1992-10-27CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMF. NT; The City of Mound, through
teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality
services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a
safe, attractive and flourishing community.
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1992
CITY COUNCIl, CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 13, 1992 REGULAR
MEETING AND THE OCTOBER 20, 1992, COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING. PG. 3566-3576
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT. PG. 3577-3584
B. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS ASSESSMENT. PG. 3585-3590
C. UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT. PG. 3591-3592
CASE ~92-059: MICHAEL RONALD, 4853 BARTLETT BLVD.,
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON VIEW,
PID #13-117-24 44 0098.
REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR A FENCE. PG. 3593-3603
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
CASES 91-040 & 92-058: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #91-123 AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEEN CLUB AT
2313 COMMERCE BLVD., PID #14-117-24 44 0042, AS
AMENDED. PG. 3604-3608
APPROVAL OF GARDEN LEASE FOR LEO & BEVERLY WALLIS. PG. 3609
REQUEST TO BE HEARD FROM HR. & HRS. PHILIP HAHN, 2273
COTTONWOOD LANE - RE: POSSIBLE STORM SEWER
IMPROVEMENT. PG. 3610-3612
3564
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM - PETER JOHNSON AND JIM DICKINSON, OWNERS
OF THE LAW OFFICE PROPERTY AT 2305 COMMERCE BLVD.
(TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING)
REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM CBD PARKING PROGRAM - THOMAS
B. CARL - RE: POST OFFICE PROPERTY.
(TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING)
DISCUSSION: LMCD MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE·
PG. 3613-3619
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO SERVE ON A TASK
FORCE TO IDENTIFY COMMONS AREAS AND THEIR USES. PG. 3620
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
PG. 3621-3629
INFORMATION/MISCELL;%NEOUS
Financial Report for September 1992, as prepared
by Fran Clark, City Clerk. PG. 3630-3631
Letter from Hennepin Conservation District providing
information on the election of Supervisors. PG. 3632
Ce
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM)
policies that will be considered at the 10/29/92
AMM Board Meeting. PG. 3633-3636
De
Invitation to attend "Business Leaders Day"
and tour of Westonka Schools, Wednesday,
October 28, 1992.
PG. 3637-3638
REMINDER: Annual City of Mound Christmas
Party is scheduled for Friday, December 18, 1992,
Mound American Legion.
REMINDER:
League of Women Voters Candidate's Forum,
Monday, October 26, 1992, 6:30 P.M., Mound
City Hall for local candidates in Spring Park,
Minnetrista and Mound. This forum will be
televised on cable T.V. and will be played
back on Channel 20 later next week.
Ge
Planning Commission Minutes of October 12,
1992.
PG. 3639-3645
He
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of
October 8, 1992.
PG. 3646-3649
3565
October 13, 1992
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 15v 1992
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, October 13, 1992, in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark,
City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building
Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens:
Marge Stutsman, Victoria Pawlowski, Gregory Fenzl, Darlene Duvick-
Bjorke, Steve Becker, John & Annette Flaherty, Jeri Forster,
Dorothy & Bill Netka, Richard Smith, Clark Lillehei, and Ed Rogers.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the
Minutes of the September 2Z, 1992, Regular Meeting and the
September 29, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as
submitted. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE TORO COMPANY AT 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF ANACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF A BULLET
HEATER TEST BUILDING
The City Planner explained that the Toro Company is requesting an
amendment to Resolution #85-87 to add a portable heater testing
facility on the north side of the site. If approved, the site plan
for the overall Planned Industrial Area (PIA) will be amended to
include the new structure. The proposed building measures 16' x
32', is a pre-engineered building with a metal panel exterior. The
building location meets all required setback criteria and will be
surrounded by a chain link security fence. The building will be
used for long term testing of portable kerosene heaters. It will
accommodate 8 testing stations and two 250 gallon fuel tanks. A
bituminous clear area of 5 feet will surround the building within
the fenced enclosure. There are two areas of concern:
1. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; and
2. Building appearance.
In correspondence, the Toro Company stated the following:
203
October 13, 1992
The proposed use, which is to test portable heaters is
not believed to have any adverse impact on the property
in the vicinity.
No increase in traffic or parking will result from this
structure with the exception of occasional deliveries of
heater fuel.
The only noise generated will be that of the heaters
within the building which will not be noticeable outside
the structure.
The building will have no exterior lights but will depend
on existing parking lot lighting.
No smoke will be generated.
The Planner stated that the proposed zoning code modifications
would prohibit a metal panel exterior, but these have not yet been
adopted. On the other hand the existing industrial building
contains large wall areas clad in a beige metal panel system.
The Planner stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the amendment to allow a portable heater testing facility subject
to the following conditions:
The building will be used only for heater testing and
related product/equipment storage. Any change in the use
of the building will require modification of The Toro
Company's Operations Permit.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit a lot survey certified by a registered land
surveyor for the portion of the site containing the
proposed use.
The proposed use shall comply with all applicable MPCA
requirement for noise and air quality emissions.
The heater test facility shall comply with all applicable
building and fire code requirements.
Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit a
landscaping plan for the area around the proposed
building. The landscaping plan is to be approved by the
City Planner.
The Planner stated he has contacted the MPCA and they have no way
to measure odor and no standards for this. Therefore, he is
suggesting that the following be adopted in place of #3 above:
If the City receives complaints from neighboring property
owners regarding noise or odor emissions from the heater test
facility and if such emissions can be verified by City Staff,
the Toro Company shall install required equipment or make
necessary building/mechanical modifications to remove the
identified noise and/or odor emissions.
204
October 13, 1992
There was discussion on how to enforce this if there are
complaints. Clark Lillehei, Toro Company, stated they want to be
responsible neighbors.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons
expressed the following concerns: Steve Becker, 5101 Edgewater
Drive; Victoria Pawlowski, 2212 Fairview Lane; Greg Fenzl, 2212
Fairview Lane; and Darlene Duvick-Bjork, 2189 Fairview Lane. 1. Noise or odor emissions.
2. Why this facility is not being located in Shakopee.
3. Tank could act as a microphone for the noise.
4. Any special fire protection.
The people from Toro stated that if noise becomes a problem, they
could insulate the building. They did not feel there would be an
odor problem. There is no special fire protection required and the
testing areas will have U.L. venting. This test structure does not
fit into the consumer division which is what the Shakopee plant is.
The Council discussed limiting the size (BTU's) of the heaters
tested. Toro stated they would rather deal with the noise level if
there is a problem than have a limit on the size of the heaters.
The Council discussed the landscaping around the proposed structure
to soften the appearance of the building and security fence. They
further discussed having Toro provide a non-emergency phone number
that any complaints could be directed to day or night.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-127
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
RESOLUTION #85-87 TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF A PORTABLE HEATER
TESTING FACILITY FOR THE TORO COMPANY AS
SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT "A") AT
5330 SHORELINE DRIVE, SYLVIAN HEIGHTS
ADDITION TO MOUND, PID #13-117-24 34
0026, P & Z CASE ~92-057
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE TEEN CLUB AT 2313 COMMERCE BLVD. TO
ALLOW A POOL TABLE AND 13 VIDEO MACHINES ON THE MAIN FLOOR
The Planner explained that Mr. Flaherty is requesting that the site
plan be modified. The proposed plan identifies a total of 13 video
games and one pool table, all placed in the front portion of the
205
October 13, 1992
business. The proposed video games and pool table are still below
the total amount (20 and 4 respectively) of such devices that were
approved under Resolution #91-123. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the request and added that the location of
these devices not be restricted. If the location is restricted it
would require that Mr. Flaherty would have to appear before the
Council every time he wants to rearrange the center.
The Council discussed parking requirements. The Planner stated
there is adequate parking across from the House of Moy through the
CBD parking program.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. He then read a letter from
Peter Johnson of the Johnson and Wood Law Offices which opposes any
expansion or extension of the conditional use permit for the
following reasons:
1. There are other facilities that are better suited to
operating a teen club.
2. The Netka site has inadequate parking.
3. The proposed teen club is a use which is inconsistent
with surrounding uses.
4. The teen club is likely to be a nuisance to surrounding
property owners.
The Council asked if there would ever be a restaurant in the
building. Mr. Flaherty stated yes it is in the plans for the
future. He further stated that the mezzanine level will not be
used at this time.
Mrs. Flaherty stated that the teens will not be allowed to
congregate outside the building or in the parking lots.
The City Clerk asked for a clarification on the principal use of
the business. If it is video games, etc., the applicant could need
an Arcade License which requires another public hearing.
After considerable discussion the Council and the applicant agreed
that the principal use is a teen club or dance hall, not an arcade.
The applicant was advised he needed to come in and apply for the
appropriate licenses for his facility.
The Planner stated that a legal description of the property needs
to be inserted in the resolution, also the language requiring that
the resolution be filed with Hennepin County.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen directing staff to
prepare a resolution to amend resolution #91-123, items #17 to
allow twenty (20) amusement devices (video machines) and four
206
October 13, 1992
(4) pool tables on the main level of the teen center, and that
the location of these devices not be restricted. Also to add
the legal description of the property and the appropriate
language requiring that the resolution be filed with Hennepin
County. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
ADD-ON ITEM:
1.3 QUIT CLAIM DEED TO CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT
The City Attorney explained that back in 1979 an easement with an
incorrect description for a City easement was filed on property
owned by Arthur & Judith Peterson. The City Attorney and Roger
Reed have conferred with the City Engineer and tonight are
presenting a Quit Claim Deed to rectify the incorrect description
that was filed on May 23, 1979, as document %1342050.
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-128
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED
CORRECTING THE DESCRIPTION OF A CITY
EASEMENT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED MAY
23, 1979v AS DOCUMENT %1342050
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OUR
LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - RAFFL~ 11/15/97
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-129
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE
CHURCH - RAFFLE 11/15/92
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT
$16,210.69 FOR 1976 WATER REVENUE BOND~
TO LEVY
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-130
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR
NOT TO LEVY $16,210.69 FOR 1976 WATER
REVENUE BONDS
207
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.~ RESOLUTION CANCELLIN~ THE
October 13, 1992
Motion carried.
LEVY ON ~ENEP. AL OBLI~ATIO~
IMPRO¥~MENT BONDS OF 1978 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,957
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-131 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF
1978 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,957.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE ~VY ON GENERAL OBLIGATIO~
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,570
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-152 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF
1979 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,570.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE L~VY ON GENERAL OBLIGATIO~
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,089
Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-133 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF
1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,089.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 .RESOLUTION CANCELLING T~ LEVY ON GENERAL OBLIGATIO~
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,900
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-154 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF
1982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,900.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON GENERAL OBLIGATION
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1984 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,796
Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
208
October 13, 1992
RESOLUTION ~92-135 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF
1984 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,496.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TW~ PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING CANDIDATE~
FOR ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTNRNT~
The City Manager explained that this resolution was developed to
avoid the gap of time between interviews of candidates and the
appointments to various commissions.
Councilmember Jensen stated she brought this up before the Planning
Commission last night and they had some valid reasons for not
endorsing the proposed process:
1. Asking candidates to attend a meeting that is not on the
night they would regularly be meeting.
2. Commissioners are volunteer and we would be asking for
another night of their week.
3. Council could be losing the commission's expertise.
The City Manager suggested amending the second paragraph to read as
follows:
Candidates for appointment to advisory commissions will be
interviewed jointly by the applicable commission and the City
Council at a regularly scheduled commission meeting.
Following the interviews and at the same meeting, the
commission will establish a ranking of the candidates, listing
the candidates and the number of votes they have received.
The results will then be submitted to the Council at the next
regular Council Meeting. The Council will then make official
appointments at that Council Meeting.
The 1st and 3rd paragraphs will remain the same as proposed.
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-136
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE PROCESS OF
INTERVIEWING CANDIDATES FOR ADVISORY
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, AS AMENDED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of
$488,695.22, when funds are available. A roll call vote was
209
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ONS
1.13 BID AWARDS CBD SNOW ~NOV~?.
October 13, 1992
The City Manager explained that the City received only i bid~ That
was from Widmer Bros. The increase in the hourly rate is minimal.
Staff recommended approval.
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #92-137
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ANDAWARDING THE BID
FOR 1992-93 CBD SNOW REMOVAL TO WIDMER
BROS.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 FALL LEAF PICK-UP
The City Manager reported that no bids were received to haul leaves
for a Fall leaf pick-up. The City Attorney advised that since no
bids were received, the Council could negotiate a contract with
someone who would be willing to do the pick-up. The Council asked
that the Recycling Coordinator contact some haulers to see if they
would consider providing prices for the pick-up.
1.15 SET DATE FOR CANVASS OF ELECTION
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to set Wednesday,
November 4, 1992, at ?~30 P.M. to canvass the local election.
The vote was unanimously in favor. .Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLaNEOUS
B.
C.
D.
Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1992.
LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for September 1992.
LMCD Mailings.
Thank you note from Mike & Sue Henning, recent recipients of
Westonka Dollars.
Thank you letter from Orono Police Department re:
Darrell Huggett and Rambo.
Officer
Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1992.
210
Ge
He
Ko
0
Mo
October 13, 1992
Notice of change of address for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
REMINDER: COW Meeting, Tuesday, October 20, 1992, 7:30 P.M.
REMINDER: Recycling Days, October 23 & 24 - Lost Lake Site.
Annual City of Mound Christmas Party is scheduled for Friday,
December 18, 1992, Mound American Legion.
The City Manager handed out a letter from Governor Carlson
pointing out the newest $840 million shortfall that is
expected. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of "Minnesota's
Financial Outlook" and a survey form on how we think he should
make the tough budget choices. The Manager asked that the
Council review this information and bring it to the next
Committee of the Whole Meeting for discussion.
A copy of the AMM proposed policies for the 1993 legislative
session was distributed to the Council. The City Manager
asked that the Council review this information and bring it to
the next Committee of the Whole Meeting for discussion.
Councilmember Jessen stated that the League of Women Voters
will be holding a candidates forum on October 26, 1992, in the
Mound City Council Chambers for Spring Park, Minnetrista and
Mound. It will be on cable T.V.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 10:45
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
211
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 20, ~992
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present:
Phyllis Jessen, Liz Jensen, Ken Smith, Andrea Ahrens. Mayor Skip
Johnson arrived at 7:50 PM. Also present: Mark Goldberg, Jim
Kuehn, Keith Foerster and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
A discussion was held on draft #4 of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance. The City Council considered some changes to the draft,
specifically dealing with lock box sizes and P.D.A.'s. The public
hearing for the Shoreland Management Ordinance is combined with the
public hearing for the zoning ordinance modifications, which will
be held Tuesday, November 10th and continued until Tuesday,
November 24, 1992.
Discussion then centered on the Commons Task Force. City
Manager Ed Shukle indicated that he had twelve applications for
appointment to the task force. Eleven of the twelve were abutting
owners, there was one citizen at large. The City Council's
criteria for forming the task force is based upon two persons that
are abutting commons, two that are non-abutting and two citizens at
large. After some discussion, the City Council agreed to select
members to the task force from the applications received. Each
Councilmember then ranked the candidates and the following persons
are to be formally appointed at the next regular meeting: Keith
Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive; Jim Kuehn, 4633 Island View
Drive; Moe Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road; Mike Mason, 4909 Island
View Drive; John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive; Jim Walters, 1601
Bluebird Lane and Sandy Effertz, 4757 Island View Drive. The task
force will be chaired by Councilmember Ken Smith. The first
meeting of the task force was set for Wednesday, November 11, 1992
at 7 PM, at Mound City Hall. The Council consensus was to appoint
the above individuals as the next regular meeting and set goals for
the task force at that meeting.
The LMCD multiple dock license was discussed. City Manager Ed
Shukle reported that he had some information from the LMCD
regarding this issue. The Council asked that the matter be put on
the regular meeting agenda of October 27th.
The Council discussed the possible fall leaf pick up. City
Manager Ed Shukle reported that no bids were received for leaves
and that the potential bidders indicated that they were not
interested with the exception of Westonka Sanitation who further
indicated that the cost would be double the cost of the past spring
and last fall. He pointed out that one of the haulers, Blackowiak
and Son, has indicated that they will collect leaves of their
customers. The City Council directed that we should publicize that
there will not be a leaf pick up and suggest to the haulers that
they offer leaf service. They also discussed expanding the hours
at the Minnetrista site to include Sunday's through mid-November.
Also discussed was the possibility of including within the license
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETTN(~ - OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAOE 2
of each hauler, a requirement that they pick up leaves. Council
also suggested that we work with other cities to pick up leaves on
an annual basis perhaps, through a joint arrangement.
Governor Carlson's letter regarding the State budget deficit
was reviewed and the City Council completed a survey which will be
sent to Carlson with Council's comments.
Also discussed was the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) legislative policies for 1993. Council
prioritized the policies for submittal back to the AMM.
Rental housing was briefly discussed.
the work of the task force in place.
Discussion focused on
It was determined that there will not be a Committee of the
Whole meeting in November unless there is a need for it.
Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jensen and carried
unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 PM.
ectfully submitted,
Ed Sukle~~
City Manager
ES:is
RESOLUTION NO. ~
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1992 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,677.67 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY//12604
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
1992 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1991 TO JUNE 30, 1992 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $24,677.67.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows:
INT.
LEVY// IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS
12604 1992 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8% 1
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 25, 1992) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 25, 1992), but prior to
November 27, 1992, interest will be charged to December 31, 1992.
e
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 27, 1992, the amount will
be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1992, and all of 1993).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
e
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
CITY of MOUND
534! MASWCOZ ROAD
MOUND Mh",iNES~TA 553(.4:63-
~6~2, 4-2-3600
FAX ,6~2, ..:72 062,3
October 15, 1992
Mr. C.L. Johnson
PO Box 246
Spring Park, MN
55384
RE: Letter of October 9, 1992 - CBD
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 9, 1992 regarding
your objection to the 1992 CBD parking maintenance assessment. The
public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 27, 1992. Should
you wish to voice your objections in person, you are invited to
appear at that meeting. If you prefer, I will submit your letter
of October 9th for information to the City Council as they
deliberate on the assessments.
It would be appreciated if you would contact me concerning
your objection since I am totally unclear as to what it is. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Edward J-. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
ES:is
:3573
printed on recycled paper
C. L. Johnson
P. O. Box 246
Spring Park, MN
55384
Tel.: (612) 472-4664
471-8897
October 9, 1992
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Attention: Francene Clark, City Clerk
Re:
CDB Parking Maintenance Assessment 1992
PID # 13-117-24-33 0006
Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that we object to the 1992 CBD
Maintenance assessment.
Sincerel~ours ,
hn$on
CLJ: ch
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Parking
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,169.72 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LE'~Z #12602
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required
by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all
objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments as follows:
PID #
IMPROVEMENT
INT.
AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
13-117-24 21 0017
12-117-24 43 0038
13-117-24 21 0006
13-117-24 12 0220
13-117-24 12 0239
12-117-24 43 0004
13-117-24 12 0112
13-117-24 12 0119
13-117-24 12 0189
13-117-24 12 0207
13-117-24 13 0021
13-117-24 14 0040
13-117-24 11 0059
13-117-24 12 0106
13-117-24 11 0139
18-117-23 23 0060
18-117-23 23 0004
13-117-24 11 0121
13-117-24 11 0102
13-117-24 22 0246
14-117-24 42 0011
14-117-24 13 0004
14-117-24 42 0066
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
270.60 I 8% 12602
262.72 i 8% 12602
67.04 i 8% 12602
296.68 i 8% 12602
155.58 1 8% 12602
188.16 i 8% 12602
176.74 I 8% 12602
172.75 i 8% 12602
132.64 i 8% 12602
247.50 I 8% 12602
389.08 i 8% 12602
147.45 i 8% 12602
122.76 I 8% 12602
240.99 i 8% 12602
407.46 i 8% 12602
144.58 i 8% 12602
338.22 i 8% 12602
264.66 1 8% 12602
171.28 i 8% 12602
146.48 1 8% 12602
232.35 i 8% 12602
294.04 i 8% 12602
152.69 1 8% 12602
14-117-24 31 0016
14-117-24 42 0016
14-117-24 42 0028
14-117-24 42 0042
14-117-24 31 0031
14-117-24 32 0043
14-117-24 32 0045
14-117-24 32 0014
14-117-24 32 0055
14-117-24 34 0036
14-117-24 44 0007
14-117-24 44 0031
14-117-24 41 0015
14-117-24 42 0023
14-117-24 42 0043
13-117-24 23 0043
13-117-24 34 0005
13-117-24 43 0068
13-117-24 43 0086
13-117-24 43 0060
13-117-24 43 0011
24-117-24 12 0054
13-117-24 41 0012
13-117-24 42 0014
13-117-24 44 0081
18-117-23 33 0030
18-117-23 33 0026
13-117-24 44 0068
13-117-24 44 0055
13-117-24 44 0093
24-117-24 12 0032
24-117-24 23 0024
23-117-24 42 0002
22-117-24 44 0030
22-117-24 43 0011
22-117-24 43 0012
23-117-24 42 0098
23-117-24 41 0003
23-117-24 44 0008
23-117-24 42 0073
23-117-24 42 0104
23-117-24 41 0020
23-117-24 42 0088
23-117-24 42 0015
23-117-24 42 0018
23-117-24 42 0020
23-117-24 42 0021
23-117-24 42 0045
23-117-24 43 0008
23-117-24 43 0025
23-117-24 42 0037
23-117-24 42 0044
23-117-24 34 0036
23-117-24 34 0011
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
198.09
201.93
180.68
367.54
437.87
384.48
265.94
176.05
408.62
618.35
135.08
228.69
296.90
212.04
240.80
371.22
185.00
332.50
211.62
287.79
190.80
449.89
346.16
238.18
163.16
144.97
172.17
304.32
281.65
200.36
163.16
193.35
63.37
252.99
182.48
270.39
310.97
246.07
243.89
208.10
724.63
140.95
199.49
304.74
291.67
388.13
303.17
245.57
233.35
198.69
369.34
233.76
344.64
279.76
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8-%
8%
8%
8%
8%
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
23-117-24 34 0073
23-117-24 31 0037
23-117-24 34 0090
23-117-24 31 0041
23-117-24 34 0102
23-117-24 23 0020
23-117-24 34 0066
23-117-24 23 0001
23-117-24 32 0020
23-117-24 23 0095
23-117-24 23 0031
23-117-24 23 0056
23-117-24 32 0050
22-117-24 43 0007
22-117-24 44 0002
23-117-24 32 0063
23-117-24 23 0108
23-117-24 13 0074
23-117-24 24 0031
23-117-24 23 0016
14-117-24 41 0001
13-117-24 41 0055
13-117-24 41 0012
13-117-24 41 0016
13-117-24 42 0014
13-117-24 32 0142
13-117-24 33 0055
23-117-24 14 0047
24-117-24 21 0006
13-117-24 34 0082
13-117-24 43 0022
13-117-24 43 0025
24-117-24 12 0016
24-117-24 12 0019
24-117-24 12 0020
24-117-24 12 0021
13-117-24 43 0046
19-117-23 34 0112
19-117-23 33 0100
19-117-23 33 0081
19-117-23 33 0184
19-117-23 33 0068
19-117-23 33 0160
19-117-23 23 0120
19-117-23 23 0094
24-117-24 11 0015
19-117-23 23 0143
19-117-23 23 0051
19-117-23 23 0146
19-117-23 24 0037
19-117-23 24 0052
24-117-24 13 0027
19-117-23 31 0030
19-117-23 23 0066
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
154.29
218.83
428.68
153.93
492.99
154.99
315.61
191.09
293.21
341.69
285.00
167.14
135.28
242.71
370.09
157.31
139.69
177.42
140.85
206.39
239.17
212.53
346.16
202.55
238.18
441.38
305.54
109.59
341.60
257.65
173.72
196.17
185.65
180.44
173.31
223.56
144.25
244.02
240.52
144.25
288.12
175.32
139.98
447.42
359.22
277.60
72.16
342.25
151.94
117.29
281.15
242.69
238.46
130.23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
19-117-23 23 0136 Del.
19-117-23 23 0108 Del.
24-117-24 14 0050 Del.
24-117-24 14 0049 Del.
19-117-23 24 0026 Del.
19-117-23 24 0002 Del.
19-117-23 24 0054 Del.
19-117-23 32 0020 Del.
19-117-23 32 0022 Del.
24-117-24 41 0042 Del.
24-117-24 41 0095 Del.
24-117-24 41 0098 Del.
24-117-24 41 0148 Del.
24-117-24 41 0171 Del.
19-117-23 31 0060 Del.
19-117-23 31 0062 Del.
19-117-23 32 0076 Del.
19-117-23 32 0077 Del.
19-117-23 32 0171 Del.
19-117-23 32 0083 Del.
19-117-23 32 0086 Del.
19-117-23 32 0110 Del.
19-117-23 31 0128 Del.
19-117-23 31 0077 Del.
19-117-23 34 0064 Del.
25-117-24 21 0023 Del.
25-117-24 21 0043 Del.
25-117-24 11 0068 Del.
24-117-24 43 0028 Del.
24-117-24 43 0079 Del.
24-117-24 44 0021 Del.
19-117-23 34 0004 Del.
19-117-23 34 0043 Del.
19-117-23 34 0129 Del.
'24-117-24 44 0186 Del.
24-117-24 44 0026 Del.
24-117-24 44 0079 Del.
24-117-24 44 0042 Del.
24-117-24 44 0187 Del.
24-117-24 44 0050 Del.
24-117-24 44 0060 Del.
24-117-24 44 0061 Del.
24-117-24 44 0062 Del.
24-117-24 44 0182 Del.
24-117-24 44 0188 Del.
24-117-24 44 0073 Del.
19-117-23 32 0094 Del.
24-117-24 44 0213 Del.
24-117-24 44 0211 Del.
24-117-24 41 0011 Del.
24-117-24 41 0022 Del.
24-117-24 41 0100 Del.
24-117-24 41 0033 Del.
24-117-24 42 0007 Del.
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water &~Sewer
Water &'Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
Water & Sewer
216.22
156.67
97.01
248.98
241.16
239.39
343.90
234.66
194.79
178.84
191.55
102.82
413.45
182.47
196.45
369.10
384.08
236.87
200.26
317.37
246.00
250.58
329.06
105.41
387.07
364.94
257.28
187.55
119.49
180.51
308.55
435.96
552.32
256.61
436.42
213.92
461.16
353.86
141.22
171.65
353.28
333.51
207.92
276.73
165.19
172.29
57.83
193.70
186.05
138.25
249.13
321.15
204.75
413.56
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
12602
24-117-24 43 0017
24-117-24 41 0175
25-117-24 12 0195
25-117-24 21 0039
25-117-24 12 0113
25-117-24 21 0025
25-117-24 21 0029
25-117-24 21 0036
30-117-23 22 0038
25-117-24 12 0102
19-117-23 33 0033
19-117-23 33 0206
30-117-23 22 0025
30-117-23 22 0036
30-117-23 22 0072
25-117-24 12 0200
25-117-24 11 0070
25-117-24 11 0103
25-117-24 11 0074
30-117-23 21 0001
30-117-23 21 0007
30-117-23 22 0030
30-117-23 22 0049
30-117-23 22 0050
30-117-23 22 0054
25-117-24 11 0027
25-117-24 11 0035
25-117-24 11 0124
25-117-24 11 0115
24-117-24 34 0009
25-117-24 21 0114
25-117-24 12 0134
25-117-24 21 0007
25-117-24 24 0028
25-117-24 21 0065
25-117-24 21 0077
25-117-24 21 0080
19-117-23 21 0031
14-117-24 44 0036
13-117-24 33 0016
13-117-24 33 0004
13-117-24 33 0076
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
Del. Water & Sewer
106.42 i 8% 12602
324.56 i 8% 12602
171.17 I 8% 12602
203.63 i 8% 12602
172.17 i 8% 12602
225.89 i 8% 12602
192.69 i 8% 12602
169.75 i 8% 12602
220.72 i 8% 12602
185.43 i 8% 12602
298.37 i 8% 12602
230.60 i 8% 12602
281.49 I 8% 12602
244.86 i 8% 12602
344.42 i 8% 12602
240.27 1 8% 12602
132.21 i 8% 12602
450.85 1 8% 12602
318.76 i 8% 12602
262.45 i 8% 12602
167.16 I 8% 12602
221.91 I 8% 12602
292.54 i 8% 12602
245.44 I 8% 12602
256.82 I 8% 12602
431.29 I 8% 12602
308.99 I 8% 12602
343.86 i 8% 12602
175.90 i 8% 12602
172.61 i 8% 12602
291.95 i 8% 12602
626.90 i 8% 12602
243.19 i 8% 12602
282.07 i 8% 12602
412.79 i 8% 12602
454.69 i 8% 12602
295.96 i 8% 12602
191.06 i 8% 12602
658.85 I 8% 12602
464.64 i 8% 12602
208.58 I 8% 12602
677.14 i 8% 12602
The owner is any property so assessed may, at any time on
or before November 25, 1992, following the date of
assessments, 9ay the whole of the assessment against any
parcel, to the City of Mound without interest~ or may
until November 27, following the assessment date, pay the
whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with
interest accrued to the 31st of December following the
date of the assessment.
After November 27, 1992, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate
of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended
on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
REBOLUTIONADOPTING UNPAID TREE RE~OVAL
ABSEBBMENT ROLL IN THE A~OUNT OF $360.00 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY ~12603
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required
by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all
objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUNDs
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments as follows:
INT.
PID # IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
24-117-24 41 0171 TREE REMOVAL
CHARGES
$210.00 1 8% 12603
24-117-24 44 0128 TREE REMOVAL
CHARGES
$150.00 1 8% 12603
The installment to be payable on or before the first
Monday in January, 1993 and shall bear interest at the
rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the
adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 1992.
The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on
or before November 25, 1992, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any
parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and may
until November 27, following the assessment date, pay the
whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with
interest accrued to the 31st of December following the
date of the assessment.
After November 27, 1992, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate
of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended
on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municigal taxes.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE
AT 4853 BARTLETT BLVD.,
SETON VIEW, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, PID #13-117-24 44 0098
P&Z C~SE NUNBER 92-059
WHEREAS, The applicant, Michael Ronald, has applied for a variance to
allow a fence two feet higher than what is allowed by Zoning Code Section 23.415
(4) c. resulting in a fence height variance request of two feet, and;
W~EREAS, The Mound fence ordinance states, "Fences on or along that
portion of a side lot line from a navigable lake, channel or stream to the near
side of the average building construction line shall not exceed thirty-six (36)
inches in height, and;
WHEREAS, The required building setback from the shoreline is 50 feet,
and;
WHEREAS, The subject property has an irregular shore line of Lake
Minnetonka, and;
WHEREAS, The proposed fence does not appear that it would negatively
affect adjoining property owners or the general public, and the proposed location
of the fence is the most aesthetically pleasing, and;
WHEREAS, The fence is for the applicant's dog, and;
WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District, and;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
3e
The City Council does hereby approve a two foot fence height variance to
allow construction of five foot high fence within 40 feet of the ordinary
high water elevation at 4853 Bartlett Blvd.
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 five foot high chain link fence within 40
feet of the ordinary high water elevation.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 4, Block 1, Seton View, City of Mound, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Fences
CITY OF MOUND
534l MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
Appendix B
O O
~ tJ
Fencing shall be permitted in all zones subject to the following:
(I) No person, firm or'corporation shall erect, construct or place any fence
wlthout flrst making an.appllcatlon for and securing a bulldlng permit.
The buildlng offlclal may require fence permit applicants to establlsh
property boundary lines by a survey completed by a registered land sur-
veyor. In ali cases, the Cl~y of Hound shall not be liable for the
establishment or deflnltion of property Ilnes.
(2) Electric fences and barbed wlre fences are prohiblted except that barbed.
wlre may be used In the commercial and Industrlal districts as an antl-
vaulting measure on top of a fence which equals 6 feet In height. In ·
such cases, barbed wired shall not exceed the height of I foot above the
top of the fence.
(3)
(q)
All fences shall be constructed of durable, weather resistant materials
and properly anchored. Every fence shall be maintalned in a condition
of reasonable repair and shall not be allc~ved to become and remain Ina
condltlon of disrepair, danger or constitute a nuisance. Fences In a
state of disrepair or deemed to be a nuisance may be abated by the Clty
by proceedings taken under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter ~29, and the cost
of .abatement, Includlng administration expenses, may be levied as a
special assessment against the property upon which the fence Is located.
In resldentlal and commercial districts, chain llnk fences and wooden
fence.st constructed from commerclally available materlals~ shall be per-
mitted. Wooden fences shall not be constructed from twigs, branches,
doors, siding or other wooden products orlglnally Intended.for other
purposes. Wood and chain link fences shall be subject to the following
restrictions:
a. Front yard fences may be solld or open and shall not exceed forty-
eight (~8) Inches In height.
be
Rear and side yard fences located behind the front yard setback llne
may be solid or open and shall not exceed seventy-t~o (72) ]riches
In height.
Ce
Fences on or adjacent to the shore line of any navigable lake,
channel or stream shall not exceed thirty-slx (36) Inches In
height. Fences on or along that portion of a side lot line from
a navlgable lake, channel or stream to the near side of the average
building construction line shall not exceed thlrty-slx (36) Inches
in height.
de
ee
Fence heights shall be measured from the adjoining natural ground.
Fences Installed on top of retaining walls shall be Ilmlted to a
maxlmum of forty-two (q2) Inches In residential zones.
All fenced areas shall be accessible through at least one gate
having a mlnlmum width of thirty-slx (36) Inches.
All chain link fences shall have a top tall, barbed ends shall be
placed at the bottom of the fence and posts shall be .spaced at
MINIYI'ES OF A MEETING OF TI-IF.
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1992
Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland,
Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian
Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed
Sh~kle, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James.
~ASE t92-059: MICHAEL RONALD, 4853 BARTLETT BLVD., 8ETON VIEW, LO'l'
4, BLOCK lo PID #15-1~?-~4 44 0098. VARIANCE FOR FENCE.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a
fence height variance. The proposed 5' high fence will be located
40' from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The
Mound fence ordinance limits fences to 3' high within 50' of the
ordinary high water.
Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds that either
hardship or practical difficulty exists regarding the proposed
fence, the fence height variance should be approved. If the
variance is approved, approximately half of the fence will be one
foot under the height allowed in the code and the other half will
exceed the ordinance standard by two feet.
The applicant explained to the commission that he needs the fence
for his dog, and that he explored many different locations for this
fence, but considered this location the most aesthetically
pleasing.
Commissioner Weiland, who visited the site, commented that he
looked at the area proposed for the fence from three different
views and does not see how the fence could negatively affect
anyone. Weiland stated that he believes practical difficulty
exists as the location proposed for the fence is the most
aesthetically pleasing.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to reconunend to
the City Council that the fence height variance be
approved as requested due to practical difficulty.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on October 27, 1992
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: October 7, 1992
SUBJECT: Fence Height Variance Request
APPLICANT: Michael A. Ronald
CASE NUMBER: 92-059
HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37k
LOCATION: 4853 Bartlett Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a five foot high
chain link fence along portions of the eastern side of the property and in an area
around the southeast corner of the building. As proposed, the fence will be located
40 feet from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The Mound fence
ordinance allows fences to be 6 feet high in the side yard area and for lakeshore lots,
3 feet high in the rear yard. The proposed fence would be one foot under the height
limitation in the ordinance in the side yard and two feet higher than allowed by the
code in the rear yard.
COMMENT: In the case of all variances, a finding of hardship or practical difficulty
needs to be defined. In this case, in order to approve the variance, the Commission
would need to determine that the physical characteristics of the subject parcel and
the irregular shore line of Lake Minnetonka in this area combined with the need to
have a 5 foot high fence to adequately define areas for children and pets falls under
either the hardship or practical difficulty provisions.
Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard ,"Suite 525 · Minneapolis. Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612,~ 83%3160
Ronald Variance Planning Report
October 7, 1992
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission finds that either hardship or
practical difficulty exists regarding the proposed fence, the fence height variance
should be approved. If the variance is approved, approximately half of the fence
will be one foot under the height allowed in the code and the other half will exceed
the ordinance standard by two feet.
rev£ ea
VARIANCE APPLICATION
C~TY OF ~OUND
$$4~ ~aywood Road~ ~ound~ ~
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Site Visit Scheduled:
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No.
Zoning Sheet Completed:
Copy to City Planner:
Copy to Public Works:
Copy to City Engineer:
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property 4%55 ~t~L-~V~ "i~'I._N~'~'~
Owner's Name m{~,~_aL, ~, ~a~ Day Phone q~'~}%
Owner's Address ~ ~ ~~U~ ~ 5
pplicant's Name (if other than owner)
ddress
Day Phone
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 4
Block ~-.
Addition PIP No.
Use of Property: ~S~
Zoning District
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~K~ no. If
yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number
of stories, type of use, etc.):
revised 4/2/92
Variance Application
Page 2
Case No.., qc~ --C'~I~
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located?
Yes ~f No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason~o:r variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)
SETBACKS:
required
requested
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard~ (~S E W ) ~O ft. ~ ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( S E W ) ft. -
Lake Front: I N~E W I ~ ft. ft.
Side Yard· N ~W ~ ft. _ ~O ft. ft.
· ft. (~) ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E~) ~O ft ~O ft
Lot Size: ' · ft.
Street Frontage sq ft sq ft sq ft
ft. ft. 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,
specifyeach non-conforminguse:
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
( ) too shallow (~) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe: 1~%;~ 'T~ -~'~6~ %~Jgk~, -~%%~ ~~~
Wa he 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
revised 4/2/92
Variance Application
Page 3
Case No.
e
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If
no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
NOT'
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
equired by law.
Applicant's Signature
Date
GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
LOWER FLOOR ELEVATION
LOT DETAIL
No Scale
tRo ;'
?
/
3
i.~;, - -.~. ,,,.~, ~ /
..;' '
/,
c .~
'~I I hereby certify ~ha~ ~his survey
, ' ~as p~epa~ed by me o~ unde~ my
~/ / ~ dtrec~ supe~v~sion and ~ha~ I am a
~)/ / duly ~e6is~e~ed P~ofessional Land
,, Su~veyo~ unde~ ~he la~s o~ the Sta~
~ .~0 of Ninneso~a.
' ~)' Dated this llth day of July, ,~991
~/ '~' ,. ~ta ~cense No
~. & . .~ . .
/
SU. RVEY FOR: Bill & Judy Niccum
DESCRIFTION: Lot 4, Block 1, SETON VIEW,
City of Mound, llennepin County, Minnesota
Iron Monuments [found and set]
Inotes Spike Set for Bldg. Control
,x Denotes Existing Ground Elev. --
[xx.x] Denotes Proposed Final Grades.
B.H. Top nut on hydrant across street
Elevation 949.13 [N.G.V.D. 1929]
PROPOSED
TOP FOUNDATION ELEVATION ~'O.~--
GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ~t/~.~
LOWER FLOOR ELEVATION ~Z, Z~
LOT DETAIL
No Scale
3
o°
/u° //
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a
duly Registered Professional Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Dated this llth day of July, $991.
V'I
RESOLUTION #92-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE XN AMENDMENT TO REBOLUT'rON #91-123
AUTHORT',X1'NG A CONDITTON]tL USE Pi~RMI'T FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A TEEN CLUB (CO)~ERCIXL RECREXTTON) AT 2313 COMNERCE
BOULEVARD, PID ~14-117-24 44 0042, P & ~ CASE NUMBERS
91-040 AND 92-058, /%~ /%MENDED
NHEREAB, Resolution #91-123 was approved by the City
Council on September 10, 1991 authorizing a Conditional Use Permit
for the establishment of a Teen Club (commercial recreation) at
2313 Commerce Blvd., as amended"; and
WHEREAS, Resolution #91-123 allowed a total of four
amusement devices to be placed on the main floor of the business
and on September 27, 1992, the City of Mound received an
application to modify Resolution #91-123 to allow a total of 13
amusement devices and one pool table on the main floor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August
27, 1991, with said hearing being continued to September 10, 1991,
to consider the issuance of the initial Conditional Use Permit for
the establishment of a Teen Club at 2313 Commerce Blvd.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on
October 13, 1992, to consider the request to increase the total
number of allowed amusement devices and pool tables on the main
floor of the business; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, Teen Clubs featuring recorded music, dancing,
video games and other devices are classified as commercial
recreation and commercial recreation uses are allowed as
conditional uses in the Central Business (B-i) zone in accordance
with Section 23.625.2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Economic Development
Commission reviewed the original request and recommended approval
subject to various conditions; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the request
for the modifications of the Conditional Use Permit to allow an
increase in the total number of amusement devices and pool tables
on the main floor of the business and recommended approval of
twenty (20) amusement devices and four (4) pool tables, subject to
various conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 13, 1992, determined
that the primary use of the proposed building was a Teen Club which
falls under the category of commercial recreation in the Mound
Zoning Code and therefore, an Arcade license is not required as
defined in Section 405 of the Mound Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound sees the need for a positive
gathering place for youth within the community and sees that proper
management is essential to the successful operation of such a
facility.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, that a Conditional Use Permit for the
establishment of a Teen Club at 2313 Commerce Blvd. is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
Hours of operation shall not exceed 3 P.M. to 12:00 A.M.
(midnight) weekends and weekdays. The club building may
be used for other events such as birthday and holiday
parties but not between the hours of 12:01 A.M. to 9:00
A.M. subject to all applicable conditions contained
herein. The management of the facility shall comply with
all ordinances and/or laws relating to curfew
requirements for individuals under the age of 18 years.
Pool tables, video games and other entertainment devices
shall be licensed as required by the Mound Code of
Ordinances. The total number of pool tables in the club
shall be limited to four (4) and the number of amusement
devices (video games) shall be limited to twenty (20).
The structure and the facilities therein shall meet all
applicable building, fire and health codes.
The business shall comply with all provisions of the
Mound Sign Ordinance.
After hours loitering around the building or in the
adjacent parking lots shall be prohibited.
The business shall be responsible for picking up all
litter attributable to customers around the building and
in adjacent parking lots.
At least one uniformed, off-duty police officer, paid by
the club shall be on the premises from 7:00 P.M. until
closing on Friday and Saturday evenings. This
requirement may be expanded by the Mound City Council
upon staff recommendation.
The applicant shall prepare a plan for the location and
installation of bicycle racks with such plan being
approved by the Mound Building Official prior to
installation and prior to the opening of the club.
Pollution Control Agency Rule No. 7010 relating to noise
must be complied with.
10.
An adult supervisor (minimum 18 years old) shall be on
the premises at all times when the club is open.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Prior to the opening of the club, the applicant shall
prepare a written operations manual to be followed by all
club employees. The manual shall address but not be
limited to an appropriate dress code and a description of
appropriate reactions to behavioral problems that arise.
Said manual shall be reviewed by the Mound Police
Department with a copy being retained in the City's
files.
The applicant shall work with the Mound Police Department
to ensure that adequate lighting exists in and around the
club building. Additional lighting as required shall be
the responsibility of the applicant.
Club employees (minimum 18 years old) shall be stationed
at all entrances and exits to the club during all hours
of operation. Prior to the opening of the club, the
applicant shall submit a copy of a detailed floor plan
clearly identifying all entrances and exits and
corresponding security stations.
Smoking in the Teen Club shall be prohibited.
Dancing at the club shall be by patrons only and shall at
no time involve dancers who receive compensation either
directly from the club or by tips except as approved by
the City Council.
The applicant shall submit a detailed site plan
identifying outdoor storage areas for recycling materials
and trash dumpsters. These areas shall be within
enclosures meeting City screening requirements and shall
be constructed, prior to the opening of the club. These
plans are to be approved by the City Building Official.
Exhibit A dated October 13, 1992, is hereby adopted by
reference as part of the approved Conditional Use Permit.
In accordance with Exhibit A, the Teen Club shall be
allowed to have not more than twenty (20) amusement
devices and four (4) pool tables placed at various
locations throughout the building.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following
legally described property:
The East of front 150 feet of Lot 55, "Lynwold
Park"; Also, that part of Lot 54, said "Lynwold
Park" described as follows: Commencing on the
south line of said Lot 54 at a point which is a
distance of 30 feet west of the Southeast corner
thereof; thence north on a line parallel with the
front line of said lot, 10 feet; thence at right
angles westerly a distance of 120 feet; thence at
right angles southerly to the south line of said
19.
20.
lot; thence easterly along the south line of said
lot to the point of beginning.
This shall be considered as a restriction on how this
property may be used.
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the
County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin
County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3595,
Subd. 4. The property owner shall have the
responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. Proof of
recording shall be filed with the City Clerk.
i
~R~RI'~, JfaddOd~ 27t'h -~ _~_-~. October .,9. 92,
~aad~~The City of Mound~ A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
~ ~ ~d, ~ In ~Nd C~ of. Hennepin
Minnesota ~ ~..
Lots 1, 2, 3 & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood,. PID {13-117-24 12 0223
....27th ................................... &z¥ el. October , ]~. 92.,
the ir ........~ ~[
It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties that
the lessees shall only have a right to tuse the aforedescribed lands an,
that the only use that they may put this property to is to plant a gard~
The lessees further agrees that they will maintain the site, mowing the
grass, cutting the weeds 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.
Z.~uor__, t~
for t~
Big~,~rZ, B~b,.,d ar~ Ddlvcr~ I~ ~n~e of
-M~b-~-r, CicY Of Mound ........ (BEWr.)
-'C~'-Manage r, 'C ~ t'y o~n--d--- ($~£)
CITY of
MOUND
September 29, 1992
Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Hahn
2273 Cottonwood Lane
Mound, MN 55364
RE: 9-22-92 Meeting
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hahn:
I attempted to reach by you telephone and left a message on
your recorder, but have not heard back from you. 'Therefore, I
thought I should write a letter to you concerning the follow up
that we were going to do after the meeting held this past Tuesday.
I spoke with Curt Pearson, City Attorney, regarding the
petition that you are considering to submit to the City Council for
a storm sewer improvement per our discussion of 9-22-92.
Mr. Pearson indicated that in order for the City Council to
move forward on such a petition, a majority vote (3 votes) requires
35% of the benefitting property owners to petition for the
improvement. If there are less than 35% petitioning, for example;
yourselves submitting the petition alone, the Council could order
the improvement, but it would have to be done on a 4/5 vote. In
other words, the 35% rule applies in terms of the City Council
being able to do an improvement by a majority vote or by having to
do it by 4/5 vote. As mentioned to you at our meeting, the City
Council could initiate the improvement without any petition. I
would think, though, that in this particular case, the Council
would want input from the area residents to determine if they wish
to be assessed for an improvement project such as this.
On behalf of Mr. Cameron, I want to apologize regarding the
survey of your property. Mr. Cameron indicated to you that there
was a survey on file. Returning to the office with me after our
meeting of last Tuesday, he checked again and found that he was in
error. The survey information that he found was not an official
survey of your property. I apologize for the confusion that this
may have caused you.
Thus, I thought it would be important for you to know that
should you want to go forward with petitioning the Council for this
improvement, that you would not have to spend the time that it
would take to circulate a petition in the area. However, I think
printed on recycled paper
Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Hahn
Page 2
it is in your best interest to consider the other properties within
the area as you petition for the improvement. The City Council is
going to want to hear from other residents regarding this issue
before they decide that they would like to go forward with a storm
sewer improvement. Certainly, the others that would be assessed
for the improvement would want to be made aware of what is being
proposed and I think it would be in your best interest to make
contacts with area residents before you bring any petition forward.
In an unrelated issue, but one that you will possibly see from
your property, the City public works department will be doing some
maintenance cleaning of a drainage ditch just to the west of your
property. We have noticed a buildup of silt and sand that drains
from County Road 15 (Lynwood Blvd.) into a drainage ditch that
flows into the City's wetlands to the west of your property. We
need to clean this ditch up to prevent water backup to area
properties that abut Lynwood Blvd. We last cleaned this ditch 5-10
years ago. Please don't confuse this project with what we talked
to you about. They are not the same thing - to take care of the
issue you are concerned about, a storm sewer project is the only
way to permanently resolve the open ditch and standing water
situation.
If you have any questions with regard to this information
presented in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
City Manager
cc:
John Cameron, City Engineer
Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent
ES:Is
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 1687
(612) 472 0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 27, 1992
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM - PETER JOHNSON ANDJIM DICKINSON, OWNERS OF THE
LAW OFFICE PROPERTY AT 2305 COMMERCE BLVD.
Attached are letters from Mr. Peter W. Johnson, co-owner of
the Westonka Professional Center Building at 2305 Commerce Blvd.
The first letter is dated October 6, 1992 requesting to be removed
from the CBD parking program immediately. Upon receipt of this
letter, I wrote a letter dated October 9, 1992 requesting that Mr.
Johnson prepare a scaled drawing of the property showing the
existing parking spaces and the total square footage of the
building. I indicated in that letter, a copy of which is attached,
that we would review this information and advise Mr. Johnson as to
the recommendation to the City Council. In a letter dated October
13, 1992, from Mr. Johnson, he specified the total square footage
of the building and provided a scaled drawing showing the parking
spaces. The total parking area that he shows is 17 parking spaces.
The City's zoning code requires one space for each 400 square feet
of space in an office use situation. Therefore, nine spaces are
required under the zoning ordinance based upon his building square
footage. Thus, it is my recommendation that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Dickinson's property, known as the Westonka Professional Center
Building at 2305 Commerce Blvd. be removed from the CBD parking
program effective July 1, 1992. The owners will be responsible for
the maintenance assessment of July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992.
ES: is
printed on recycled paper
PE'TER 9; JOHNSO~
JOHN W ~,OOD. JR
GARY L PHLgGER
RICHARD J ~HIEFFER
THOMAS A ~HL'~NBERG, Il
October 13, 1992
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON & WOOD, P.A.
730 EAST LAKE STREET
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
TELEPHONE (612) 475 1515
TELECOPIER 1612'~ 475031 I
OF CO{'~SEL
EARLE J NIEDERLUECKE
JAMES D M,,cKINNON
C SCO'FT MASSIE
INVE.WflGATO~
DAX, ID J HERZUCK
Facsimile No. 472-0620
Mr. Ed Shukle
City of Mound Administrator
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Request To Be Removed From CBD Parking Program
Dear Ed:
Our building has 3,535 square feet of interior space. The Mound
ordinance (Code Section 23.716.5) requires one space for each 400
square feet of space or 8.75 spaces. Our parking area consists of
5,254.48 square feet of paved parking area. The ordinance gives
credit for one parking space for each 325 square feet and,
consequently, gives us credit for 16.16 parking spaces.
The enclosed survey shows how the property is currently configured
and shows 15 parking spaces on the paved area. The striping on the
back five parking spaces is currently configured differently with
the parking spaces accessible from the north and south, rather than
from the west. It is our intention to re-stripe the parking area
as shown on the survey.
PWJ/jkp
Enclosure
cc: Mr. James B. Dickinson
PE.~'£R W JOHNSON
JOHN ~,' WOOD. JR
GARY L PHLEGER
RICHARD J SCHI£FF£R
THOMAS A SCHULENBERG, II
October 6, 1992
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON & WOOD, P.A.
7]0 EAST LAKE STREET
~,'AYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391
TEL£PHONE (612) 475-1515
TELECOPIER (612) 4750311
OOT 7 1992
EARLE J NIEDERLUECKE
JAMES D M~cKINNON
C SCCrI'r MASSIE
DAVID J HERZUCK
Mr. Ed Shukle
City of Mound Administrator
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
Westonka Professional Center Building at 2305 Commerce
Boulevard
Dear Ed:
As you know, James Dickinson and I own the property at 2305
Commerce Boulevard. As owners, we are no longer interested in
participating in the central business district parking program.
We are, therefore, notifying you of our immediate withdrawal from
the program.
If there exists a lease or other document which obligates us to
continue in the program, I would appreciate it if you would provide
me with a copy. If you wish to discuss the forgoing, please let
me know.
Very truly yours,
PWJ/jkp
cc: James B. Dickinson, Esq.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 27, 1992
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLEt CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM CBD PARKING PROGRAM -
THOMAS B. CARL, REGARDING POST OFFICE PROPERTY
Attached is a letter dated October 16, 1992 from Mr. Thomas B.
Carl of Merrill, Wisconsin, owner of the property known as the Post
Office property on Shoreline Drive. As Mr. Carl's letter
indicates, he contacted me by phone in regard to the assessment
program and asked how he could remove the Post Office property from
the program. I explained to him that he would have to petition to
be removed and should submit a scaled drawing and the square
footage of the building. Although he has not submitted a scaled
drawing, in review of the property, the City Engineer, City Planner
and myself have agreed that Mr. Carl does have adequate parking to
meet the zoning requirements. Therefore, we are recommending that
this property be removed from the CBD parking program effective
July 1, 1992. Mr. Carl would be responsible for the maintenance
assessment of July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992.
ES:is
printed on recycled paper
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
HF_~O
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
TO: Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Hanger
FROM: John Cameron, City F~ngineer
DATE: August 6, 1992
Ii D AU8 7
SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota -
Dakota Rail Culvert & Ditch
~ #8903
As requested, Geno Hoff and myself inspected the subject problem and report
the following: the Owners of 2273 Cottonwood Lane had requested that Public
Works clean the ditch directly upstream from the 36" culvert under Dakota
Rail. This ditch is the only outlet from a small wetland located on part of
Lot 34, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound, which is owned by the City of
Mound. The City acquired this property in 1974 as a tax forfeited parcel from
the State of Minnesota, for use as a wetland. A fairly large drainage area,
extending north of County Road 15, discharges into this wetland by means of a
24" storm sewer. We can only assume that the 36" concrete pipe under Dakota
Rail, which serves as an outlet for this wetland to Lake Langdon, was
originally installed by Burlington Northern Railroad.
This ditch is in very poor condition with steep side slopes and numerous
trees growing out of it. By cleaning the accumulated debris and silt from the
bottom of the ditch, Public Works did the best they could under the
circumstances. This area is very flat and now a small amount of water is
standing in the ditch. Part of the problem appears to be the water level in
Lake Langdon, which is high enough to back up into the culvert. The pipe is
about 1/3 full at the outlet on the south side and has 8" of standing water in
the bottom of the inlet on the north end, which would account for most of the
standing water in the ditch. Undoubtedly, in time, the ditch will again become
silted in and overgrown.
There are several possible solutions to the problem, but they would be
expensive. One would be to completely regrade the area, removing all the trees
in the ditch bottom and side slopes. This may not eliminate the standing water
if it is indeed backing up from Lake Langdon. Depending on where the property
lines are located and the existance of any easements, the steepness of the side
slopes may or may not be improved. The other solution would be to extend the
culvert westerly to the edge of the wetlands, thereby eliminating most of the
ditch. This probably will not eliminate the standing water, but would move it
to the end of the new storm sewer pipe at the edge of the wetlands. Without
elevations of the wetlands, the culvert and Lake Langdon, it is very difficult
to be more definite with our evaluation of the situation or proposed solutions.
Again, under the circumstances, I believe that Geno did the best he could
cleaning the ditch, especially when this is what the adjacent property owner
wanted done.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 15, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayors and Administrators
Lake Minnetonka Municipalities
Chair Dave Cochran
Multiple Dock License Fee Review Status
We advised you just prior to our September 23 Board meeting
of questions raised by a group of multiple dock users
concerning current and projected multiple dock license fees
for 1993.
The Board addressed this issue at its Board meeting with an
attorney representing the multiple dock user group.
Considering the group's concerns, and upon an analysis of
LMCD's costs of administering multiple dock related
activities, the Board agreed that the scheduled 1993 increase
from $12 to $15 per watercraft storage unit (WSU) would be
readdressed. Some Board members felt that more time was
needed to achieve a full understanding of the cost and
revenue projections before arriving at a specific revised WSU
rate. The issue was tabled back to the Water Structures
Committee.
The October 10 Water Structures Committee considered a
proposal introduced by Treasurer Scott Carlson. It specified
an $11 per WSU fee for 1993. The proposal, which is
recommended by the committee for Board consideration October
28, is attached.
LMCD attorney Charlie LeFevere, Holmes & Graven, provided the
board his opinion on how the fee program is being
administered. A copy of this opinion is enclosed for your
advice. The multiple dock users were also provided this
opinion prior to the Water Structures Committee meeting.
This issue will again be addressed at the October 28 Board
meeting. The LMCD Board invites your comment and questions
as it prepares to consider action for the 1993 licensing
program, including an adjustment to the fee schedule.
Thank you for taking the time to become fully familiar with
this issue.
Enclosures: 10/1 LeFevere letter
~.~1~ 10/9 Committee proposal
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 9, 1992
To:
From:
Subj:
Water Structures Committee
Scott Carlson, Treasurer
Multiple Dock License Fee Review
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Decrease the multiple dock license fee for 1993 to
$50 + $11/WSU
2. Adopt a modified 1993 LMCD Budget reflecting a decrease
in projected revenue from license fee's as follows:
Original Revised
Line 2 Reserve Fund Allocation S 15,732 S 35,732
Line 4 Total License and Permit Fees S145,000 $125,000
3. Implement appropriate accounting procedures through the
use of computerized accounting software to allow more
detailed tracking of expenses.
4. Regarding future increases, implement according to the
following policy:
a. Multiple dock license fees shall not exceed the
allowable limits as determined through cost tracking.
b. Recommend a fee policy that regardless of allowable
increases as determined by "a." above, annual
increases shall be held to no more than $1/WSU.
5. Establish a committee to include multiple dock owners and
operators to discuss future license fees.
6. Continue to work for alternative revenue sources per the
adopted Lake Minnetonka Management Plan.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation district
REVIEW OF LMCD LICENSING/PERMIT FEES
COMPARED WITH EXPENSES/BUDGETS
FOR MULTIPLE DOCK RELATED ACTIVITIES (MDRA)
1992 Preliminary Estimates
Revenue (MDRA)
Actual through 7/31/92
Est & addtl collections 1992
Total
Expenses Estimated (MDRA)2
Personnel
Contractual Services
Office & Administrative
Capital Outlay
Legal Services (Civil)3
Consulting Services
Contingency
Total
Fees Prio~
to Change
$87,135
Projected
Fees with
1
Adopted Chanse
$105,044
Actual
1992
$108,985
5,564
$114,549
$ 69,862
9,016
13,656
1,150
16,200
6,270
6,612
$122,766
1990 Comparison
Total License Fee Revenue
MDRA Expenses - Estimated
~omparisons
Budget
$ 80,000
141,987
1992 MDRA Revenue $114,549 vs Expenses $122,766
MDRA Expenses $122,766 vs Total Budget $398,230
1990 Total license Revenue $76,338 vs MDRA Expenses $128,248
MDPA Expenses $128,248 vs Total Budget $405,540
Actual
$ 76,338
128,248
93%
31%
59Z5
32%
1. Totals reflect the findings of the October 1991 report of the fee committee
which were adopted. The adopted budget for 1992 of $85,000 was established
in June 1991.
2. Expenses, except as noted, are allocated to MDRA at a rate of 57.5% of
totals, based on analysis of Executive Director and Administrative
Technician activities.
3. Legal costs are allocated to MDRA at 90% of Legal Services exclusive of
Prosecution, and do not reflect any potential litigation costs.
4. Consulting allocated at 1/3 of Lake Use Density Study, Public Information
Study, and Public Access Study.
5. Low percentage of MDRA revenue to expenses reflects municipal subsidization
of licensing activities.
IS9_21_92
ROBERT A. AL~OP
RONALD H. BATTY
· rt~H~q J.
JOHN B. D~N
~ANIE N. GA~Y
CO,RINg ~
Jo~ ~ ~so~
WELUHG~H ~. ~W
C~c~ ~
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CIlARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Mlnneapofls, Mlnnesola 55402
(612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
~4'RITER'S DIRECT DIAL
337-9215
JOlIN M. LEFEVRE. JR.
ROBERT J. LINDALL
LAL'RA K. MOLL~T
BARBA~,A L. PORTWOOD
JA~W,,S M. STROM~N
LARRY M. WERTH~M
Bo~g ~ W~Ns
GA~Y P. WINTEI
DAVID ~ GRAV~ (192~1~1)
OF
ROBERT C. CAR~ON
ROBERT ~ DATUM
October 1, 1992
Gene Strommen
Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District
900 E. Wayzata Blvd.., Suite 160
Wayzata, MN 55391-1836
RE: Multiple Dock License Fees
Dear Gene:
A number of multiple and commercial dock license holders, represented by Mr. James
Gilbert, have asserted that the license fees charged by the District for multiple and
commercial docks are unlawful for a number of reasons. The purpose of this letter
is to address some of the issues raised by Mr. Gilbert.
The authority to assess license fees under the police power is subject to certain
Umitations. The principal Hmitation at issue here is that the fees levied under the
poUce power may not be so high as to become a general revenue measure unless the
municipality has the power to tax, and the fee is levied under that taxing power.
The LMCD does not have the authority to tax. Therefore, it may not levy a tax as
a means of raising general revenues merely by calling it a license fee. Such fees may
only be assessed in an amount which is reasonably needed to pay the costs of issuing
the license and regulating the activity being licensed. This basic proposition is well
estabUshed in the law of Minnesota and other states. See eg. Minnesota v. Northern
Raceway Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) 381 N.W. 2nd 526; Minneapolis Street Railway
Co. v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1952) 52 N.W.2nd 120. I am generally in
agreement with Mr. Gilbert's comments in this regard. We part views, however, on
the legality of the fees charged by the LMCD for multiple dock licenses. Since the
Board has so far heard only the views of Mr. Gilbert, I thought it would be helpful
to offer my perspective on these issues.
First, the Board should understand that fees levied by the Board are presumed to
be valid, and the burden of proving fees to be illegal is on the person challenging
the fees. Lyons v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1954) 63 N.W.2nd 585.
CLL42290
I, KllO-4
Mr. Gene Strommen
October 1, 1992
Page 2
As a matter of evidence, I have heard nothing which causes me to be concerned
about the defensibility of the fees. A central point here is that the staff has made
a good faith effort to determine how much of its time is devoted to the regulation of
multiple docks, and therefore how much of the expenses of the District are incurred
as a result of such regulation. All of the credible evidence of which I am aware
substantiates the fees. Mr. Gilbert questions that evidence for a number of reasons,
but we have been presented with no evidence that the staff's determination is
erroneous.
Mr. Gilbert questions the staff's determination in part because it is not based on
detailed time records. However this is not a sufficient basis for a successful legal
challenge to the fees. It would be helpful in defending the fees to have such detailed
records. However, there is no legal requirement that such records be kept, and in
my experience it would be highly unusual for a municipality to keep records of this
type. As noted above, the burden of proving the District wrong in its determination
as to the expenses incurred in regulating multiple docks is on those who wish to
challenge the fees. Therefore, the absence of detailed time records is a greater
problem for the challengers than for the District.
Mr. Gilbert also relies on the fact that the fees collected in the past and those
projected for the future are substantially in excess of the amount budgeted as
revenues from multiple dock license fees. The problem with this argument is that no
connection has been established between the budgeted amount for fee revenues and
the cost to the District of regulating multiple docks. If the District had budgeted
a very large amount for fee revenues, but actually incurred very little expense in
regulating docks, the budget would not be a defense to a challenge to the fees. On
the other hand, fees could be set at a lower level than the expenses incurred if the
District wished to subsidize the activity by recovering less money than is expended.
The District could even charge no fees for such Hcenses. Such a decision would in
no way prevent the District from charging and collecting fees in greater amounts in
an attempt to recover some of these expenses.
I am not aware that any past budgets were based on a detailed examination of the
cost of regulating multiple docks. However, ff it could be established that past
budgets were more than mere projections of anticipated revenues and were actually
based on a bona fide effort to determine the actual cost of regulation, the budget
would not prevent the District from increasing the fees ff it were later discovered,
upon reevaluation, that the fees were inadequate to cover expenses.
Mr. Gilbert also points to the amount of the District's reserve fund as evidence that
the District is recovering more than it is expending in regulating multiple docks.
As the Board has been advised, the reserve fund includes monies secured from other
sources, including voluntary private and public contributions to millfoil control
efforts and to the Save the Lake Fund. The District has also secured substantial
revenues from its statutory assessments against member cities. If the District's only
source of revenues were multiple dock license fees and it had built up a large
CLJ.,42290
I,l~110-4
Mr. Gene Strommen
October 1, 1992
Page 3
reserve fund, one could infer that the fees exceeded the costs incurred for
regulation. However, that is clearly not the case here. Therefore I see no reason
to be concerned about a challenge to the fees based on the fact that the District has
a substantial reserve fund.
Mr. Gilbert asserts that his clients are considering a legal challenge to the fees
which would not only challenge fees prospectively, but would also seek to recover
six years of fees paid in the past which were allegedly illegal. Under Minnesota law,
however, even ff it can be established that fees are unlawful, the challengers are not
entitled to recover fees previously paid. Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. Village of
Bagly (Minn. 1919) 170 N.W. 704; see also McQuillan_, Section 26.91.
Mr. Gilbert points out that the percentage of the totai operating budget supported
by fees has increased over the years and asserts that the fees are therefore
unlawful. This would evidence of illegal fees only if it could be established that the
fees, as a function of the percentage of the totai budget, were at the maximum
permissible amount at some earlier date. However, I am aware of no evidence that
this is correct. There is no reason why the District may not increase the percentage
of its total expenses recovered from fees for multiple docks as long as the amount of
the fees do not unreasonably exceed the cost of regulation of the licensed activity.
Finally, Mr. Gilbert argues that the LMCD enabling legislation authorizes the District
to levy such fees for boats but does not authorize the collection of fees for docks.
Whether the District has such powers is a matter of the intent of the legislature in
enacting the District's enabling act. The Act gives the District the authority to
regulate construction, installation and maintenance of docks and moorings. The
court has recognized in other contexts that the power to regulate implies the power
to license and to collect fees therefor to cover the cost of regulation. Minneapolis_
Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1949) 40 N.W. 2nd 353. The District
has collected fees for licenses for many years on this' basis. If the District has no
legal authority to collect fees, reducing fees to a level acceptable to Mr. Gilbert's
clients would not solve the problem, and legislation would be required to explicitly
grant such a power to the District. However, I am of the opinion that a court would
conclude that the collection of such fees is within the implied powers of the District.
I should point out also that the District is not required to justify every penny of fees
charged with corresponding expenses. Such a fee will not be adjudged an unlawful
tax by the court unless it is "manifestly unreasonable in view of its purpose as a
regulation". City of Mankato v. Fowler (Minn. 1884) 20 N.W. 361. Moreover, the
courts have ~aid that it is not fatal to a fee that the amount of the fee "may
incidentaliy yield some return in excess of the amount necessary to reimburse the
[municipality] for its police regulatory services." Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
v. City of Minneapolis, (Minn. 1949) 40 N.W.2d 353 at 359; Lyons v. City o~_
Minneapolis_, (Minn. 19~4) 63 N.W. 2d 585; City of Mankato v. Fowler (su_u~) · In the
case of Hendricks v. City of Minneapolis_ (Minn. 1940) 290 N.W. 428, the court
C],L42290
LKllO-4
Mr. Gene Strommen
October 1, 1992
Page 4
suggested that a party challenging such fees would have to demonstrate that receipts
would exceed the municipality's costs "continuously and by a substantial amount."
In summary, on the basis of all of the evidence of which I am aware, I do not believe
that the Board should be overly concerned about a legal challenge to the amount of
fees charged for multiple dock licenses. However, the decision whether to recover
all expenses associated with regulating the licensed activity or some lesser amount
is a matter within the sound discretion of the Board. Therefore, the Board may wish
to reduce the amount of the fees to avoid the burden and expense of litigation or for
other political or public policy reasons. The evidence suggests that the activity of
regulating multiple docks has been subsidized by other revenues for a number of
years, and there is no legal reason why the Board may not continue to do so.
If you have any further questions about any of these matters, please feel free to
give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL: ckr
I~ P_..t...'-_1 V El..)
OCT 2199Z
~_.~,,I.CD.
CL{,42290
L~llO-4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ~PPOINTING MEMBERS TO SERVE
ON A TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY COMMONS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound has
discussed identifying commons areas through markings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that a task force
be assembled from the community that would discuss these markings
and o~k~~~~reas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council solicited applications from the
public; and
WHEREAS, twelve applications were received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed those applications
and desires to appoint the following individuals:
Keith A. Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive
Jim Kuehn, 4633 Island Vigw Drive
Ramona Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road
Mike Mason, 4909 Island View Drive
John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive
Jim Walters, 1601 Bluebird Lane
Sandy Effertz, 4757 Island Uiew Drive; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Ken smith wishes to be the
chairperson of this task force; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby establishes that the
overall goal of the task force is to study how to identify commons
areas, ~ and responsibilities of users of the
commons.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Mound hereby appoints the above individuals to serve on
this task force with the goals stated.
The following councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
BILLS
-October 27, 1992
BATCH
2102
TOTAL BILLS
$84,040.46
$84,040.46
IA}
LIJ
a~
!
Z
0
0
ooo
I I
oo
! !
!
0
o
!
o
~4
O0
.4'
!
O~
I
~4
0
~ I
~'Z
o
o
o
oo
,-.4
I I
o o
o o
'
r~
L,,,~ k,.
Z I
0 ¢:
0
000
! I
O0
I I
0
000000000000
Illllllllll
00000000000
I I I I I I I I I I I
0000000~
~ 0000
Z
0
000
O0
,,4',,4'
I !
O0
~-~.J
i, I
I-- I-- ,.J
~LIJZ
0
O0
,~,-~ ~4
!
0
oO
',4'
I,-,
Z ,'",
> I
0~0000000000
0~000000000~
Z ~00~~
IIIIIIIIIII
00000000000
~000000~
IIIIIIIIIll
000~0000
Z
0
~ 000000000000 0
I,-
0
Z
#
0
Z
o
oo
!
o
~0
!
~4
o
o Z
O~
o
00000
~000
Illl
o~o
IIII
o
o
0
Z
uJ
0
Z
uJ
o
o
I
0
0
I
I
z
0 ,,,..~
l- I
~'._j
Zz
."',"1
o
o
o
0
T
o
ooo
I I
oo
I !
oo
O~ O~ O~
o
o
o
~-~
oo
o
o
I
I
0
0
~,~
Z
·
0
O0
0
I
0
O00c
I I I
I I I
~100
III I III
¢
0
0000
0 O0 ~-~
~1
I I !
Of~i~
I.~JW
UJ
O0
O0
0
0
L~J
!0
00000
0000~
~0~
III1
0000
IIII
0
Z
UJ
Z
0
0
0
X
UJ
X
I
Z
CITY of MOUND
5341 MA'~'A, OQD ROAD
MOUND MINNESOTA 55364
6!2i 4.72 06,3C
FAX (612 4.72 ]:E2O
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE NO. 92-066
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATION
IN THE I-1 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT
CONSISTING OF DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING OF ARTWEAR
AND JEWELRY BY P. HECK DESIGNS AT
5571 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, MOUND
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood
Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 24, 1992 to consider the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for P. Heck Designs to operate
a Wholesale and Assembly Operation designing and manufacturing
artwear and jewelry at 5571 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound (behind
Brickley's Market) in Koehler's Addition to Mound, PID #13-117-24
33 0073.
Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above
will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Publish in "The Laker" 11-9-92, and mailed to property owners
within 350' by 11-11-92.
printed on recycled paper
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Intergovernmental
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Charges to Other
Departments
Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE
FIRE FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
DOCKS FUND
RECYCLING FUND
CEMETERY FUND
BUDGET
1188250
820900
3260
69500
41250
75000
10000
51250
2259410
221600
1180000
350000
650000
71000
118730
3200
CITY OF MOUND
1992 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
SEPTEMBER
SEPTEMBER
REVENUE
1992
YTD PER CENT
REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
0 593661 594589 49.96%
22 486316 334584 59.24%
0 3129 131 95.98%
2808 66348 3152 95.46%
841 10464 30786 25.37%
5773 47372 27628 63.16%
1259 12855 -2855 128.55%
723 5900 45350 11.51%
11426 1226045 1033365 54.26%
11219 202883 18717 91.55%
101202 865327 314673 73.33%
31944 262227 87773 74.92%
54936 471729 178271 72.57%
0 71431 -431 100.61%
3880 37093 81637 31.24%
1000 6240 -3040 195.00%
CITY OF MOUND
1992 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
SEPTEMBER 1992
GENERAL FUND
Council
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
Shop & Stores
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
BUDGET
SEPTEMBER YTD
EXPENSE EXPENSE
PER CENT
VARIANCE EXPENDED
67280 12197 55032 12248 81.80%
1380 0 848 532 61.45%
166790 12629 121330 45460 72.74%
14800 549 4865 9935 32.87%
46260 44677 44948 1312 97.16%
147090 10579 102049 45041 69.38%
31000 1996 23453 7547 75.65%
83950 7112 40706 43244 48.49%
744890 53660 553969 190921 74.37%
3350 236 1382 1968 41.25%
127000 11922 110490 16510 87.00%
402900 27532 290509 112391 72.10%
20180 872 9151 11029 45.35%
90150 4492 60395 29755 66.99%
132990 12060 101589 31401 76.39%
31610 0 9894 21716 31.30%
20000 986 9782 10218 48.91%
119730 9398 84579 35151 70.64%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
Area Fire
Service Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Recycling Fund
Cemetery Fund
Docks Fund
2251350 210897 1624971
626379 72.18%
221600 10917 146534 75066 66.13%
178920 12810 131996 46924 73.77%
353060 33387 273212 79848 77.38%
971190 242870 742743 228447 76.48%
100900 11379 70155 30745 69.53%
4230 0 2876 1354 67.99%
46850 845 30900 15950 65.96%
Hennepin Conservation District
October 16, 1992
Mr. Edward Shukle, Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Shulde,
I am providing you with information regarding the election of Hennepin Conservation
District Supervisors in anticipation of the questions you may receive from your city's residents. I
hope that this information will help you and you staff answer all questions concerning the
upcoming Supervisor elections, but in the event that additional information is requested, please feel
free to direct these questions to the Hennepin Conservation District office (544-8572).
The Hennepin Conservation District is governed by a five member Board of Supervisors.
Supervisors are elected to six year terms in a county wide election. Supervisors establish
conservation policies and program priorities.
Although supervisors are elected by a county wide election, each elected Supervisor must
come from one of five nominating districts. This year there are elections for three of the five
Supervisor positions. Remember that you can vote your preference in each of the three contests
since the election for all three positions are county wide not by nominating district.
Sincerely,
David Anderson
205 Ridge Plaza Bldg.
12450 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
C~ Printed on recycled paper
Telephone (612) 544-8572
OCT 1 9 1992
The AMM Board of Directors is scheduled to consider and adopt this
section of policies at its Oct. 29 meeting
VII
~ETROPOLITAN ~OVERNANCE REORGANIZATION
VII-A LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities' Metropolitan
Governance Task Force has suggested broad-based changes in
the make-up and operation of the Metropolitan Council so it
may become more responsive and responsible to the current
climate and to help lead the metropolitan area into the 21st
Century and beyond.
The types of recommendations are divided into two main
categories: Those requiring legislative action and those
needing action by the Metropolitan Council. (There are also
suggestions for AMM action that are not listed in this
document.)
A-1 ELECTION OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL/METROPOLITAN AGENCIES
APPOINTMENTS
The Metropolitan Council has substantial taxing authority
and supervises other metropolitan agencies that have
considerably more taxing authority. This taxing ability
requires accountability that cannot be achieved through
current appointment process. Direct election would give the
accountability the citizens need to balance the Council's
taxing authority and other responsibilities it now has or-
may have. As a side benefit, the election process would help
address the general lack of understanding about the
Metropolitan Council and its role in the region.
THE ~ RECOMMENDS THAT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS BE ELECTED
DIRECTLY TO THEIR POSITIONS TO BALANCE ACCOUNTABILITY WITH AUTHORITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY. (THE ELECTION PROCESS SNOULD BE IN SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE WITH THE TASK FORCE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELECTION OF
COUNCIL MEMBERS. )
THE ~ ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CHAIR BE ELECTED
BIENNIALLY FROM WITHIN THE COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP, NOT APPOINTED BY THE
GOVERNOR. THE ~ FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO APPOINT ALL CHAIRS AND MEMBERS TO REGIONAL AGENCIES UNDER
THE COUNCIL'S PURVIEW. THESE AGENCIES ARE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION (M.A.C.), METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (MWCC),
i~ETROPOLITAN TRANSIT COHMISSION (MTC), METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE COMMISSION (MPOSC) AND THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD (RTB).
A-2 METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEES IN THE LEGISLATURE
The state Legislature frequently is asked to review and pass
legislation that affects only the seven-county metropolitan
area. The Senate currently has a Metropolitan Affairs
Committee to address these matters. At one time, the House
of Representatives also had a committee whose purview was
metropolitan affairs, but since has folded its duties in
with its Local Government Committee.
TO BETTER ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AND SITUATIONS THAT ARE TRULY OF TWIN
CITY METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEREST, AND HAVE NO DIRECT BEARING
ON OTHER REGIONS OF MINNESOTA, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSE OF
~EPRESENTATIVES REVIVE ITS METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THAT THE
BENATE CONTINUE ITS METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. MEMBERSHIP ON
THESE COMMITTEES SHOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY METROPOLITAN LEGISLATORS.
A-3 REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITIES/TRANSIT
The regional rail authorities - as they affect transit
matters in the metropolitan area - have outlived their
usefulness. No one rail authority has the broad metropolitan
perspective to plan a transit system. As a group, the rail
authorities duplicate and complicate transit planning of the
existing metropolitan agencies.
THEREFORE, THE ~ RECOMMENDS THAT THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL RAIL
AUTHORITIES AS INVOLVED IN TRANSIT IN THE SEVEN-COUNTY ~ETROPOLITAN
AREA BE ELIMINATED.
A-4 ~ESTRUCTURING OF METROPOLITAN AGENCIES
The AMM believes that to better meet the needs of current
and future delivery of regional services and developing and
implementing regional policy, some changes should be made to
the structures and responsibilities of the regional
agencies. The detailed reasons and rationales for such
changes are contained in the aforementioned Task Force
report.
THE A~M RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STATUTORY CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO
METROPOLITAN A~ENCIES:
- I~EMOVE THE METROPOLITAN SPORTS FACILITIES COMMISSION AS A
METROPOLITAN AGENCY SINCE THE BACK-UP TAX LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO ONE
CITY WHICH ALSO APPOINTS ALL COMMISSIONERS EXCEPT THE CHAIR;
- MODIFY THE STATUS OF THE M.A.C. SO THAT IT EITHER BECOMES A TRUE
METROPOLITAN AGENCY OR A STATE DIRECTED AGENCY. IF THE HACK-UP PROPERTY
TAX IS ONLY LIMITED TO THE SEVEN-COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA, THEN IT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A METROPOLITAN AGENCY AND ITS COMMISSION MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY AN ELECTED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. THE BACK-UP PROPERTY TAX
SHOULD BE STATEWIDE IF THERE IS STATEWIDE REPRESENTATION ON THE M.A.C.
AND IF A STATEWIDE ENTITY IS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
- CONVERT THE LAND USE ADVISORY COMMITTEE INTO THE LAND USE ADVISORY
COMMISSION SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE ~ETROPOLITAN
COUNCIL AS IS THE MPOSC.
- GRANT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO REORGANIZE THE
TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT STRUCTURE AND OPERATION IN THE REGION. THIS
COULD INCLUDE REVISING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RTB AND
M~Ct AND MAY INVOLVE SHIFTING OF FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN
THE TWO AGENCIES AND ITSELF. UNDER SUCH REORGANIZATION THE RTB CHAIR
SHOULD BECOME PART-TIME AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MUST NOT BECOME
THE SHORT-RANGEr DAY-TO-DAY PLANNING AUTHORITY. RECOMMENDATION FOR
ELIMINATION OF EITHER THE RTB OR MTC WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC
LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL.
VII-B RE-ENERGIZING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The Metropolitan Council was formed to address specific
problems, such as providing an adequate sewer system for
Minneapolis, St. Paul and the surrounding suburbs, but it
had a broader focus. Its mission was to serve the
metropolitan area. Its first members took what could be
called a pro-active stance and, over time, became involved
in issues such as land use planning, parks and open space,
and transportation to allow for the orderly expansion of
growth in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
During the years since its inception to the present,
however, the Metropolitan Council is perceived to have
become more politicized and is offhandedly referred to as
the "State Department of Metropolitan Affairs." It has,
either by design or happenstance, become an enforcer of
rules and regulations. It has become enmeshed in minutia and
dealing with the here-and-now, functioning less as an
institution of forward-thinking planning.
When the Council was created to address the issues of
sewers, transit, and parks and open space, it seemed natural
for the Council to engage more heavily in the day-to-day
activities of the systems and agencies it envisioned. The
Council did nothing wrong, per se. Rather, it seemed to
institutionalize its vision, which pulled it back from
forward-thinking. The AMM believes the Council should become
re-energized.
THEREFORE THE ~ RECOMMENDS THAT:
- THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL RE-EMPHASIZE ITS VISIONARY ROLE AND
APPOINT A PERMANENT COMMITTEE WHOSE SOLE CHARGE IS TO SEEK OUT
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES THAT THE COUNCIL MAY ADDRESS. THE COUNCIL
HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP ADVANCE THE METROPOLITAN AREA INTO THE NEXT
CENTURY BY FOCUSING ON VISION AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING
- THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WORK ACTIVELY TO GET CITIES AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF
SERVICES. TO THIS END, THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO WORK WITH CITY OFFICIALS
TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AS NEEDED AND TO GET A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON
ISSUES.
- THE COUNCIL EXAMINE SEVERAL ISSUE AREAS THAT HAVE METROPOLITAN WIDE
SI(~NIFICANCE. THE COUNCIL WOULD PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR REPRESENTING AGENCIES UNDER ITS CHARGE AT THE STATE LEVEL. IT WOULD
FACILITATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THESE ISSUE AREAS. SOME OF THE
ISSUES A~tEAS INCLUDE LAND USE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENTS HOUSING
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATIONS ENVIRONMENT,
TRANSPORTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES, PUBLIC SAFETY SUPPORT, AND REGIONAL
AND LEISURE SERVICES.
- THE ~TROPOLITAN COUNCIL STRENGTHEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR IN RUNNING THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AND THAT THE COUNCIL
M]~BERS BECOHE MORE "BIG PICTURE" ORIENTED AND LESS INVOLVED IN
DETAILS.
4
WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277
5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
Michael G. Looby, Director of Community Education and Services 472-0341
October 15, 1992
TO:
FROM:
City Council Members, Administrators,
and Department Heads
Mike Looby, Co-Chairperson ee~, ~~,o~
Business Education Partnership Committ
"Business Leaders Day" and
Tour of Westonka Schools
Wednesday, October 28, 1992
As one of the key leaders of our community, I'd like to personally invite
you to attend our upcoming "Business Leaders Day" on Wednesday,
October 28th. An invitation card is enclosed which briefly describes this
chamber/school sponsored activity in more detail.
How long has it been since you've been inside Mound Westonka High
School? Have you had an opportunity to visit during the day, walked in a
classroom to personally observe the learning process, or seen the
technology available to our young people in preparing them for the work
force?
Please mark your calendar for October 28th and we will provide you an
opportunity to learn more about our school district and the important
function of educating our youth.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 472'0341. Thanks for your
continued support of our committee work and the Westonka Public
Schools!
Business Leaders
Tour of Westonka Schools
Wednesday, October 28, 1992
Westonka Public Schools
Westonka Com~nunity Center
5600 Lynwood Boulevard
School Board Meeting Room
8:00 Continental Breakfast
8:15 "All About Westonka Schools"
9:00 - 10:00 Tour of Mound-Westonka High School
R.S.V.P. by October 23rd, Chamber Office 472-6780
~ "Wo~ing
Chamber of Commerce
Do you really know what's
happening in the Westonka Public
Schools today? How are our future
employees being educated?
Join us in strengthening the
partnership of education and
business by taking a first hand look
at our schools!
sponsored by:
Busil~ess/Educatiol~ Partnership Colnmittee
Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIF, SION
OCTOBER 12, 1992
Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland,
Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian
Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed
Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James.
The following people were also in attendance: Edward Rogers, Clark
Lillehei, Richard Smith, Loretta Rininger, Morris Rininger, Greg
Fenzl, Jack Wilson, Dorothy Netka, William Netka, Annette Flaherty,
John Flaherty, Dorothy Berglund, Gloria Berglund, and Mike Ronald.
MTNUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of September 28,
presented for approval.
1992 were
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to
the Planning Commission Minutes of September
written. Motion carried un&nimously.
approve
~992 as
CASE #92-057: THE TORO COMPANY, 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE, SYLVI~~'
~EIGHTS ADDITION TO MOUND~ PID ~3-~7-24 34 0026. PUBLIC HE~RING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURP
CONSISTING OF A PORTABLE HR~TER TESTING FACILITY.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his planning report relating
to the application by Toro to amend Resolution 85-87 to add a
portable heater testing facility on the north side of the site.
The proposed building measures 16' x 32' and is planned to have a
metal panel exterior. The building will meet all setback
requirements.
Primary areas of concern include compatibility with the
neighborhood area to the north as well as the appearance of the
structure. Correspondence to the City of Mound dated September 15,
1992, from the Toro Company stated the following:
The proposed use, which is to test portable heaters is not
believed to have any adverse impact on the property in the
vicinity.
No increase in traffic or parking will result from this
structure with the exception of occasional deliveries of
heater fuel.
The only noise generated will be that of the heaters within
the building which will not be noticeable outside the
structure.
Pl&nn£ng Commission Minutes
October 13, 1992
e
The building will have no exterior lights but will depend on
existing parking lot lighting.
5. No smoke will be generated.
Presuming that the above statements depict the proposed use, the
test facility should not have a negative impact on any of the
surrounding residential properties.
Relating to building appearance, Koegler suggested that the
proposed modifications to the zoning code depicting provisions for
building materials be used as a guide in reviewing and issuing the
proposed conditional use permit.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission needs to render a
policy decision on the appropriateness of the proposed metal
building exterior. Not withstanding'that issue, staff recommends
that the conditional use permit be modified to allow construction
of the proposed heater testing facility subject to the following
conditions:
The building will be used only for heater testing and related
product/equipment storage. Any change in the use of the
building will require modification of The Toro Company's
Operations Permit.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit a lot survey certified by a registered land
surveyor for the portion of the site containing the proposed
use.
The proposed use shall comply with all applicable MPCA
requirements for noise and air quality emissions.
e
The heater test facility shall comply with all applicable
building and fire code requirements.
Se
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit a landscaping plan for the area around the
proposed building. The landscaping plan is to be approved by
the City Planner.
Mueller clarified that building code and fire code issue will be
dealt with at the time of permit review.
Johnson questioned the applicant if they had considered pre-
manufactured or pre-engineered structures with a brick facade?
Clark Lillehei commented that buildings with brick facades are
Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1992
available, however, the proposed metal structure was the most
economical. Clapsaddle questioned how long the building is
projected to be used? The applicant commented that the building
will be used concurrent with their lease. Mr. Lillehei added that
building an accessory structure is more economical than building
the testing units inside existing structure due to code
requirements.
Weiland expressed a concern relating to noxious fumes. The
applicant commented that the heaters are designed to burn
economically. It was noted that these tests are being conducted
for the purpose of research and development.
Hanus questioned the use of the existing tank. Toro
representatives clarified that the tank was used to hold water, it
is not being used now, and was never used by Toro.
Chair Meyer opened the'public hearing.
Concern was expressed about the possible odor emitting from the use
of kerosine. The applicants commented that very little kerosine
will be exposed to the air, and they also need to be concerned for
workers. Spills will be rare.
Mueller reviewed the possibility of drainage problems occurring due
to melting snow from heat exhausted out the building. Toro
representatives stated that the heat will be directed out and up
and should not affect the outside environment.
Morris Reninger commented that he would prefer to see brick and
have landscaping. He would like to see the landscaping plan~
Jack Wilson questioned the hours of operation. Toro commented that
the heaters may run 24 hours or more at one time for a test and the
building will be checked periodically by employees.
Mr. Wilson expressed a concern relating to odor, and asked if the
City could require testing if complaints are received. It was
determined that condition #3 requiring compliance the MPCA
requirements addresses this concern.
Chair Meyer closed the public hearing.
Weiland suggested that the color of the proposed building match the
color of the existing balboa building. Mueller expressed a concern
about the type of building material proposed and the view.
3
Pl&nning Commiesion Minutes
October 13, 1992
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to recommend
approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment as
recommended by staff, including the listed conditions
with the exception that #5 require the landscaping plan
to also be reviewed by the City Council.
Mueller is concerned about allowing a structure of this type of
material without adequate screening. Voss commented that it would
be unfair to require brick or better as modifications to the zoning
code have not yet been adopted.
MOTION carried S to 1. Those in favor were Meyer,
Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Voss, Weiland, and
Jensen. Mueller was opposed.
This case will be heard by the City Council on October 13, 1992.
CASE #92-058: JOHN FLAHERTY, TEEN CENTER, 2313 COMMERCE BLVD.,
LYNWOLD PARKt PARTS OF LOTS 54 & 55t PID ~14-117-24 44 0042.
,PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY FLOOR
PLAN.
The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request to
amend Resolution #91-123 approving a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a teen club. Item $2 of that resolution states, "Pool
tables, video games and other entertainment devices shall be
licensed as required by the Mound Code of Ordinances. The total
number of pool tables in the club shall be limited to four (4) and
the number of amusement devices (video games) shall be limited to
(20)." The specific number and location of all pool tables and
video games is further controlled by the site plan approved as part
of the Resolution. The approved site plan identifies four (4)
video games and does not show any pool tables.
The applicant is proposing a total of 13 video games and one pool
table, all placed in the front portion of the business which was
originally intended to contain a restaurant. The proposed video
games and pool table are still below the total amount (20 and 4
respectively) of such devices that were approved under Resolution
~91-123.
If the Planning Commission and City Council feel that the location
as shown on the plan labeled Proposed Site Plan Modification is
appropriate, then Resolution $91-123 should be amended accordingly.
Upon City Council action on this item it is recommended that staff
prepare a draft of the modified Resolution for subsequent
description of the property and a requirement that the Resolution
Plann£ng Commission Minutes October 13, 1992
be filed with Hennepin County.
Chair Meyer opened the public hearing.
Annette Flaherty clarified for the Commission that they still
proposed to have a restaurant, however, at this time it is not
feasible due to construction requirements which have set them back.
Four video games are not enough. The front windows will be blocked
off with blinds or wood paneling of some sort.
Mueller asked if items 8, 11, 12, 16 & 17 in Resolution $91-123
have been complied with. It was noted that the club is proposed to
open November 1, 1992, and these conditions will have to be
complied with prior to opening.
Chair Meyer read a letter to those present which was received from
Peter Johnson of Johnson & Wood, P.A. The letter basically objects
to any expansion of the conditional use. permit.
The issue of inadequate parking was addressed. Koegler stated that
adequate parking is available across from the House of Moy through
the CBD parking program. Mr. Netka commented that there is a 75'
x 500' platted alley behind their building that could be used for
parking. The City Manager commented that the alley is not a
designated parking lot.
Chair Meyer closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to
recommend approval of the application to amend Resolution
#91-123, item #17 to allow twenty (20) amusement devices
(video machines) and four (4) pool tables on the main
level of the teen center, and that the location of these
devices not be restricted. Motion carried 7 to 2. Those
in favor were= Meyer, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson,
Muellar, ross and Jansen. Michael and #eiland opposed.
Weiland commented that he would like the games restricted to the
"game room" at the front of the building on the main floor.
Michael is in favor of giving the applicant what they asked for but
feels that giving them more is just too much.
Mrs. Flaherty commented that she will welcome the Police Chief's
advise on placement of the games.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 13, 1992.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1992
CASE #92-059: MICHAEL RONALD, 4853 BARTLETT BLVD., BETON VIEW, LOT
4, BLOCK 1, PID ~13-117-24 44 0098. VARIANCE FOR FENCE.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a
fence height variance. The proposed 5' high fence will be located
40' from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The
Mound fence ordinance limits fences to 3' high within 50' of the
ordinary high water.
Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds that either
hardship or practical difficulty exists regarding the proposed
fence, the fence height variance should be approved. If the
variance is approved, approximately half of the fence will be one
foot under the height allowed in the code and the other half will
exceed the ordinance standard by two feet.
The applicant explained to the commission that he needs the fence
for his dog, and that he explored many different locations for this
fence, but considered this location the most aesthetically
pleasing.
Commissioner Weiland, who visited the site, commented that he
looked at the area proposed for the fence from three different
views and does not see how the fence could negatively affect
anyone. Weiland stated that he believes practical difficulty
exists as the location proposed for the fence is the most
aesthetically pleasing.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to recommend to
the City Council that the fence height variance be
approved as requested due to practical difficulty.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on October 27, 1992
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE,S REPORT
Liz Jensen reviewed the Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes of
September 29, 1992, and touched on the following issues: Mound
Visions, Shoreland Management Ordinance, Commons Markings, Policy
for Advisory Commission Appointments, LMCD Fees and 1992 Christmas
Party.
Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1992
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to adjourn
the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:32 p.m.
Chair, Bill Meyer
Attest:
7
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF ~
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
OCTOBER 8, 1992
Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley
Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, Mo Mueller, and Carolyn Schmidt, City
Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy
James. Mo Mueller and Shirley Andersen were absent and excused.
Skoglund noted that the subject heading in the minutes listed as
"NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION A~EAS,, should read "~ATURE CONSERVATION
AREAS."
MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Byrnes to approve
the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of September
10, 1992 as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
REVIEW 1992 PARKS PROGRAM AND LIFEGUARD SERVICES:
Jim Glasoe, Recreation Coordinator for Westonka Community Services
reviewed the 1992 summer parks and beaches program. Glasoe noted
that it was a cool and rainy summer. The attendance figures for
the 1992 parks program were analyzed, and it was determined that
the attendance rate has increased from last year. Positive and
negative affects from changes made in the program were reviewed.
Due to low attendance at the Community Center location, park
coordinators were moved to Belmont Park where they received an
excellent response. The evening program at Mound Bay Park did not
have as good of results as they thought it would. The program
actually ended below budget.
Glasoe reported that
difficult to peg down.
continued to do well.
the attendance at the beaches is more
Centerview and Mound Bay Park beaches
Glasoe suggested that a subcommittee be formed of Park Commission
members to brainstorm for ideas to hold programs in the parks, such
as music, puppets, etc. Obtaining corporate donations was
suggested. The commission determined to place the subject of a
forming subcommittee on the December 10, 1992 meeting agenda.
Mike Loobey, Director of Community Services, addressed the Park
Commission and updated them on the progress of the new Youth Drop-
in Center. He explained the source of funding, types of activities
available, and the hours of operation. Mike Loobey requested that
the Park Commission consider recommending that the overage from the
1992 parks program budget be donated to the Youth Drop-in Center.
Park and Open Space Commiss£on Minutes October 8, 1992
REVIEW REVISED 1993 DOCK FORMS:
Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, informed the Park Commission that
all the forms are basically the same, they have only been cleaned
up a bit and they are now on the Secretary's new computer.
The following forms were reviewed by the Park and Open Space
Commission and the noted changes were made:
DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION. The last three words within the
first paragraph should read, "by March 31."
2. DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION. No changes·
LETTER TO DOCK LICENSE APPLICANT.
first paragraph to February 28, 1992·
remove "tires."
Change the date in the
On page two, number 3,
NOTICE. The Dock Inspector noted that a copy of City Code
Section 320 has been added as page two of the Notice.
5. MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICATION. No changes.
6. COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION. No changes.
MEMORANDUM TO DOCK LICENSE HOLDER. Casey suggested the
following change within the 4th paragraph, "The area must be
free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation retrieved from
~ which has accumulated on the shoreland.
The issue of winter dock storage was raised, and it was questioned
if people are required to remove their docks from the water. Staff
commented that there are only a few areas where people are required
to remove their docks, such as areas used for snowmobile access and
sliding areas.
MOTION made by &hr·ns, seconded by Schmidt to have staff
create a list where docks can be safely left in for the
winter. Motion carried unanimously.
Jim Fackler commented that the water patrol does have some
regulations relating to docks remaining in the lake through the
winter season; he will check this out and bring a list back as
requested.
MOTION made by Cas.y, seconded by Asleson, to recommend
that the dock applications forms be approved as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
October 8, 1992
The Commission questioned what happens when someone leaves their
dock in and does not renew their dock license. Who's
responsibility is it to remove the dock, and does the City have
control to ensure that it be removed. Could the city remove the
dock assess and the cost for removal to the property of the
previous dock license holder? Casey suggested collecting a damage
deposit.
MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend to
the City Council that a change be made to the ordinance
to give the Dock Inspector the power to enforce that
docks are removed and disposed of after a dock license
has expired or is not renewed. Motion carried 5 to 1.
Those in favor were: Asleson, Byrnes, Casey, Schmidt and
Skoqlund. Ahrens was opposed.
REVIEW DOCK LOCATION MAP FOR 1993.
Staff noted that a Public Hearing is scheduled for November 12,
1992. No changes are being recommended to the map.
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION WORK RULES: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT.
Brian Asleson reviewed the revised work rules completed by Mueller.
The Commission was in favor of the amended work rules. The City
Manager noted that the City Council is proposing changing "C."
Guidelines for the Interviewing and Selection of Candidates. It
was noted that this portion can be amended as approved by the City
Council.
City Council Representative's Report.
The Commission questioned Ahrens if the City Council forwarded the
Park Commission's concerns to the LMCD regarding boat fees. Ahrens
stated that the City CoUncil has directed the City Manager to
prepare a letter to Tom Reese expressing Mound's dismay in the
increasing of the fees. The City Manager explained that other
cities are now voicing their concern about fees being raised which
has expanded this issue and it is now being further investigated,
therefore, a letter has not yet been sent. The City Manager will
follow up on the issue. The Commission expressed their feelings
that the program is unfair in that the general public is not
required to pay a fee, but those who have docks and live on the
lake do.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
October 8, 1992
_City Manager,s Report
Ed Shukle commented that Carolyn Schmidt and Marilyn Byrnes have
been notified that their terms will expire at the end of this year,
and if they wish to be reappointed he needs to be notified by
November 10.
Ed reminded the Commission that special recycling days have been
slated for October 23 and 24. The Council is still exploring the
possibility of having a leaf pick-up.
Park Director's Report.
Jim Fackler commented that the Parks Department is preparing the
parks and equipment for winter. Applications are being submitted
for areas to be riprapped during this winter. Fackler informed the
Commission that himself, Tom McCaffrey and Peggy James, visited the
City of Deephaven to review their municipal dock system.
Dock Inspector,s Report~
Tom McCaffrey reviewed the final numbers for the 1992 dock program
season, as follows:
396
21
6
~dd On~
TOTAL NUMBER OF DOCKS ASSIGNED
VACANT ABUTTING DOCK SITES NOT PAID
VACANT DOCK SITES IN DEEDED AREAS
Discussion on LMLOA Newsletter..
Chair Skoglund raised discussion relating to articles published in
the LMLOA newsletter .regarding the commons; the Park Commission
briefly reviewed the Issue.
MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Asleson to adjourn
the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:09 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
OCT 1 1992
September 30, 1992
Chief Leonard Harrell
Mound Police Department
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Chief Harrell:
Congratulations! The City of Mound has earned the 1991
Pedestrian Safety Citation Award (lst year) in the American
Automobile Association's 53rd annual pedestrian protection
program.
This award is given to communities that have gone nine of fewer
consecutive years without a pedestrian fatality.
Thirty six Minnesota cities plus the State of Minnesota will
receive awards for the year 1991.
The police chief or representative of the chief, of each of the
winning cities is invited to be our guest at an awards luncheon
on Thursday, November 5, 1992.
The luncheon will be at the Minnesota Club, 317 Washington
Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. Plan on arriving at 11:30 a.m.
Lunch will be served at 12 noon and a program will follow.
There is ample parking at nearby parking ramps for the Civic
Center or the St. Paul Hotel. A Twin cities map is enclosed with
the Minnesota Club highlighted in the St. Paul downtown map.
We hope you will be able to take time out of you busy schedule
to attend and receive the recognition due you and your community.
Please redly by Friday, October 23, 1992. A reply form and
postage-paid envelope are enclosed for your convenience.
Sincerely,
Dennis R. Blenis
President
Enclosure:
Copy to Mayor Skip Johnson
Mound Police Department
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
cc:
JoAnne Boche
Community Services Manager
TH1S2
RE'D OCT 2, 6 199
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Public tiearing:
Minnetonka Dock Services. Inc. for Chapman
Place Marina docks, 2670 Commerce Blvd.,
Mound, on Cook's Bay, Lake Minnetonka.
Dock length variance for an additional 26
feet, for a total dock length of 155 feet
into the Lake.
Meeting:
Members Present:
7:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 26, 1992
Tonka Bay City Hall.
David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm.
Johnstone, Minnetonka; Michael, Bloom.
Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetri-
sta; JoEllen Hurr. Orono; Robert Rascop,
Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park;
Tom Penn, Tonka Bay: George Owen. Victoria.
Duane Markus, Wayzata and Robert Slocum,
Woodland arrived during the hearing. Also
Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel, Rachel
Thibault, Administrative Technician: Eugene
Strommen, Executive Director.
The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair
Cochran.
Thibault explained that Chapman Place, formerly the Surfside
Supper Club, was granted an amended Multiple Dock License in 1989
for 27 over night storage slips, on a 129' dock. The Order
requires that the docks be operated independent of Chapman Place
Homeowner's Association. Vince McClellan, Minnetonka Dock Serv-
ice, is the operator of the Chapman Place Marina.
When the license was granted there was low water in 1989,
1990 and 1991. The Marina was granted low water variances during
these years. In 1992, under normal water conditions at or above
929.0', McClellan found that the dock configuration approved in
1989 did not allow enough distance between dock wings for boat
maneuvering between slips 1-6 and 7-12, currently 24' between
wings. He said when he put the docks in he also found there was
not enough depth at slips 1 -6, depths ranging from 21" at slip
one to 30" at slip 6 during high water levels above 929.0'
The Board received information including the site plan
approved 2/22/89 with water depth readings taken 4/17/92 by
McClellan and Thibault during which the Lake level was 929.69',
the site plan approved 2/22/89, a Lake locator, a property site
survey, a site plan dated 8/1/92 showing the proposed dock rea-
lignment, and a staff report detailing the reasons for the vari-
ance application.
Bob Cuthill, President, Chapman Place Homeowner's Associa-
tion, said in 1990 the Association installed boulder rip-rap
Public ilearing - Chapman Place
August 26, 1992
along the shore to preserve a deteriorating shoreline. Photos
were presented to show the lakeward boulder positions. This
required moving the dock further into the Lake. It was noted
that previously the walkway to slips 1-6 was further east. lhe
new site plan shows it moved further west to intersect with the
dock serving the west facing slips. Responding to a question
from Hurr, Cuthill said the original Surfside docks were some
300' into the Lake. They were permanent docks, and when the
Association rebuilt they put in seasonal docks. Iturr questioned
Cuthill and McClellan about a real estate advertisement indicat-
ing a dock was part of a Chapman Place condominium. Both Cuthill
and McClellan said they had no knowledge of the advertisement put
out by a real estate company.
Hurr questioned why the dock had to be moved out just be-
cause of the rip-rap. McClellan responded that the dock had
never been installed according to the 1989 plan due to low water.
There was no experience with the dock configuration at high water
levels.
Carlson expressed Concern about granting a variance when the
hardship is created by the applicant, that is. the installation
of the rip-rap. Thibault supported the request by stating there
is a need to add 8' to get the dock slips beyond the rip-rap,
more to get additional water depth, and the additional 10' to
acquire additional maneuvering space between slips 1-6 and 7-12.
Cochran said he does not believe the rip-rap should take up more
than 3 '
Rascop asked if there are any covenants placed on the
property when it was changed from Surfside to Chapman Place.
Cochran said that could be researched. Cochran said he would
like to see an adjusted plan showing how it would look without
the additional 10' between the slips for maneuvering space. Penn
asked about the location in relation to the public access.
Thibault responded that there is no interference.
All interested parties having been given an opportunity to
be heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p. m..
Findings
1. Chapman Place is requesting a shallow water 1eh§th variance for an
additional 26' for a total dock 1eh§th of 155' into the Lake.
2. Dock 1eh§th was establish at 129~ by L~CD Order of 2-22-89~ copy
attached.
3. Low water variance was §ranted 3-11-89 to 264', and ~as §ranted 3-28-90
~o 306'
4. On 4-13-91 the committee recommended a temporary extension to 274', and
a review of amenities to compensate for excess of 1:50 storage by
January 1993; the Board approved this recommendation on 4-24-92.
Public Hearing - Chapman Place
August 26, 1992
5. In 1990 the applicant installed riprap which necessitated moving the
docks westward and lakeward, according to the applicant's description.
6. The marina now finds, with the addition of the riprap, that the config-
uration approved in 1989 does not allow enough maneuverability between
slips 1-6 and 7-12 because of shallow water (21" to 30" at slips 1-6)
during this near-normal lake level of 929.0.
7. An amended application would need to be submitted by the applicant to
the DNR if the 155' dock length would be granted (DNR letter is
attached).
Recommendations ........... ~ ' ' ·
At the 9-12=92 Water Structures Committee meeting: -
The committee received the report of the Public Hearing held
on 8/26/92 to consider the application of ~il~neto~lka Dock Serv-
ices, Inc. for Chapman Place Mari~la for a dock length var!at, ce
for an additional 26 feet, for a total dock length of 155 feet
into the Lake.
The Public Hearing report i~lcluded Findings. Attached to
the report are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of a public
hearing held on 3/23/88, with the Order approved 2/2'2/89 at which
time Chapman Place received a multiple dock license to replace
the previous dock license held by the Surfs!de Supper Club. The
committee also received a letter from tile Department of Natural
Resources advising that the applicant will be required to amend
DNR permit #89-6397, if the extension is approved.
The applicant submitted a revised drawing of the proposed
dock dated 9/10/92 showing the water depths taken at o28.88 water
elevation. In presenting the material, Thibault said there are
no increases in slip sizes on the proposed site plan and the
density at this site is 1:~'.
Babcock expressed concern about settinR a precedent by
allowing the grandfathered marina to move further into the ~00' -
200' zone. Before making a decision he would wa,t to have a
· determination as to what hardship exists. Babcock mentio~ed
Oayle's Marina as having a depth problem. Babcock reviewed the
history of the docks from the Surfs!de 308' dock length with 44
slips to the re-arrangement for Chapman Place of 129' dock leu~zth
with 27 slips.
Carlson said he would like to hear what hardships are
volved to justify a variance. As examples, he mentioned whether
it is a unique situation, the motivation for tile change, a~ly
financial reasons. He would like to see a variance criteria
check-list including whether any hardship was created by action
of the applicant.
Tile executive director explained that typicnl ly slips are
allowed 3' of water depth, bearing in mind that the water level
could decrease 'during the year as much as one foot or more. It
is necessary to consider the fact that marinas have co~tracts to
furnish a service for the full season. It is also necessary to
Public Hearing - Chapman Place August 26, 1992
provide navi~at io,al room around the docks. !,~ rc.,~l,O~,se to the
mention of Gayle's ~larina. the executive, director sai~l Oayles
limited to a 200' dock because of the location at the chart.el.
The 200' dock limit and channel caused C;ayle's to dredge. As far
as a self-imposed hardship, in the case of Chapman Place. the
rip-rap was last'ailed to prevent erosion. Chal,na, Place had the
proper DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits. The
rip-rap was done within the DNR allowance which recluires a dis-
tance not exceed 5' from the OltWL to the toe of the rip-rap.
Orathwol said he can see flexibility i. ~ranti,~ licenses to
marinas between 100' and 200', treatin.e the appl ications on a
one-by-one basis, tie feels that would keep the marinas operating
and maintain the outside limit of 200'
Slocum noted the Chapman Place docks are al ready i~eyo~tl
100'. lie suggested a, extension to 13q' based on the rip-rap
taking up 10' Babcock responded that he would base his decision
on water depths rather than tl~e rip-rap. Slocum said he views
the rip-rap as a benefit to the Lake.
NOTION: Grathwol moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend approval
of the application for a variance from Mia,et.aka Dock Services,
Inc. for Cl~apman Place ~tarina to extend the docks an additi,nal
26' for a total dock length of 155' The Findings are to include
the need to obtain navigability, the chan~e in ~'ater level since
the original application in a low water year and the reason for
changi,g the walkway because of the rip-rap.
DISCUSSION: Carlson expressed his beliel' that the I.~1(;1~ does not
have to provide slips for the largest boat possible.
Babcock said he would hesitate to chan~e the slip sizes from
the compromise reached when the slips were redt, ced from 44 to 27.
Grathwol expressed mixed feelings i, that he believes
nas should be allowed to operate as they desire, withi, the limi-
tations of the license. At the same ti,ne he has a problem with
developing slips for 32' boats to the exclusion of smaller boats.
lie feels the LMCD has a respons ibi I i ty t, see that there ~re
services available for different types o1' boats, lie said tl~ere
should be a requirement that a marina provide the slip service
based on a percentage available to, for example. 20' boats and
fishing boats.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to table the applica-
tion of Chapman Place to the next ,neet in~. (',m,,e,ts o. the
application are to be requested from the City of
VOTE: Motion carried, Carlson and Rascop voti,~ nay.
Per Ed Shukle 10/1/92: the City has no comment.
At the 10-30-92 committee meeting:
The committee received the report of the t'ublic Ilu;,rin~ held
on 8/26/92 to consider the application of t, linnetonka Dock Serv-
ices. Inc. for Chapman Place Marina docks, 2670 (?om,ne,'ce Blvd..
Mound, on Cook's Bay, for a dock length variance for a,i ~(i(lition-
al 26 feet, for a total dock length of 155 feet into the lake.
4
Public Hearing - Chapman Place
August 26, 1992
The report was discussed by the committee on 9/12/92. At that
time a motion for approval based on tile need for navigabi lit),,
the change in water level since the original application i, a Iow
water year and the change in the walkway because of rip-rap
construction, was tabled for further review and comments from the
city of Mound.
Staff reported that the Mound City Administrator had no
comments on behalf of the City. Reese said he talked to the
Mound Mayor who indicated a certain reluctance on tile part of tile
City to increase the dock length at Chapman Place. The (:iCy I~as
events such as water shows in the area opposite tile Chapman Place
docks and an extension would interfere. Reese continued by stat-
in# he I ives 300' from Chapman Place. lie would Iike to sec
Minnetonka Dock Services be successful and I~lcClel Inn. as tile
operator, has. the best opportunity to do it than anyone has had
in the past. Reese noted that a Mound storm sewer contributes
silt to the area and it was necessary, some 20 years ago,
dredge the area. Cochran said that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District has funds for maintenance dredging at stor,I sewer out-
f 1 ows.
McClellan stated that the current configuratiou places his
slip #27 on the rocks and #26 in one foot of water. Ite needs the
additional length to place the slips in a water depth which is
usable even when the water level goes down during the summer.
Hurr said the same hardship could be noted for every dock on
the Lake. She noted the rip-rap extends 10' fro,! tile shore,
excess of tile DNR allowance of 5' In her judgment this is a
self-imposed hardship.
Carlson called attention to tile staff check list for review
of variance applications, suggesting a review of the variance
criteria. It is important that the criteria listed are reasona-
.... hie. Carlson said he believes using shallow water as a hardshil~
is a dangerous precedent. The problem was created by the appl i-
cant when the rip-rap was installed. The variance could change
the essential character of the locality. It is important that
all of the criteria are met. Carlson said he conllot see the
uniqueness criteria has been met. To approve this variance would
set a precedent.
Reese said McClellan has offered to build a make-ready dock
for the adjacent Mound public access. That might make the
car/trailer parking spaces for the access tel iablc spaces.
Babcock pointed out that amenities are not it part of a variance
application. Variances require a hardship.
tturr noted that when the Chapman Place clock iicense was
originally approved, the dock was grandfathered at 12q'. Now the
variance is for further expansion. There were previous trade-
offs and she cannot support the variance.
Rascop asked if there would be a problem it' there were
rip-rap. McClellan said that the dock was develol;C'd for hi,oh
water in a low water year. Even without the rip-rap there would
still be a problem. It is not a good design for the [.afc levei'
under normal conditions.
5
Public Hearing - Chapmas Place August 26, 1992
Foster noted the staff comment that the applicant might want
to consider reducing tile lengt'h of the first row of slips to
reduce the amount of maneuvering area between the first and
second tows of slips. This would reduce the amount of extra dock
length required. Foster asked if an alternate plan had been
prepared. ~cClellan responded that it had not. Foster asked
~cClellan if he were permitted to reconfigure, could he come up
with the appropriate slips and water depths. ~lcClellan said he
could not. Foster said he is not troubled by hardship hei,g the
low water depth. There is a problem that the dock is partially
on dry land. Foster believes the DNR would rather have the dock
in deeper water than dredging.
Hurr said that if the water depth is created by a storm
sewer,~ it._wil.l~ be::.a-continuin8 problem. The DNR would support
"that'.t'yP~'~df~;d.¥~d~:.ifi'~_~'~ sffe":c~nnbt see a hardship because of Iow
~ater.-~:-:-~o gra~_..lhe ;var.~ance~,,-th~, appli.cant~would:_hnve .t9 sho he
to 'reOiew tfi~_~ht-i-'~-'&"l~i~t~ry 'Of the Chapman Place docks tncluding
Babcock said he has trouble supporting the application as it
is already non-conforming. The license already has a variance to
129'. :ust because a 32' slip is approved does not mean that a
32' boat has to be placed in it. That slip could be made small-
er. McClellan responded that even if he shortened the 32' slip
to 24' the boat would still be on the bottom, lie does not put
a dock unless there is 2-1/2' of water. Dredging will not help
aa slip ~27 is right on shore.
Babcock said McClellan may need to reconfigure with smaller
slip sizes to stay within the Dock Use Area.
Slocum suggested allowing an additional lO' because of the
rip-rap, using the reasoning that the shorel ine is now 10' fur-
ther out. It was noted this is n seasonal dock.
Hurr said it' should be known that a hardship cannot be
financial. She believes the 10' of rip-rap is i lle~al.
Reese said that this may be the last chance to get a
operator for the Chapman Place docks. He noted that this is the
.last non-conforming use of this type on the Lake. ollce the Excel-
sior Gables dock was approved. That alone could make the dock
unique. He believes the City of ~ound would go along with a 10'
extension.
Foster would like to have him come back with a drawing
shortening the slips to 24'. Foster moved to table the request.
There was no second.
MOTION: Carlson moved, Foster seconded, to recommend denial of
the variance request for the Chapman Place ~arina dock because
the situation is not unique, a reasonable use is not bein~ de-
nied, and any hardship was created by the applicant. The al.~pli-
cant could reconfigure the docks for further consideration.
DISCUSSION: Rascop said any reconfiguration should be a' minor
reconfiguration with no increase in slip sizes, otherwise a new
dock license will be required. Babcock commented that nothing is
being taken away from the applicant.
VOTe: ~otion carried, Reese and Slocum voting nay.
LAKE MINNEiONKA CONSERVAIION DIS1RtCT
CHECK LIST FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW
Dote: October 1, 1992
Applicant's nome and address:
Property is located in the city of:
Vince McClellan, Minnetonka Dock Service
for Chapman Place Marina, 2670 Commerce Blvd
Mou.d Boy/oreo' Cooks
Section 1.07, Subd. 1. General SMlemenL Where practical difficulties or porlicular hardships occur or
where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, [he Board may permii o variance from the
requirements al this Code or mo), require o variance from whol is olherwise, permitled by lhis Code,
provided that such variance wilh wholever conditions ore deemed necessmy by lhe 13oord, does hal
adversely affect the purposes of this ordinance, lhe public health, solely and welfare, and reasonable
access to or use'of the Lake by the public or riparian owners.
1. Type of variance being applied for: dock length variance
2. Practical difficulties and/or hardship requiring variance:
shallow water
,3. Decision standards for variance os observed by staff:
w__~ A. The proposed use is reasonable. There has been a marina at this site for year.~
Yes B. It would be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance.
7 to 8 slips will be unusable if the first row of docks isn't moved out.
v.o: C. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due lo circumstances unique
to the property. Shallow water in this area
Yes
COMMENTS:
D. The problem is not one created by applicant. The dock configuration submitted
to the Board in 1987 is not usable at this site~wiLhout some cha.ges.
E. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The dock was out much further during low water years.. An extra 26'
will not change the area significantly.
Staff has suggested ~ the applicant that they may want to consider reducing the
length of the first row of slips to reduce the amount of maneuvering area between
the first and second rows of slips. This would reduce the amount of extra dock
length required. Mr. McClellan has agreed to look at this and will submit an
alternate site plan. at the meeting.
Rachel l'h:', ,',It, Administrative To,'hntct;,n
Dole:
1o/1/92
· OCT 6
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ReRular Meeting
7:30 PM., Wednesday, September 23, 1992
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:40 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood: Bert Foster,
Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm. Johnstone. Minnetonka:
Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach: Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minne-
trista; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; JoEllen Hurt, Orono;
Robert Rascop, Shorewood: Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring
Park; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria: Duane Mar-
kus, Wayzata. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel: Sgt. Wm.
Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative
-~=- ..... ~'~ ~-~Te~hnfcia~¥.Eugene Strommen, Executive Director.- ........... -
Member Absent- Robert Slocum, Woodland.
READING OF MINUTES: Foster moved, Orathwol seconded, to approve
the minutes of the 8/26/92 Board meeting as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from members of the
public in attendance not on the agenda.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Cochran reported that the Lake Use Committee recommended, on
9/21, that the Board go into executive session at the Board meet-
ing to discuss the issue of fees. Cochran called on LeFevere fo~
his remarks.
LeFevere said he has researched the matter of closed meet-
ings since the Lake Use Committee meeting. He said it is impor-
tant that everyone understand the consequences of making a wrong
decision on an Open Meeting Law matter. If LMCD holds a meeting
in violation of the Open Meeting Law, that is,' one that is
closed, each Board member who participates exposes himself or
herself to a personal civil penalty in the amount of $100 for
each violation. More importantly, if there are three unrelated
violations the law requires that you forfeit your office. That
is a very serious matter reserved ordinarily under the Constitu-
tion only for those cases where there is malfeasance in office
which is generally interpreted as a felony directly related to
the performance of the duties of office. It is viewed by the
legislature as a very serious matter.
When the Open Meeting Law was first adopted there was no
exception for attorney/client privilege. That exception was
established in a Minnesota Supreme Court case involving the
Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The Minnesota
Supreme Court in that case said that they were imposing on the
Open Meeting Law an attorney/client exception. The court felt it
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 23, 1992
was important to maintain the common law attorney/cl lent privi-
lege so that communications between tile attorney and client can
be made freely from fear of public disclosure. Tidal was suffi-
cient ly important in that case so that an except ion for the
attorney/client privilege was made. That was a c,:~sc where there
was actual litigation. Litigation was ill pro.zress audi the court
concluded that the communicat ion between the at torney and tile
client was necessary in the pursuit of that l iti-oation to ade-
quately prepare the case - to make decisions about the strategy
of the litigation.
The court left the door open a bit further in decidin~ that
there was an Open Meeting Law exception when they stated that it
was for pending or threatened litigation. The door seemed to be
open fairly wide because there are a lot of cases where liti~a-
.tion is_threat_ened even.~houg_h.it is not actually pending. There
has 'been one case since' that', a t989 Court of Appeals Case. in
which case the door is closed down pretty substantially. This
case did not involve actual pending litigation. It was a case
which there was only threatened i it i~at ion, thc only c~se in the
State of Minnesot'a which addresses threatened litigation. It was
a case where the St. Paul City Council was consicterin~ a number
of possible ordinance amendments having to do with nude dancin~
and liquor establishments. It was a very controversial issue.
Attorneys had submitted briefs in opposition to various drafts.
The trial court found that litigation was a virtual certainty.
There was no question in that case whether there was going to be
litigation. The whole case was decided on the assmnption and the
findings that litigation was a certainty - it was ~ooing to hap-
pen. Nevertheless. the court said the attorney/client privilege
did not go so far as to allow closed meetings in that case, where
the purpose of the meeting would have been to discuss the
strengths and the weaknesses of the various ordinances and how
they might be defended because, the court ruled, that was in the
nature of general le~za I advice and tile interest ill
attorney/client privilege wasn't sufficiently stron.~ to overcome
the law that public business should be conducted in r~ublic. The
court went even further than that. They ruled not only that the
attorney/client privilege does not apply here but even if.it did
the court is imposing a further test. That is, tile court is
going to balance the need for secrecy or privacy of communication
against the need for public disclosure for these discussions to
occur in a public forum. In that case the court co~cluded that
not only did the attorney/client privile,o-e not apply, but even if
it did the need for public disclosure was more important and
outweighed the need for private communicat ion. That puts city
councils and other public bodies in a very difficult position in
that they have to make their own decisions. They have to ~ouess
right what the court might say about which of those interests are
more important. When tile court weighs them one a~oainst the
other, the court will reach its own conclusions about whether it
ought to have been public or whether it ouo-ht to have been pri-
vate'- which xw~y the public interest is better served.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 23, 1992
LeFevere said that he does not know exactly what the Board
would discuss in executive session. Some of things that occurred
to him that the Board might discuss are very much like the things
that would have been discussed in the St. Paul case where they
were considering legislative action, discussing the strengths and
weaknesses of the various positions they might take at some
point. It is a decision for the Board to make. LeFevere wanted
the Board to make the decision with its eyes open and all be
advised of what the law is in the State of Minnesota as he under-
stands it.
If the Board decides to go into executive session it is
necessary to do so by a majority vote of those present after
stating the justification of an executive session which in this
~case would be attorney/client privilege and stating the matter to
_~e disCussed during the executive session.
~L~L~.:~-Cochran~as~ed;'th¢~-Boa~d~--~q~i-decide. the matter'of 'executive
session..
MOTION: Hurr-moved that. the Board enter into executive session
because of the threat of-litigation in the second to last para-
graph of a. letter from James Gilbert, attorney representing
multiple dock license holders, where Gilbert suggested bankrupt-
ins the LMCD, a very serious threat, something to discuss with
the LMCD Counsel.
There was no second to the motion.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster
A. Minutes
MOTION: Cochran moved, Penn seconded, to approve the minutes of
the 9/21/92 Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting.
MOTION: Carlson moved, Hurt seconded, to table approval of the
minutes until the next Board meeting because there was not suffi-
cient time to review them prior to this meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock and Bloom voting nay.
Agenda Amendment
MOTION: Foster moved. Penn seconded, to amend tile a~enda by
proceeding to Item E of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee
agenda.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
E. 1992 and 1993 License Fee Schedule review
Foster turned the meeting over to Treasurer Scott Carlson.
Carlson said an issue has been raised by multiple (lock
licensees that the fees being charged are inappropriate. As a
result the LMCD staff and some Board members reviewed the fees to
be sure they are fair. In 1991 the fees were raised to make
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 23, 1992
the fees consistent with the District's activities. The I,~ICD
activities generally consist of multiple dock related activities.
other activity licensing, milfoil control and Management }'lan
implementation. The multiple dock licensees are concerned at)out
the amount of license fees col lected vs. bud~oe{, the actual
expenses and the LMCD reserve funds.
Scott said the total reserves are about $725.000. $28~,000
is General Fund reserve, $350,000 is for milfoil control reserve
and $83.000 is the Save the Lake Fund reserve. The Board has
taken the position that the general fund reser-ves should be equal
to one 3, ear ~ s operat lng expenses.
Scott said tile purpose of this meeting is not to discuss
basic policy but to discuss multiple dock license ~fees vs. ex-
penses and how the District can relate to the ~concerns ~_'aised by
the multiple dock licensees. - :
Carlson submitted a two page exhibit en~itibd Review of LMCD
Licensing/Permit Fees Compared with Expenses/Budgets for Multiple
Dock Related Activities, attached to and made'a part of these
minutes.
Carlson said the analysis indicates the fees beino_ char~ed
are justified in light of the expenses. The analysis also shows
that there are funds available in the reserve. Ill addition there
is a need for a cost accounting analysis. The District now has
the computer capability to proceed with that.
Carlson distributed the recommendations of the committee:
1. To delay the 1993 multiple dock license fee increase
from $12 to $15 per Water Storage Unit substituting a ,.ql increase
each year for 1994. 1995 and 1996, contingent upon hein?_ able to
demonstrate by actual cost account records which support such an
increase.
2. To modify the 1993 budget by reducin_~ the Iicense fees
collected from $145,000 to $134,000 and transfer $11.000 from the
General Fund Reserve to balance the budget.
3. To implement appropriate accountin~ procedures and
changes through the use of the computerized account lng software
to allow more detailed tracking of expenses.
Babcock clarified that the btilfoil Reserve and the Save tile
Lake Fund Reserve are dedicated funds col lected mainly l'rom
private contributions, with some city contributions in the Mil-
foil Reserve.
Steve Tal len, LMCD Prosecut ing Attorney. noted that no
prosecuting expenses are included in the expense budget, tie said
he spends about 7% of his time on multiple dock license matters.
ATTORNEY JAMES GILBERT REMARKS.
Gilbert introduced himself as representin'u the {.'ommercial
Multiple Dock Use Owners Association on Lake l~tinnetonka. Since.
his detailed presentation to the Lake Use Committee 9//21 at.
which he commented for his clients on L,qCD multiple dock license
fees, which were reported in detail in those committee minutes,
Gilbert asked that a letter he presented to tile Board at this
meetino dated 9/23 detailing those remarks, be included by
reference as part of these minutes. That letter is available as
part of the record of this Board meet in~ summary.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 23, 1992
Gilbert then reviewed the basic elements of his 9/23 letter
in his remarks to the Board. He offered serious questions about
how fees were established in the past and where the Board is
going with them today.
He emphasized that his clients are not tryin~ to ~et out of
paying any .fees. They do feel the fees bein~ chareed a,'e exces-
sive. He asked that the issue be addressed at this meeting.
Gilbert questioned the amount of time staff reports it has
spent on activity relating to multiple dock regulation and en-
forcement.
He then went on to suggest an adjustment on the Water Stor-
age Unit CWSU) fee being made from the current $12. proposed to
go to $15 .in 1993, to $8. This would compensate for fees Gilbert
believes were charged-to multiple dock licensees in excess of
what he_believes's~ould..i~have been charged. He based this conclu-
......... /si~n' by'~.~b~erving~?~5_bu~e~e~evenue~:-exceede~-.~ct~a-l',revenue
received for a number of rece-nt years. He thanked the Board for
its consideration .... :'== .......
' Carls0n-addr~ssed Gilbert by saying he see~s to be confusing
the .revenue budget with the actual revenue. Just because I,MCI)
had a budgeted revenue of $65,000 in 1990 or a budeeted revenue
of $85,000 in 1991, that in no way says that was the budgeted
cost of the multiple dock related activities. That was siml)lY
the total license fees LMCD expected to generate.
Gilbert responded that he hoped there was a relationship
from year to year.
Cochran said with reference to Gilbert's percentage
creases, it can be observed that some of that growth is in the
number of new multiple dock licenses and the additional numl)er
of boats at the docks, even though there is no growth in the
number of marinas.
Carlson said the Board feels the license fees being charged
are in line with'the cost of administrating the program. The
District has not gone into detail about how those numbers were
generated. LMCD now has two proposals, one from the committee
and one from the attorney representing the multiple dock users.
There was no formal motion on Monday because the understanding
was the Board would go into executive session.
MOTION: Carlson moved, Grathwol seconded, to adopt the reco,mnen-
dations of the committee as distributed earlier in the .,eetine. '
DISCUSSION: Grathwol said the information the LMCI) counsel has
given the Board about the Open Meeting Law was'.helpful. He does
feel that while Mr. Gilbert has presented a number of facts, he
has not always told the whole story. Particularly when he says
the cost to the' cities is going down. The cost to the cities has
been going up because of separate cost to the cities for milfoil.
He supports the motion because he feels the adjustment has been
made in a fair way. LMCD is holding to its schedule of increases
and in the future any increases will be based on cost accounting.
Grathwol does not feel the District should give away $27.0O0 in
revenue.
LMCD BOARi) OF I)IRECTORS September 23, 19q2
AMENDMF. NT TO MOTION: Hurt moved. Penn seconded, to add tile
following to the motion:
4. To establish a committee of multil~le dock owners and
operators to meet with Board members to discuss future license
fees.
DISCUSSION: Markus suggested going back to ~1o per WS~ plu~ one
and one-half percent of the Consumer Price Index for the next two
years.
Foster said he supports the original motion with the Markus
sugleestion to roll fees back to $10 per WSU. The use of the (_'PI
might be complicated. He would support the $10 with aereement
that this is a settlement and the LMCD could, over the next year.
institute cost accounting programs for tile staff to determine the
actual costs. Foster said he understands that for each dollar
for a WSU, it costs ... the~ District $7,000 The executive director
said that is a fair estimate. That would require an additional
$14,000 .from the reserve fund.
Reese said he had heard the multiple dock users thoueht only
salaries should be included in arrivin.~ at tile Iicense fee. lie
reminded all that the cost of the facilities has to I)e included.
lturr mentioned that there are no char~oes made to the multi-
pie dock users for the miifoil control I, rO~ram. I'crhaps there
should be a charge included. Foster believed that would be
illegal. The district can only charge for tile cost of administer-
lng a program. Carlson said it is not a cate?,orical "no" on
charging for milfoil, there may be an option. Foster said he
understood LeFevere to say that the District is only allowed to
charge the cost of administrating the I icensing fees. l,eFevere
said he thinks Foster is talking about the service fee language
of the enabling act. There is a question about the meanin-o of
that section and the LMCI)'s right to set service fees. It would
be his judgment that Foster is right in his interpretation as far
as the milfoil program is concerned. There is a possibility that
part of the cost of the Management Plan could be allocated to the
multiple dock license expenses. LeFevere mentioned the cost of
developing Ordinances and overall policy makin~ costs relatin._o to
regulating multiple dock licenses could be considered in the Dis-
trict's cost allocation program.
Rascop asked if that meant the District cannot charge for
making the lake usable for the marina operators. LeFevere said
it can be done,if at all, under a service fee but not through ti
license fee.
Johnstone expressed the opinion that this matter should not
be voted on tonight. He just received the letter from Mr. Gil-
bert and wants more time to consider it. ,lohnstone said there
are financial and legal issues involved that he thought would
have come up at the time the budget was established, lie contin-
ues to be open minded but could not vote on it tonight.
Carlson said tile multiple dock license renewal billings for
1993 are scheduled to be mailed before the next Board meeting.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carried, Markus votino- nay.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 23, Iq92
DISCUSSION ON AMENDED MOTION:
Carlson distributed a staff fee review showing the total
Multiple Dock Related Activities revenues and Other License
Revenues for 1991 at $10/WSU, 1992 Fees at $12/WSU tile Estimated
Revenue at $1S/WSU and at $11/WSU. He also furnished the same
fee analysis for 1993 at $10/WSU. Carlson explained various
aspects of the budget. It was explained that revenue increases
because of additional facilities being added on the Lake. but the
administrative costs remain the same. That is reflected in tile
actual figures when arriving at a percentage of budgeted revenue
against actual revenue vs. expenses. There are 97 licensees with
about 7,700 WSUs.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Babcock moved. Bloom seconded, to amend tile
original motion by deleting any'reference to the. increases for
1994, 1995 and- 1996.
system can be used to determine the..fees-for those-years.
DISCUSSION: Rascop spoke in-opposition to tile amendment because
it is important to maintain 'a t6~etve fund. itc'said he believes
there is justification for the increases.
Grathwol spoke in opposition to the amendment. He said it
is important for the District to lay out its plans for tire fu-
ture. It is important to have some plan to discuss in the com-
mittee just formed with the multiple dock users.
Cochran said both the original recommendation and this
proposed one arrive at the same end. It will lead to discussion
at the committee level.
Babcock said he believes the staff has presented justifica-
tion for $12/WSU. However. he would like to do the cost account-
lng and discuss it with the multiple dock users, lie would like
to see the fees left open for adjustment, either up or down.
Reese said drawing down the reserve funds can be very entic-
ing, but the LMCD income is always problematic. There is always
the possibility of mandates from other agencies. Specifically he
mentioned the Management Plan and the many programs to be de-
veloped as a result. He would like to see reserve funds re-
tained.
Penn said the Board has to look at the history of the cost
of a WSU. There was no increase from 1987 - 1991. 'File increase
for 1992 prorated would be $% per year. It is a reasonable
compromise to hold the fees until there is time to assess them.
Penn said he does not support a reduction.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: :Motion carried, Orathwol, Hurr, Carlson anti
Rascop voting nay.
Johnstone asked about the significance of sending out the
renewal notices. The executive director explained there is a
resolution calling for the multiple dock renewal application fees
to be paid by December 1. He said it would be possible to chan~oe
that resolution or simply shorten tile response time from notice
to December 1. Thibault pointed out that the Code declares
December I as the date after which late fees are duc. t'or renewal
appl icat ions.
LMCD BOARD OF i)IREC'FORS September 23, 1092
Johnstone said tile issue being debated is ?rearer than
anything he has seen since being on the Board. Itc feels very
strongly that this should not be decided at this meeting, lie
would like to see it go back to the committee.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to chan~oe the
$12 in the original motion to $10.
DI$CU881ON: Babcock cautioned about doing that at this point.
If this is going back to committee he would rather the committee
not have a target to work with. For the purpose of planning on
the part of the marinas he would hate to suggest reducing the
fees for 1q93 arid then later go back to a hieher fee.
MOTION: It was moved by Penn, seconded by Johnston,-to table the
motion and amendment and to refer the ~nultiple:~ doclg~.li~ce~lse
matter to the Water Structures Committee ...... '
VOTE: Motion carried, Markus, Grathwol, Bloom voting,nay....
LeFevere offered to express his opinions to the Board on the
matter at hand. Johnstone said he would rather not hear it at
this time. LeFevere was invited to the Water Structures ¢:ommittee
meet lng.
REMARKS: Gabriel Jabbour asked for the opportunity for pul) lic
input into the licensing fee discussion. The Board granted his
request.
Jabbour said he is a marina owner, participating with the
multiple dock licensees in their objections and a member of
Orono's City Council, but he is speakin5 as a private citizen.
He stated he believes it is inappropriate for the Board to place
the multiple dock licensees against the cities. He suggested the
Board do an administrative audit of its procedures. It is his
opinion that the Code is confusing. There is a consistent refer-
ring of matters from committee to Board and back to committee.
all time and money consuming. In his judgment an administrative
audit could lead to the LMCD using its budget in a more prudent
and business-like manner. He concluded that he believes that
would give the LMCD a chance to function without the additional
money.
Mark Breneman, North Shore Drive ~larina, asked why the
license fee discussion was being referred to the Watc. r Structures
Con,nittee when the original discussion was at the Lake Use and
Recreation Committee. Carlson explained that the Lake Use Coln-
mittee handled the original discussion as the Water Structures
Committee had already met. That was the next commit tee meeting
available to review the issue before this Board meeting, without
further delay.
Carlson turned the meeting back to Foster.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 23, 1992
B. Special Events
1) New Event - Ice Fishing Excursions
The committee received a recommendation from the l,ake Use
and Recreation Committee to grant a Winter Special Event license
to George Stodola and Art Bollman to operate Ice Fishin~ Excur-
sions according to the application and stipulations submitted to
the Board.
MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to grant a Winter Special
Event license for Ice Fishing Excursions according to the stipu-
lations prepared by staff, including a stipulation requiring
approval of the sleds by the Sheriff's Water Patrol.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
2) Viking Bass Masters
The request of Viking Bass Mast'~s' f:o( a Wai~r-'-of the {ate
fee was withdrawn.
C. Report on Prosecutions
Steve 'Fallen, LMCD Prosecuting Attorney, reported on the
prosecutions from September 1. 1991 through August 31, 1992.
Tallen reported total costs of $24,049.00 offset by fine revenue
of $48,137.64 for a balance of $24,089.00. Tai len noted that not
all fines are paid.
Hurt asked how many cases were handled during the report
period. Tallen said he does not have an exact figure but will
provide the information.
Tallen reported boating activity is down this year. probably
because of the weather. BWI arrests are also down. lie estimated
that he spends 70% of his time on BWIs. There were 53 during the
reporting period vs. 73 last year and a couple years ago there
were over 100. It is his opinion that the public is becomine
more aware of the enforcement.
Tallen said they continue to work on the BWl informational
classes. The LMCD staff is preparing a brochure to be distribut-
ed to the parole officers at the courthouse. [t is the hope that
the judges will use the class in sentencing selected offenders.
On July 3. the Water Patrol held a sobriety check point at
the Narrows. There were 8 BWIs issued along with other citations
and warnings. The feedback was positive.
Tallen reported there have been changes in the BWl laws.
The effect is increased awareness, although there is more resist-
ance to settling cases because the penalties are greater. Up
until a couple of years ago no one appealed the civil penalty.
Grathwol asked for the hourly rate Tallen charges and for
information on the financial picture of the prosecutions. Tallen
responded he charges $75 an hour with a set time for drafting
complaints. He did not have the past financial history with him.
but his rate hasn't gone up since 1986. Cochran said he fig-
ures the average fine for a BWI. based on 70% of the fine revenue
for 53 BWls, is $635, with variables up and down.
I,MCD BOARI) OF I)iRF, CTOI~S Septc'mber 23, 1~92
D. Sheriff's Water Patrol Report
Chandler submitted a detailed report of tile siznificant
activity on Lake Minnetonka since the last report of :;/l~,/q2.
A detective, along with the local police, is working on the
thefts and vandalism. They believe that · it ir~ juveniles or
people with juvenile mentality who are going the vandalism.
Chandler reported tile tlighway Transportation Board believes
roadside checkpoints reduce accidents by 20% after ;t check point
is conducted. Tallen added that tie is impressed with the de-
tailed records the Sheriff's Water Patrol prepared in making the
citations.
F. Watercraft Decibel Study
Foster has appointed a subco~ninittee to meet with industry
representatives, boat manufacturers and others to discuss
reduct ion in the decibel rat Jag roy al [ i~owt.,1- bo;tLs on
.Minnetonka. The first meeting will be Monday, t)ct. 2t~ at 3 1'~1
the Conference Room. Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata. Notice will
be sen t.
2. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Babcock
A. Minutes Babcock moved. Grathwol seconded, to approve
the minutes of the Water Structures Committee meeting of 9/12/92
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Draft Ordinance re Failure to Construct New Oocks
Babcock said a subcommittee has been appointed to review a
draft ordinance relating to the effect on licenses of tile failure
to construct new docks within a certain time. amendin? Code ~ect.
2.05. He said the subcommittee will extend its scope to include
other matters relating to multiple dock licenses. Hurr has
agreed to Chair the subcommittee. Babcock, Rascop and Johnstone
will serve on the committee.
C. Draft Ordinance Relating to Deicing - First Reading.
The Board received a draft ordinance relat ing to deicin,_o
equipment on Lake Minnetonka, amending Code Sect . 2.(}q, the
committee recommending Attorney LeFevere's Option 2 lot Subd. 7,
authorizing the executive director to issue renewal deicing
licenses when there were no violations tile prior season, all
other applications referred to the Board.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to approve the recommen-
dation of the committee as presented which will allow tile execu-
tive director to issue renewal licenses without action by the
Board of Directors when there were no violations durin~ the prior
season. All other applications and in the cases in which the
executive director determines he will not issue a license for any
reason, the applications shall be referred to the Board.
[
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 23, 1992
DISCUSSION:
The Board received a memo from the executive director di-
recting the Board's attention to the reason for tile initial
discussion. In 1991 an early freeze resulted in emerg, cncy condi-
tions requiring speedy issuance of licenses. Thc memo recommend-
ed changes in the language recommended by tile committee to allow
the executive director to issue new. as well as renewal deicin.u
appl icat ions.
Foster said he would support the recommendations in the ,ne,no
from the executive director. He said these are the type of
administrative actions which make the District work more effi-
cient ly.
Cochran said he is satisfied with the deicing regulations.
as they are precise and clear. Be supports Foster's comments.
Burr asked how neighbors are _not_'_lfied
for deicing is received. She believes there can be a ne{tative
effect on neighboring, prope,'ties. - The execut.ivt,.--di:rector
there was an instance where a neighbor had an filleged' problem
when his skating rink was flooded, but complaints ha~-e been rare.
Babcock noted there was a time when deicing was prohibited. He
asked if there used to be a public hearing for deicing. LcFevcre
said that a public hearing has not been necessary.
Rascop said he is against giving the executive director the
authority because deicing is a health and welfare issue with
many. Be is against these permits being issued at ttl l. Rascop
believes animals have been killed because of the deicing. Be is
aware there have been instances where deicino has resulted in
open water as much as 600~ from the equipment. The only way he
would agree to the executive director issuing permits would be if
the Code were re-written to require everyone to use the "curtain"
method to contain the open water. He would not agree to allowing
emergency licenses.
Cochran said there are mnany protections bui It into tile
ordinance such as fencing and keeping tile deicinlu within the dock
use area. Bloom said he is opposed to giving the executive
director emergency authority. In his judgment there are no
emergencies, people living on the Lake should know that it wi I I
freeze. Foster said if there is not a siml~le procedure for
obtaining a license there will be illegal deicin;z.
Penn called the Board's attention back to who. thc:,' the execu-
tive director should be given authority to issue deicinfe li-
censes. In his judgment the ordinance is clear as to the 'stipu-
lations under which a license can be issued and he would rely
the executive director's good judgment. Owen agreed with Penn's
comments, expressing frustration with the long process in reach-
ing a decision on this question. Bloom said he has no objection
to giving the executive director the authority, lie is opposed to
deicing per se.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to amend
the ,notion to authorize the executive director to issue new }i-
censes without action by the Board of Directors upon sta['f deter-
IIOARI) ()F I)II{I':(,"I'ORS ,";el~tc'nlber 23, 1~,~,~2
mining that the applicant agrees, through the ;ipl) l icat ion proc-
ess. to fully comply with the requirements of Section 2.0q witl',
the enabl lng words in 8ubd. 9, I ine 5, and tile I,~,l(:l~ counsel to
see i f there are any other Code relerences that need to be
changed.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carried, Rascop, Carlson and Bloom
voting nay.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried. Rascop, Carlson and
Bloom voting nay.
Babcock said a second reading will be held.
D. Orono Ordinance re Non-encased Styrofoam
The Board received a copy of the Orono ordinance pr°hibiting
the use of non-encased styrofoam as a dock flotation device. The
committee recommends scheduling a public,-t!earj, n~::l>],i-Or).t-,o,~-,~doPt-
lng a similar ordinance by reference -- -
MOTION: Rascop moved, tturr seconded, to calt -a public hearin/e
for tile purpose of hearing testimony on an Ordinance l~rohibitin~
the use o[' non-encased styrofoam as a water structure flotat ion
device.
VOTE: ~4otion carried unanimously.
3. ENVIRONMENT, Chair lturr
A. Approval of Minutes. Hurt moved. Foster seconded, to
approve the minutes of the Environment L:ommittee meetinu of
9/15/92 as submitted. Motion carried unanimousl5r.
Hurt reported the Water Quality Monitoring'training session
will be held at 10 AM, October 10, at Lord Fletcher's. 8he said
it is important that LMCD Board members attend to show the LMCI)
part icipat ion.
The next committee meeting will be held on october 13.
B. l:;urasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair l'enn
Penn reported on the highlights of the Eurasian Water Mil-
foil 'rask Force meeting of 9/18/92.
There have been modifications to one harvester's cutte.r
wings. It is intended to test that harvester in t'armen's Bay
before modifying the other three harvesters. 'lo do that it is
necessary to have a contract with Freshwater Aquatics to hnndle
the cutting and truck disposal. The summer crew now returned to
school.
MOTION: Penn moved, Hurr seconded, to authorize the execut Jvc
director to contract with Freshwater Aquatics to do a test cut-
ting on September 24 and 25, the contract subject to approval of
the LMC'D attorney,
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Penn will report on tile results at the next meeting.
Penn said public accesses are monitored for tqi I foil clean
up. Markus asked who furnishes and services the barrels at the
accesses. Cochran suggested checking to set, who has the respon-
sibility. Hurt said she would present the suggestion to the
Environment C~ommittee.
LMCD BOARI)OF i)Ii(I~C'i'ORS
Sel)lel. t)er 93, Iq92
Penn advised that the DNR is taking a thorouoh~ look ;it open
water treatment of milfoil with chemicals in view of tile lack of
success at Diamond Reef.
Penn and the executive director are reviewing the draft of
consultant Robert Pierce's evaluation on the harvesting program.
The proposed Sonar program on St. Alban's t3;ty wi I I be
further reviewed on 10/1 with the stakeholders and Dow-Elanco
consultant Doug Pullman. The aquatic plant samples have bcen
taken. The test has been thorough. Milfoil has re-grown in
Libb's Lake due in .part from new fragments. Penn said the IINR is
looking at the results.
Carlson asked what is being clone about Zebra Mussels. The
executive director explained the Special Event requirements for
cleaning watercraft which have been in a~ infested area I)efore
entering the Lake. lie said there are no practical, or economic
methods~ of prevention and access inspection at this time.
son suggested the District develop a defensiblc~ policy on }low
LMCD is going to handle the Zebra Mussel situatiou I~el'ore next
spring.
4. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol
Grathwol reported the Lake Access Task I.'orcc xvi 11 meet
Wednesday, October 21, at 7:30 PI~I in the ~linnetonka ~.'ommunity
Room. Orathwol mentioned draft reports have been prepared by tile
Data/Standards Subcommittee. Parking standards for Lake Minne-
tonka public access, current and potential car/trailer parking
inventory will be presented. A steering committee report is
being drafted.
Hurr reported she had her third meet in,.o with the DNR and the
Maxwell Bay lakeshore owners group concerning the proposed access
at Maxwell Bay. Concept plan options prepared by tile DNR will be
presented to the Orono City Council 9/28.
FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson
Carlson submitted the August statement of' cash transactions
and audit of vouchers to be paid. Check #8797 on the list of
bills has been voided. In response to a question from Reese. the
executive director said Biocentric is performing its contract.
He said the contract will be completed before a final payment is
made.
MOTION: Carlson ,loved, Foster seconded, to al>prove payment of
bills in the amount of $41,173.07, Checks #8777 through 87q0 and
Checks #8798 through 8826.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Babcock asked that the listing show what funds were used for
the payments. Carlson said this will be clone after the first of
the year when the computerized accounting is completed.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS , September 23, 1992
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT~ Strommen
Strommen complimented Carlson for the time nnd talent he
devoted to preparing the license fee report. Strommen said
Thibault contributed significantly in bringing the figures to-
gether.
Strommen added his personal observations, and that of Thi-
bault and the support staff, that there is much they would like
to do for the Board and public with the limited staff and time
available. Staff sees the need to prioritize what has to be
done. He reminds the Board that it has to address a realistic
level of program commitments. Perhaps a staff meeting with the
officers and the Board to sort out some of the administrative
concerns would be beneficial. The staff takes pride in its work
and the Board and they do not like to see news articles that are
critical of LMCD's actions. That can be reduced by doing fewer
things better. As the District goes into the winter months there
may be more time to concentrate on those needs which have I~cen
put off.
Thibault-said because of differing viewpoints of the Board,
a question she has is the degree of enforcement she should under-
take. She questions whether she should I'orcc Ic~;~l ;~ction at thc
beginning of discovering a violation or allow time to fix it.
The practice has been, with input from the executive director, to
advise of Code regulations and ask for compliance.
Hurr said perhaps this is the time for the Board to consider
another retreat. Cochran said he has a list of things that
should be done. Other members, perhaps, have other lists, tie
suggested members make a list of their priority items. They
could be put together and prioritized as a whole-.
Penn suggested Thibault and Strommen put together what
things they consider wasting the Board's time. that delays
progress. Then the Board could consider empowering staff to
handle them.
Cochran said he hopes to see comments and that there will be
a follow through on the ideas.
Carlson said there has been discussion of adtlin:-' a committee
to deal with license fees. There should be a committee' to dis-
cuss what kind of time accounting the LMCD should do. There is a
need to get started on that. There will be new staff people
coming on and everything should be in place for them by the first
of the year.
Grathwol, Hurr, Foster and Johnstone volunteered to help
Carlson in preparing time accounting procedures.
UNFINISIIED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Septc'mber 23, 10q2
NEW BUSINESS
1. Nominating Committee Report
Carlson said the nominating committee is not prepared to
present a slate of officers at this meeting. 5eVCl'al issues
entered into that decision. He was side tracked as Treasurer
this past month with the license fee issue, c)ri.-oinal ly he
thought it prudent to nominate officers at one meeting and then
elect at the next meeting.
The committee recommends sending out a slate of officers a
couple of weeks before the election so there is time to think
about it and discuss it with other Board members. The recommen-
dation would be to have a recommended slate of officers accompany
the Water Structures Committee agenda.mailing, w__it!L the elect.ion
at the October Board meeting. Then the newly elected officers
would be installed at the end of the October Board meeting.
MOTION: Carlson moved, Foster seconded, that the nominat Jng
committee prepare a slate of officers to go out wi th the aucuda
for the October 10 Water Structures Committee meeting, the eluc-
tion to be held at the October Board meeting, and the offic,lrs
installed at the end of that meeting. When the slate of ofl'icers
is distributed the staff is to present backgrou~ld information
the nominees.
DISCUSSION:
Babcock asked how this coincides with the appointnlent of new
Board members by the cities. Carlson noted there is a conflict
because the enabling statute requires the election itl october and
some cities make their appointments in January. ('ochran said
this was discussed during the Management Plan study. There was a
suggestion to stagger the terms so every Board member's term was
not up at the same time. He said there may be a way the Board
itself could resolve the term question.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Carlson suggested the nominating committee lie ,'.ii,pointed
month earlier, in July. The committee will try to provide a
choice for positions where there has been interest shown.
ADJOURNMENT
Hurr moved, Bloom seconded, that the meet ing be adjourued.
Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
David Cochran, Chair
Douglas Babcock, Secretary
Lake Minnetonka Conservation district
REVIEW OF LMCD LICENSING/PERHIT FEES
CONPARED WITH EXPENSES/BUDGETS
FOR MULTIPLE DOCK RELATED ACTIVITIES (HI)PA)
1992 Preliminary Estimates
Revenue (NDRA)
Actual through 7/31/92
Est & addtl.collectionsLl9
Total
Projected
Fees Prio[ Fees with 1 Actual
to Change Adopted Change .. !992 ....
Personnel
Contractual Services ~;~-
Office & Administrative
Capital Outlay
Legal Services (Civil)3
Consulting Services-
Contingency ._
Total
1990 Comparison ~. '
Total Licens~ .. , .... .:;.~;~i~.;~.,OuO~,.:.~.~.~,,,~,~:-~~....~:~8,
Comparisons .. ::..-.'~Z~??~ .... ; ~",:.. -
,..:~... -~;~: .'~?'..~, "~4:~.~.' : .
' 1992 ~ R~V~hue ~111,549 vs Expenses
. --.. ~ Expenses ~122,766 vs
1990 Total license Revenue'
.....-~ 248
1. Totals reflect the findings of
which were ado
in June 1991
2. Expenses, excep! ~ noted~ are al
totals, based on analysis of Execut!
Technician activities. .
3. Legal costs are allocated to ~I)RA
Prose'cutton,"an~d~ not reflect
4~ C°nSu /'ail0~t~ of
ector
LOW
9-'21-92
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
REVIEW OF~:~'!~ENSING/PERMIT FEES
COMPARED WITH EXPENSES/BUDGET
FOR MULTIPLE DOCK RELATED ACTIVITIES (MDRA)
(Continued)
FINDINGS
1. Licensing fees charged for Multiple Dock Related Items have been
historically lower than the actual cost of providing such services, re-
flecting subsidization of these costs by the lake cities.
2. Total estimated MDRA 1992 license fee revenue of $114,549 will exceed
projections by approximately $10,000. This could allow the one-time
excess revenue to be used to reduce the 1993 budgeted license fee
revenue by applying additional general fund reserves over the $15,732
reserve funds already budgeted.
3. Projected MDRA license fees for 1993 of $128,249 are lower than 1993
projected costs of $138,576.
9-21-92