting, re-introduced for committee response, direction; o Staff report on MN DNR educational material on personal watercraft operation as governed by state laws, and comparison to LMCD regulations for Lake Minnetonka; (brochure provided) report; Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol: a. Significant activity report; b. Limited Permit granted for Livingstone Para-Sail event (copy of permit provided for informational purposes) c. Special Deputy candidate recommendation for the Save the Lake Dinner Recognition (2/23/95) 6. Additional business 7. Adjournment LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 9, 1995 RECEIVED 1'3 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE OBSERVER REQUIREMENT WHILE TOWING WATER SKIERS ON LAKE MINNETONKA Public con~nent is invited by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to amend the LMCD ordinance which requires observers at all times while towing a person on water skis on Lake Minnetonka. The proposal would exempt the observer requirement for persons towing water skiers only, any time Monday through Thursday, before Friday noon, except on holidays, and any time prior to Memoria! Day and after Labor Day. A wide angle curved rear-view mirror would be required when an observer is not required. The public hearing will be held at 7:00 pm, Monday, January 23, 1995 at the Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd Room 135, Wayzata prior to the ~egular LMCD Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting. E~en Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1995 Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Peter Meyer, David Steinbring, Janis Geffre, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Byrnes and Goode were absent and excused. MINUTES MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Byrnes to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 8, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES There were none. REVIEW 1995 BUDGET APPROVAL Parks Director, Jim Fackler, explained that this is more of an update than a review. summarized what the Council approved for the 1995 Parks Budget: Parks $ 7,000 Edgewater Park $15,000 Dundee Park He The playground equipment for Dundee Park has been ordered and should arrive in early March. A total of 6 new picnic tables were ordered, 2 for Dundee Park, 2 for Edgewater Park, and 2 for where ever else they are needed. A back-stop will be installed at Langdon Park. Docks $32,770 $10,000 Riprap Stairway If the weather this winter does not stay cold enough to provide for good ice, the riprap projects may be delayed. Parks & Beaches Jim explained that $5,220 was cut from the budget for lifeguard services. NCA's $ 4,500 NCA's The Commission will visit the NCA's on their April parks tour to determine what improvements should be done to each of the three areas. Park and Open Space Commission January 12, 1995 Fackler explained that money was not budgeted for a skating rink because the Hockey Association never pursued a request for funds from the City. Currently, with the three small rinks that the City has, Fackler estimated that $1,000is the cost for staff time to maintain the rinks. Steinbring informed the Commission that he visited Plymouth's skating rink which is on Parkers Lake, and that they have a $10,000 budget for the rink which operates for only 6 to 8 weeks. Plymouth told him that they feel it is cost effective for the number of people that use the rink. Some income is received from a concession stand they have on the site. 1996 Budget Goals will be discussed at the January 24th workshop. APPROVAL OF THE 1995 PARK COMMISSION WORK RULE~ Ahrens suggested that the meeting time be changed to start at 7:30 p.m. Ahrens indicated that it is difficult for her to get to the meetings at 7:00. The Commission noted that this change in time may also be beneficial to Goode. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt to change the meeting time from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Schmidt suggested that the time which meetings shall conclude be changed from 11:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to change the time that the meeting should conclude from 11:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. The secretary indicated that she will make the changes to the work rules and submit revised copies to the Commissioners for their records. REVIEW 1995 AGENDA CALENDAR The Parks Director indicated that he will not be present at the March meeting. The agenda calendar was reviewed, and the following changes were made: The Parks/Beach Program will be reviewed in February (if possible). 1996 Budget Goals will be discussed in March. The Dock License Ordinance and Dock application forms will be reviewed in May. Public Land Permits will not be reviewed in April. The Commission requested that the Park's Director supply his recommendations to the Commission for 1996 Park Improvements so they may be reviewed at the March meeting and possibly reviewed on the tour. 2 Park and Open Space Commission January 12, 1995 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1995 The Commission unanimously re-elected Carolyn Schmidt as Chair, and Tom Casey as Vice- Chair. Schmidt suggested that one of the Commissioners be assigned as time-keeper to help limit the amount of time spent on agenda items. Peter Meyer was nominated, and he accepted the responsibility. WlNTERFEST The activities for the upcoming event were discussed. City Council Representative's Report. Ahrens reviewed the Council Meeting of January 10, 1995. The Planting Policy will be discussed further at the next COW meeting. Park Director's Report. No comments. Dock Inspector's Report. McCaffrey reported that there are currently 27 people on the waiting list for docks. McCaffrey referred to a memorandum which was handed out to the Commission regarding the priority of a shared dock holder. This issued was raised by a shared dock site holder in the Lost Lake area. The Commission agreed that if the shared person applied for the dock, and paid the $150 fee, he had more priority that a person who is a new applicant and did not have a dock the previous year. WORKSHOP The Park Commission reviewed the agenda for their workshop scheduled for January 24, 1995: 1996 Budget Goals Skating Rinks Parks/Beach Program: Ideas for 1995/96 Program MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting of January 12, 1995 at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 3 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1995 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Lisa Crum, and Ed Surko, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Voss was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: David Laube and Don Anderson. MINUTE__S The Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 1995 were presented for approval. Jensen questioned the statement on the bottom of page 6 made by Mr. Bessesen, ("Maybe they have been remiss on filing their corporate taxes, but..."). The secretary confirmed that this was the verbiage used by Mr. Bessesen on the audio tape of the meeting. MOTION made by Mueller seconded by Weiland to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #95-01: DAVID & LYNNE LAUBE, 2391 FAIRVIEW LANE, CREVIERS LAFAYETTI' .PARK, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, PID #13-117-24 43 0089. VARIANCE FOR GARAGi ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. This property is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet (to all three street fronts), and a side yard setback of 6 feet to the north. The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage that would encroach 7.5 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback to the.west, Hiddenvale Lane. Also part of this proposal is a future deck as shown on the site plan. The deck is fully conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. Existing and proposed hardcover is conforming as a lot of record at 40%. There is an existing single car garage with the driveway serving Maywood Road. Although the additional garage space would enhance the use and storage space of this property, it also puts the property into a nonconforming status. A minimally sized conforming garage can be constructed in this area without encroaching into the required setback. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed. This denial allows the applicant to obtain a permit to construct a conforming garage and deck, and further does not result in the creation of a nonconforming property. The Building Official apologized to the applicant because he did not have a chance to discuss the request with him prior to the writing of the Staff Report. Applicant, David Laube, explained to the Commission that the existing tuckunder garage does not have a normal ceiling height, it is too Iow. He is a life-long resident of Mound. He emphasized the additional 6'4" of boulevard between his property line and the actual curb, therefore, the proposed garage will be about 19 feet from the curb, so if the setback were measured to the curb, his variance request would be for only one foot. Mueller commented that this is a big lot and the owner should be able to improve his property, and it is his opinion that if the property was not conforming a variance approval would be recommended. Jensen commented that she understands, with our current zoning ordinance, that if the future deck were not proposed at this time, but in the future if he wanted to add the deck he would have to apply for a variance. It creates a hassle for the homeowner the way the laws exists today and we may have to take a look at that. Jensen questioned the zoning district across from Hiddenvale. The Secretary confirmed that this property is zoned B-1. Jensen feels the impact of the reduced setback is less because of the adjacent B-1 district. A hardship could be that the lot has three street frontages with a required setback of 20 feet to all three streets. There is no house on the other side. Across the street on Hiddenvale is commercial property. Jensen would tend to support the request due to the logical, special circumstances, and businesses across the street. Weiland also pointed out that across Maywood is the church. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance to allow the garage addition based on the following findings to allow for reasonable use of the property: 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 The lot fronts on three streets and has larger setbacks than if it were just a corner lot. There are not any other residences that would be negatively impacted by the reduced setback as the property across Hiddenvale is zoned B-1 Central Business, and the property across Maywood is a church. 3. No site triangle problem would be created. There is 6'4" +/- of boulevard which reduces the impact of the reduced setback. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 24, 1995. CASE #95-02: DONALD B. ANDERSON, SR., 3106 PRIEST LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, PID #23-117-24 34 0075. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. This property is located in the R-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to Priest Lane, a front yard setback of 20 feet to Ridgewood Road, and a side yard setback of 8 feet to the south. A 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required. The existing structure is nonconforming to setbacks as shown below: Existing ~ ,Var ance Front (W) 26' +/- 30' 4' +/- Side (N) 19.5' +/- 20' 0.5' +/- Side (S) 13' +/- 10' n/a Lake 16' +/- 50' 34' +/- The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an addition above the garage that follows the existing footprint and does not further encroach into the existing footprint and does not further encroach into the existing nonconforming setbacks. The proposal itself does not increase the existing footprint except for the deck that is conforming to setbacks. Existing and proposed hardcover is conforming. 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach and follows the existing footprint. In addition, the existing nonconformities have been previously recognized by Resolution//88-716. Weiland confirmed with the applicant that the only exit from the new room addition is through the garage, you could not access the existing dwelling from the addition. Weiland expressed a concern about creating another dwelling unit and noted that this property does not allow two units in the R-1 zone. The applicant explained that his wife is a writer and plans to use the room as her office, and it will also function as a guest room. He explained that a door is planned to be framed which they intend to open in the future so the room may be used as the master bedroom, but at this time, they do not want the door installed, it will be a solid wall. Weiland commented that he would like some guarantee that this house will not have a double occupancy. The applicant was not opposed to this. The Building Official suggested that staff work with the applicant and the City Planner prior to the City Council meeting to review the stipulations that could be put on a recommendation for approval. Mueller questioned the required number of exits. The Building Official explained that he has not completed a plan review yet, however, he commented that it does not appear the exits conforming to the building code. He also noted that the winding stairway may not meet code, and the 2'6" door should be a 3' door. The Building Official suggested that a favorable recommendation, with conditions, could be forwarded to the Council, and if there is a change in the footprint, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission. MOTION made by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance request, subject to the plans being modified to be conforming to the Building Code, and that some type of an agreement or guarantee be established to ensure that the dwelling cannot be a double occupancy. Clapsaddle seconded the Motion. MOTION CARRIED 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Surko, Weiland, Michael, Jensen, and Crum. Mueller was opposed. 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 Mueller commented that he is uncomfortable approving a variance without knowing how the floor plan is going to be revised. Mueller also asked that the applicant consider some type of architectural detail to the north wall. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on January 24, 1994. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK RULE-~- No changes were made to the work rules. REVIEW 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE~ The meeting dates for 1995 were reviewed. conflicting with a holiday is December 25th. It was noted that the only date ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1995: CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR Geoff Michael was unanimously elected as Chair for 1995, and Mueller was unanimously elected as Vice-Chair. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the December 1994 City Council meeting, and the agenda for the January 10, 1995 meeting. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Crum, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 5 5008 Wren Rd., Mound, Mn. 55364 17 January 1995 City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Mn. 55364 JAN 1 7 1§g5 Dear Sir: I am responding to the public ad for applicant's to the Planning Commission in Mound, which recently took on a vacancy with the election of Mark Hanus to the City Council. I have attached=a'--;/.~Y resume for you and all concerned to review, as I would like to be considered for this vacancy. I understand there are no specific qualifications for this position but residency. I have lived in Mound for 16 years with no end in sight as I see it. I have witnessed many wonderful, positive improvements in our fair city and would like to be a part of this continued growth. I also think it is time I pay my dues to the city in the form of civic participation, not just taxpayer. Having been a teacher of American Government in the past, it would also be a pleasure to see city government in action. Please add me to your list of folk interested in the position. Your kind consideration in this bid is greatly appreciated. If you have additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me at my office at 348-9782: I have voice mail, as I'm often times not in my office, but I would call you back. Thanks for your cooperation in reviewing my proposal to particips, te on the Mound Planning Commission. Very T. ruly Yours, BECKY J.W. GLISTER 5008 Wren Rd., Mound, Mn. 55364 472-1048 OBJECTIVE: To serve the City of Mound by participating on the Planning Commission. EMPLOYMENT & EXPERIENCE : 1990-present: Hennepin County Welfare Fraud Investigator; I conduct investigations of possible welfare fraud in the field; I am mobile in the community. 1974-1990 : Hennepin County Welfare Financial Worker: I conducted in office interviews and determined eligibility for various public assistance programs. 1970-1973 : Secondary education Social Studies teacher at Wellcome Memorial High School in Garden City, Mn., and Edina Public Schools in Edina, Mn. I taught American Government, World Geography, Sociology and English. EDUCATION : 1990 Certificate, John Reid School of Interviewing and Interrogation. 1970 BS Degree, Mankato State College--Secondary Education with a core in Social Studies. 1968 BA Degree, University of Mn, Mpls--Major in Sociology and minors in Humanities and History. 1964 Diploma, Edina-Morningside High School. PERSONAL : 16 year resident/homeowner of Mound; Husband, Carl Glister; one dog, one cat; age, 48; interests: reading, news junkie, gardening and travel; current associations: Minnesota Fraud Investigator's association: Minnesota Lakewatch; and VFW Ladies Auxiliary Post 5113 in Mound where I am acting secretary MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - DECEMBER 15, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Stan Drahos, Jerry Pietrowski, Dave Willette, Councilmember Ken Smith, Mark Brewer and Jerry Longpre. Also present: Sharon Cook, Marge Friederichs, Economic Development Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, Finance Director Gino Businaro and Ed Shukle, City Manager.. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Smith and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the November 17, 1994 meeting were approved. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, updated the commission on the City Council's action taken November 22, 1994. He stated that the City Council unanimously approved the recommendation from the Economic Development Commission to go forward and begin the planning and engineering work necessary to accomplish both the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation project and the Auditor's Road Improvement project. The Lost Lake Canal public relations strategy was reviewed. The Commission went through the various items that were presented by the Public Relations Task Force. The City Manager indicated that the City Council did approve the task force's recommendations as it related to the strategy at its November 22, 1994 meeting. With regard to a master plan drawing for the Lost Lake property, the staff will create some conceptual drawings to be reviewed with the EDC and subsequently with the Parks and Open Space Commission at a joint meeting of both groups. Also discussed was a public open house sometime in the near future with regard to the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation project and the Auditor's Road Improvement project. Other business discussed was a presentation was made to Ken Smith who is now leaving the EDC as the liaison. City Manager Ed Shukle presented a certificate of appreciation to Ken Smith for his unending time and devotion that he gave to the Commission and thanking him in a very pleasant manner for his service to the City. Certificates were also given to the Commission for their years of service. It was agreed that Paul Meisel would bring the rolls for January. The next meeting of the EDC will be Thursday, January 19, 1995, 7 AM, City Hall. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Pietrowski, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 AM. e~~tfully submitted, City Manager ES:Is