1993-03-09CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: 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 MF~ETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1993
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 1993,
REGULAR MEETING.
CASE #93-002:
DUANE BEIMERT, 5125 DRUMMOND ROAD,
LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE,
PID #25-117-24 12 0113.
REQUEST: VARIANCE.
DISCUSSION:
TEAL POINTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET.
DISCUSSION:
POSSIBLE REFERENDUM ON TEAL POINTE
AND OTHER PROPERTIES.
REPORT RE:
CHAMBERLAIN GOUDY VFW POST #5113 -
SELLING INTOXICATING LIQUOR TO MINOR.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
ADOPT SUMMARY ZONING/SHORELAND ORDINANCE
AND MAP.
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SALES LOT AT
HARRISON BAY MOBIL, 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, IN THE
B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT.
(SUGGESTED DATE: TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1993)
APPROVAL OF LICENSE RENEWALS.
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE -
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - HEADLINERS BAR & GRILL.
PG.
PG.
PG.
PG.
PG.
PG.
830-839
840-856
857-878
879-881
882
883
828
11. PAYMENT OF BILLS
PG. 884-895
12.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUR
ae
Be
Ce
Fe
He
February 1993 Department Head monthly
reports.
L.M.C.D. Representative,s monthly report for
February 1993.
LMCD Mailings.
Pg. 896-922
Pg. 923
Pg. 924-936
Letter from Deb Luesse, 3225 Amhurst Lane
expressing her appreciation for the Council
decision to remove four mid-block crosswalks, pg. 937-938
Notice for NSP re: Hearings on Proposed Rate
Increase. Pg. 939-940
Letter dated February 26, 1993, from Representative
Steve Smith responding to my February 9, 1993,
letter re: Governor Arne Carlson's Budget
Proposal.
Pg. 941-946
Pg. 947-951
Pg. 952-953
Planning Commission Minutes - February 22
1993. '
Economic Development Commission Minutes of
February 18, 1993.
REMINDER:
Dock Meeting, Thursday, March 25,
1993, 10:00 A.M. - 12 Noon, City
Hall. Format will follow last
year's meeting w/realtors.
Pg.
829
I I I
February 23, 1993
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 23v 1993
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, February 23, 1993, 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, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Police
Chief Len Harrell, Sgt. Bill Hudson, Liquor Store Manager Joel
Krumm, Fire Chief Don Bryce and the following interested citizens:
Drew Wilkenson, Jim Fox, Tom Geyen, Peter Meyer, Jim Brunzell, John
Page, Nancy Westlund, Dan Olstead, Steve Smith, Gen Olson, Charles
Nungasser, Katie Fox, Tom Casey, Carl Bennetsen, and Gerald
Shannon.
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 Ahrens to approve the
Minutes of the February 9, 1993, Regul&r Meeting, as
submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.1 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION
The Mayor presented Certificates of Recognition to Brett Niccum and
Murray Sinner, for their efforts in saving the life of a
snowmobiler who went through the ice on Lake Minnetonka in
December.
1.2 RESOLUTION THANKING THE MOUND POLICE RESERVES FOR THEIR WORK
AND ASSISTANCE TO THE MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-30
RESOLUTION THANKING THE MOUND POLICE
RESERVES FOR THEIR WORK ANDASSISTANCE TO
THE MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Mayor read a resolution thanking the Mound Police Reserves for
their work and assistance to the Mound Police Department. There to
receive the commendation for the Mound Police Reserves were Capt.
James Fox and Lt. Tom Geyen.
51
February 23, 1993
1.3 PUBLIC HEARINGs
MANAGEMENT O~~NCE ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS SHORELAND
The City Planner stated that the final draft is in front of the
City Council tonight. The notice of the hearing was re-published
so that it was clear the public hearing was on the Zoning Code
Modifications/Shoreland Management Ordinance.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed code at the January 25th Meeting and the only item that
came up that could not be agreed upon was the 6 foot sideyard
setback required for accessory buildings. They discussed changing
this to 4 feet, but the Commission was split. The Council decided
not to change the 6 foot sideyard setback for accessory buildings
even though it may cause more variances.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The
Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Planner stated that a summary of the Zoning Code Modifications/
Shoreland Management Ordinance will be prepared for publication.
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #61-1993
u~u By DISTRICTS INCLUDING THE
REGULATIONS OF THE LOCATION, SIZE, USE
AND HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS; THE ARRANGEMENT
OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF
POPULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING
THE PUBLIC HEALTH; SAFETY; ORDER,
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Planner stated that this final copy will now be submitted to
the Dept. of Natural Resources for their review of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance which is incorporated into this document.
1.4 ~TION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS.
SERIES 1993A
Finance Director, Gino Businaro, introduced Gerald Shannon of
Springsted. Mr. Shannon reported that 13 bids were received on the
General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds.
recommending accepting the bid n~ ~u .... ~ - . T_hey are
...... -- --o ~lrsn ~anK Systems)
· nvestment services, Inc. who had an interest rate of 4.5
commended the City for t~ ......... 565%. He
_ z -= ~ ~u~lng t~at was aiven by Mo~v,o =
Standard & Poors. Accentin- this ~:~ ~-- -.. - --z ~ ~nd
~ ~ ~u w~ save the City $49,565.09
52
I J I
February 23, 1993
in interest. This is a 25% savings.
The City Attorney stated that the proposed resolution will be
revised from $790,000 to $795,000.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION J93-25
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $795,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT
REFUNDING BONDS; SERIES 1993A; FIXING
THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING
THEIR EXECUTION ~ DELIVERY; PROVIDING
FOR THEIR PAYMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
DEPOSIT OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF AND
PROVIDING FOR THE REDEMPTION OF BONDS
REFUNDED THEREBY
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5 1993 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSEN, R.L.
YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES
Carl Bennetsen, R. L. Youngdahl & Associates, reviewed the proposed
annual plan and premium for the commercial insurance for 1993. It
is a decrease of approximately $5,500 from 1992. The total
estimated premium is $151,254. He stated the City has done a good
job with worker's compensation and therefore is getting about a 21%
credit on its experience rate. The League will continue to carry
all the coverage except the Liquor Liability which is handled by
CNA. The following is a comparison from 1992-93 to 1993-94:
1993-94 1992-93
Property
Business Interruption
8,247 10,095
258 INCLUDED
Crime
Public Employee Dishonesty 1,100
City Clerk & Treasurer Bonds 200
Theft, Disappearance & Destruction 365
Forgery or Alteration 138
1,100
200
272
138
General Liability
Errors & Omissions
45,975
5,896
48,011
5,628
Automobile
Liability 13,500
UM/UIM 555
Physical Damage 10,699
13,551
INCLUDED
10,005
53
February 23, 1993
Inland Marine
Liquor Liability
Fireman's AD&D
Workers' Compensation
TOTAL
3,056 3,081
7,731 6,575
300 250
52,234 57,845
151,254 156,751
The City Attorney stated that currently there is litigation that
has been commenced by two litigants against 36 metro municipalities
who are members of a joint powers group testing police officers or
prospective police officers (Mound is not included in that group),
but their is a question about insurance coverage for joint powers
groups. The City Attorney stated that it is being discussed in the
insurance industry because the League of Minnesota Cities has taken
the position that those groups are not covered unless a specific
premium has been paid and a rider has been attached to the each
City policy. Mr. Bennetsen stated that a joint ~owers is
considered to have their own board, make their own decisions, they
have their own ability to tax, and the ability to issue funding for
whatever projects they determine worthwhile, therefore, the League
feels joint powers should have their own insurance coverage to
protect themselves and any member of their board. Mr. Bennetsen
stated that in talking the Mound's staff, there are no joint powers
agreements at this time. There was discussion as to whether the
L.M.C.D. had their own insurance. Mr. Bennetsen and the Staff will
check on this.
Jensen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~93-26 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICIESv
PREMIUMS AND COMPANIES AS SUBMITTED BY
CARL BENNETSENv R. L. YOUNGDAHL &
ASSOCIATES FOR THE 1993 INSURANCE PROGRAM
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Smith asked if the HRA was covered under this
insurance coverage. Mr. Bennetsen answered, yes.
1.6 CASE ~93-003: JOHN
BLOCK It BHADYWOOD & JANET PAGE, 1927 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 10,
POINT, PID ~18-117-23 23 0056~ VARIANC..
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning
Commission recommended approval.
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
54
February 23, 1993
RESOLUTION #93-27
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 1927
LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 11,
SHADYWOOD POINT~ PID ~18-117-23 23 0056~
P & Z CASE #93-003
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7 1992 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS
The following Department Heads presented their annual reports to
the City Council: Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Police Chief
Len Harrell. In conjunction with the Police Dept., Sgt. Bill
Hudson reported on the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force.
1.S LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FROM SENATOR GEN OLSON AND REPRESENTATIVE
~TEVE SMITH
Representative Steve Smith and Senator Gen Olson gave an update on
what is going on in the State Legislature. They will keep the
Council informed throughout the session which ends in May.
1.7 1992 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS
The following Department Heads presented their annual reports to
the City Council: Building Official John Sutherland and City Clerk
Fran Clark.
COMMENT8 E SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
1.9 APPROVAL OF LICENSE RENEWALS.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the
issuance of the following licenses contingent upon all
required forms, insurance, etc., being presented: CIGARETTE LICENSE - HARRISON BAY MOBIL
GARBAGE HAULERS LICENSE - NITTI SANITATION/BFI
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR YEAR XIX, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set March 23,
1993, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on the Year XIX,
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
55
February 23, 1993
1.11 ~PPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-28 RESOLUTION APPOINTING JIM FACKLER THE
ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF
MOUND IN 1993
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 .RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR Al_
~NCENT~gE GRANT FOR ~CYCLIN~
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-29 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN
APPLICATION FOR AN INCENTIVE GRANT FOR
RECYCLING
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 SET DATE FOR BID OPENING FOR 1993 SEAL COAT BIDa
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to set April 2,
1993, at 11~00 A.M. for the bid opening for the 1993 Seal Coat
Project. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 ~AYMENT OF BILLN
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of
$296,119.56, when funds are available. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ONS
1.15 TEAL POINTE - TOM CASE¥
The City Manager reported that Mr. Casey has submitted a letter
asking that the Park & Open Space Commission review the EAW for
Teal Pointe and provide input. He reported that Mr. Casey
presented this to the POSC and a motion to approve failed on a 3-2
vote. Therefore, he is asking that the Council allow the POSC to
review the EAW.
Mr. Casey stated that he had spoken to Lyndell Skoglund and she
voted against this because she felt the Council should direct the
POSC to review the EAW and provide comments. He felt that because
Outlot B is wetlands it would be appropriate for the POSC to review
the EAW. He stated he would not be a voting member of the POSC on
February 23, 1993
this issue because he is representing the residents who would like
to see Teal Pointe preserved as oPen'space.
The Council stated they would welcome comments from the POSC on the
EAW. They suggested that the POSC review the EAW after it is
submitted and give their comments to the Council, not the City
Planner. The Council discussed the timing of the EAW. The City
Manager reported that the 60 day clock started on February 15,
1993, so the EAW should be completed by April 15, 1993.
The Council asked that the Staff get of blank copy of the EAW form
or the completed one that Minnetrista has on a dredging project
before they decide to ask the POSC to review the Teal Pointe EAW.
It was also suggested that the POSC look at the blank copy of the
EAW. This will be discussed again at the next Council Meeting.
The City Manager stated that the other item in Mr. Casey's letter
is about the possibility of a referendum to purchase Teal Pointe
and other properties. He stated that he has discussed the
mechanics of a referendum with Mr. Casey. Thus Mr. Casey has
prepared a sample petition for the Council's review and comment at
the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. At that time Mr. Casey
and others could come and discuss Teal Pointe and any other
properties they would like to acquire for open space.
The City Attorney stated that the law is as follows:
1. If the Council determines it wants to place a legal
question or legitimate question on the ballot, it can
hold a special election. If an election is held it would
cost about $5,000. The question would be phrased
something like, "Shall the City of Mound be authorized to
issue General Obligation Bonds in X amount of dollars for
the acquisition of park lands? or
2. If the Council determines it does not want to do that,
the electorate can ask to have a question presented.
That would require 20% of the people voting in the last
general election, approximately 1000 to 1100 citizens on
a petition. The citizens could state the question. The
City could help Mr. Casey structure the question as it
would appear on a ballot.
These are the two choices, either the Council does it or the
Council can let Mr. Casey do it.
The Council discussed the 2 options. The Council stated that the
impression they are getting from the general public is that they do
not want to pay, through their taxes, for park land. The City
Attorney stated that the City could work with Mr. Casey to phrase
the question so that it would not end up in an argument if and when
Mr. Casey comes up with 1100 signatures.
57
February 23, 1993
The Council asked if this petition would only be for the Teal
Pointe parcel? Mr. Casey stated that is one of the things he would
like to discuss with the Council at the Committee of the Whole
Meeting. The Council stated they felt this should be discussed at
a regular meeting, in a public forum. The Council expressed
concern about the staff time costs of getting a petition ready for
circulation. The Council also discussed what dollar amount would
be put on the petition or in the question. The City Attorney
stated that the citizens could put an amount in and if it were not
enough to purchase the property, then it would not be purchased.
But it would be the citizens responsibility to build in whatever
numbers there are that would be sufficient to get the job done.
The City Attorney stated it is not the City's petition, it is their
petition. The Council stated they do not want an ambiguous
question put on the petition. They would like to see a definitive
question.
No action was taken at this time. It was deferred to the next
Council Meeting, limiting discussion at that time to a half hour.
1.16 DIBCUBBIONI~BOUT VFW ON-BALE LIOUOR VIOLATIO:~
The City Attorney stated that there has been a violation of the
City's liquor laws by the VFW. A conviction has been achieved.
The person plead guilty to serving liquor to a minor. The City
Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief met with representatives of
the VFW today to discuss revocation or suspension of their liquor
license. There is a tentative agreement which requires the City
Attorney to draw up a Stipulation. At the next Council Meeting,
the Council will receive a Stipulation of Agreement which will
indicate that the VFW will be closed for 5 days, from March 21,
1993 to March 25, 1993; they will pay a $500 fine to the City to
assist in the City's prosecution costs; there will be a sign on the
door indicating why the VFW is closed; and they have a program they
will be doing with their employees to indicate the seriousness of
selling to minors. They will also have a policy that will be
presented at the next meeting. The City Attorney asked if there
were any questions and if the Council agreed with the negotiated
settlement? The Council agreed. No action taken at this time.
This item will be on the March 9, 1993, Agenda.
INFORMATION/MIBCELLANEOU~
A. LMCD Mailings.
Be
Letters from Triax Cablevision RE: - Sun Outages and door to
door solicitation for cable service.
Letter from Jan Haugen, former Mayor of Shorewood requesting
support for appointment to MWCC. The Council asked that a
58
I I I
De
Ee
Fe
Go
February 23, 1993
letter be written in support of Jan Haugen.
Monday, March 1, 1993, 6 P.M., City Hall - Economic
Development Commission has scheduled an Appreciation Reception
for the Mayor, City Council, Advisory Commissions and members
of the Mound Visions Team to formally thank the Teams and all
participants for all of their hard work in developing the
Mound Visions Program and specifically, the promotional
packet. Team members will be given copies of the packet at
that time and an update of the project will be given by the
EDC and Staff.
REMINDER: Tuesday, March 2, 1993 - Goal Setting Session for
Mayor and City Council - 6:15 P.M., City Hall. Councilmember
Jessen stated she cannot attend because of a previous
commitment. Councilmember Jensen stated she would like to be
reviewing the goals more than once a year. She suggested
taking a few minutes at the beginning of each COW Meeting to
discuss goals. The Council agreed. The March 2, 1993 Goal
Setting Section was cancelled.
LMC Legislative Conference - Thursday, March 18, 1993, St.
Paul Radisson. If you are interested in attending, please let
Fran know ASAP.
LMCD Lake Area Task Force information on potential boat/
trailer parking spaces in the area of Mound Bay Park. T h e
City Manager reported that last week he, the Mayor and
Councilmember Ahrens met with the LMCD and the DNR about
car/trailer parking spaces within 2,000 feet of Mound Bay
Park. They figure there are about 110 possible car/trailer
spaces, but it is down to about 98 because of some that are
marked no parking. He reported that he has been asked to
check on the feasibility of using the GTE lot. There is also
a model agreement in the packet that each City is being asked
to approve and sign off on with the LMCD indicating that there
are these spaces out there and they are available for car/
trailer parking. They would like to have this agreement
approved in about 60 days. The Manager will be contacting GTE
about their possible 25 spaces. These spaces are included in
the possible 98. It is important that the LMCD be able to
demonstrate that there are 700 parking spaces around the lake
for car/trailer parking so that we don't need to develop more
spaces. No action was taken on this item. It will be brought
back at a future meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 8, 1993.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes - February 11, 1993.
59
February 23, 1993
J. Financial report for January 1993 as prepared by Gino
Businaro.
A memo from Pat O'Connor, Director of Hennepin County Property
Tax and Public Records regarding the increase in tax court
petitions that are being filed.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by &hrens to adjourn at 10:45
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
60
; I I ! I
RESOLUTION #93-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION
AT 5125 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE,
PID #25-117-24 12 0113, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-002
WHEREAS, The applicant, Duane Beimert, has applied for a variance to
recognize an existing nonconforming 7.9' front yard setback to the existing
principal structure to allow construction of a conforming addition, and to allow
replacement of approximately 3/4 of the existing foundation, and
WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of
6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for
"Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and
WHEREAS, The size of the existing dwelling is less than 840 square feet,
and
WHEREAS, All other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance with the following Finding of Fact: The
addition will increase the size of the substandard home, the addition meets all
require setbacks, and there is practical difficulty.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve a variance of 12.1 feet recognizing the
existing nonconforming 7.9 foot front yard setback to allow construction
of a conforming 22' x 28' addition and foundation replacement and
repairs as necessary.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to
Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and
express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming
use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
Proposed Resolution
Page 2
Case #93-002
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 22' x 28' addition consisting of a
tuckunder garage with living space above and replacement or
repairs to the foundation on the existing structure.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 7 and 8, Block 14, Whipple.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar
of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute,
Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on
how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution
with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building
permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of
recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
I I I
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 22, 1993
CASg ~93-002=
DUANE BEIMERTt 5125 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS
BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE, PID ~25-117-24 12
VARIANCE ·
7 & 8,
0113.
Building official, Jon Sutherland, explained that this request was
previously heard by the Planning Commission on January llth, and
concern was expressed regard the impact of the addition towards the
street. The Planning Commission tabled the request to allow the
applicant the opportunity to consider alternate designs.
The applicant's revised request consists of a 22' x 28' addition
with a tuckunder garage and living space above along with repairs
to the existing foundation.
The request was clarified to include replacement of the foundation
on three sides of the house, the foundation wall closest to
Drummond Road will remain. Two courses of block will be added to
the entire foundation to allow for the required ceiling height.
The 22' x 28' addition will meet all required setbacks with a 20'
+/- setback to the side property line and a 26'+/- setback to the
front.
Weiland suggested that if all the foundation walls but one are to
be replaced, why not move the existing structure into a conforming
location? It was noted that it would be a considerably larger
expense to do this. Clapsaddle noted that the three dimensional
plan submitted is not to scale and warned the applicant that this
is not what the house will look like, that the elevations will be
different.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend
approval of the variance recognizing an existing
nonconforming front yard setback of 7.9 feet to allow
construction of a conforming 22' x 28' addition. Finding
of Fact: Tho addition will increase tho size of the
substandard home, the addition meets all required
setbacks, and there is practical difficulty. Motion
carried $ to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael,
Clapsaddle, Mueller, and ross. Weiland opposed.
Weiland stated that he opposed because he believes the house should
be moved back, considering the amount of work they are doing to the
existing house and foundation, and now is the time.
~ OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 11, 199~'
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request
for a front yard setback variance of 12 feet to the required 20
feet to construct an addition onto the existing nonconforming
dwelling.
The existing home is substandard in area and is in need of
additional living space. Practical difficulty may be found in that
it is reasonable to allow an addition onto this undersized dwelling
and the only practical extension is to the west. The addition
would also solve several other building code issues with this
property, such as a hazardous fireplace, a more functional floor
plan, and possible problems with the foundation at the rear of the
house.
~[i~ff°d~~l~a~x~ftsthfn ~ning Com~.ission finds that a
his case, staff would recommend
approval of the request and further that t
approval contain lan-ua~e ~^ -, .... he.recommendation for
24' conformin, d-+--~-~__~v azzu~, zuture construction of 24'
= ~u~u ~arage without another variance request,x
The applicant addressed the Commission and stated that he would
prefer not to extend the addition towards the rear because he wants
to save yard space for their kids and for the future garage. He
explained that the foundation wall at the rear of
part of the southeast side is -~ ........ the house and
FzanneG ~O De replaced as it is
decaying. He stated that to move the house back and redo the
foundation would cost almost double. The estimated cost of the
project as stated on the variance application form is $23,000 which
is a bid price he received from a contractor, however, it does not
include sheetrocking or other finishing as he will do this himself.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the staff recommendation
regarding variance approval for future construction of a conforming
detached garage and did not agree with this because a 24' x 24'
garage may exceed hardcover requirements for the property, and it
was also discussed that a tuckunder garage may be a better plan for
the property.
It was agreed that the existing house is in tough shape and the
Planning Commission is in favor of seeing the house improved,
however, they think there may be a better plan. Mueller commented
that he does not believe the proposed addition will negatively
impact the neighborhood. It was noted that this house is one of
only a few on a dead end street. Clapsaddle suggested that the
proposed addition be setback 14 more feet and that it include a
tuckunder garage as this would eliminate any concern relating to
hardcover and would still leave back yard space. The applicants
agreed that they will consider the suggestion. The Planning
Commission suggested that the applicant work with the Building
Official on a revised plan.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to table the
request until the applicant returns with a revised plan.
Notion carried unanimously.
I',,1
Douglas C. lieinsch ~
of Lots 7 and 8, B]ock 14, WHIPPLE
Hennep~F: County, Minnesota
lq 88°
o
o ~
d
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED'
Lots 7 and 8, Block 14, WHIPPLE.
This survey shows the placement of an existing, house in re]at on
to the boundaries of the following described property. It does
not purport to sllow any Otller imorovemen'Ls or encroachments.
I hereby.certify that this survey was prepared by me
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly
· registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State.of Minnesota.
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lic. No. 12755
Engineers, Land Surveyors, PJanners
Long Lake, Minnesota
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
i : Iron marker foune
o :' Iron marker set
Bearings shown are based
upon an assumed datum.
Certificate of Survey for
Douglas C. Heinsch ~
of Lots 7 and 8, Block 14, WHIPPLE
Hennepi n County, Mi nnesota
N
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF Pt~W_[~s SURVEYED.
Lots 7 and 8, Block 14, WHIPPLE.
This survey shows the placement of an existing, house in relation
to the boundaries of the following described property. It does
not purport to SllOw any driver' )n~Dr'ovemen.Ls or encroachments.
I hereby, certify that this survey was prepared by me ~ ~t~~N
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly REOEIVED
,registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the
FEB 1 8 1993
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
laws of the State. of Minnesota.
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Msrk S. Gronberg MN. Lic. No. 12755
Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
Lon~ Lake, Minnesota
1 inch = 30 Feet
Iron marker found
Iron marker set
Bearings shown are based
upon an assumed datum.
Scale.
.
RECEtVEE)
FEB 1 8 '~993
.
.Ill I_IJ._L_IJ._IJ__I
t
I, J I
CITY of MOUND
53,1~ ,~JAY'/, S: 3?-; '-- S:<.'
612~ 472 C'~'~ ~
FAX (612~ 472 ?65'
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM;
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Agenda of January 11, 1993
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
..Ion Suthodand, Buildin§ Official
Varian¢o Request
Duane Beimert
93-002
5125 Drummond Road
Lots 7 & 8, Block 14, Whipple, PID 25-117-24 12 0113
R-2 Single Family Residential
The applicant is seeking a front yard setback variance of 12 feet to the required 20
feet in the R-2 zone to allow construction of an addition onto the existing
nonconforming dwelling.
The existing home is substandard in area and is in need of additional living space. The
applicant could expand towards the rear, but has stated this would eliminate the
poSsibility of a functional rear yard.
It is difficult to determine hardship in this case, however, practical difficulty may be
found in that it is reasonable to allow an addition onto this undersized dwelling and
the only practical extension is to the west.
The addition would also solve several other building code issues with this property.
Staff Report
5125 Drummond Road
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission finds that a practical difficulty exists in this case, staff
would recommend approval of the request and further that the recommendation for
approval contain language to allow future construction of a 24' x 24' conforming
detached garage as shown without another variance request.
This case will be heard by the Planning Commission on January 11, 1993, and by the
City Council on January 26, 1993.
JS:pj
I I I
revieed 4/2/92
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CZTY OF HOUND
5341 Maywood Ro&d~ Hound~ MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
.J
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No.q~- 00~
Site Visit Scheduled:
Zoning Sheet Completed:
Copy to City Planner:
Copy to Public Works:
Copy to City Engineer:
Please type or print the following
Address of Subject Property c~/~
Owner's Name ~-ztOo~
Owner's Address
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)~)~a~
Address q/~ /)~c~o~ ~. Day
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
information:
Day Phone
Phone
Lot ?
Addition
Zoning District
Use of
.lock
PrO
Property:
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If
yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number
of stories, type of use, etc.): ~' ~ J/ ~ ~/~W~h~ - ~ b¢~7~
revised 4/2/92
Variance Application
Page 2
Case No. ~--~O~
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located?
Yes (), No (~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) Z~$~
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Fr°nt Yard: ~S E W )
Rear Yard: E W )
Lake Front: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Lot Size:
Street Frontage
ft. ?, J ft. /;, ? ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
ft. ft. ft.
Does the present usm of the property conform to all regulations for the
zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ( ). If no
specify eachnon-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:
Se
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted
(1982)? Yes ~), No ('). If ]~es, explain ~7-~ ~¢ ~ o~
I Ii I
revised 4/2/92
Variance Application
~age 3
Case No.
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 0<Q, No (). If
no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
8. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate.
I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application
by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of
inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be
equired by law.
Applicant' s Signatur~ /_~~//~ Dat~ -
Douglas C. Iteinsch ~
of Lots 7 and 8, Blocl( 14 'WHIPPLE -
Hennepin County, Minnesota
· s;T
~ ~,~ ~0,0
-, ~ o.~
~EGAL DESCRIPTION OF P~L}~S SURVEYED: ..... .
'Lo'ts F and 8, 8lock i4, WHIPPLE.
This survey shows t~e placemen~ of on existing house In relation
to. the boundaries of the following described property. It does
not purport to sl~o~; ~ny OtheF ImDr'Ov,~ne~ts Or encroachments,
'. I hereby, certify that this survey was preparej by me
or under my direct supervision, ~nd that I ~m a duly REOEIV
· registered Civil Engineer onO Land Surveyor under the
laws of t~e State.mOl Minnesoto.
COFFIN & GRONaERG, INC. JAN
Mark"S. Gronberg MN. L I c., No. 12255 ...... ' '
Engineers, Land Surveyor~ Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota '
Sca.let 1 Inch = 30 feet
· : Iron marker founo
o :' Iron marker set
Searings shown are based
upon an'assumed datum.
51JBJECT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
DD
TO: City Council and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: February 25, 1993
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Process
This memorandum is being provided as general background information on the EAW process
and specifically, how it applies to the Teal Pointe project. On February 9, 1993, the City
Council required that an EAW be prepared for Teal Pointe as a condition of preliminary
approvals. Therefore, the City of Mound is now the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for
the preparation of the EAW. Preparation of the EAW is governed by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board's Environmental Review Program which is found in Minnesota
Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. The following is a summary of the EAW process:
Definition: The EAW is defined by state statute to be "a brief document which is designed to
set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed action.'
As such, the EAW is not an approval process. The information contained within an EAW
serves one of two purposes: (1) it is used to assess the need for an EIS or (2) it indicates
generally how a development project can be modified to lessen environmental impacts.
Information used to reach one of these conclusions comes from three sources: (1) the EAW
itself, (2) comments received on the EAW, and/or (3) responses made to comments received on
the EAW. The EAW is usually the most important source of this information.
EAW Process: The attached exhibit (Exhibit 1) identifies the time line and components of the
EAW process. Essentially, it involves four primary steps:
The proposer of the project (Teal Pointe Development Co.) supplies data
necessary for the completion of the EAW to the RGU (City of Mound).
2. The City of Mound (RGU) prepares the EAW.
3. 30 day comment period.
Land Use/Environmental · Planning / Design
'3CIO Metro Boulevard Suite 525 · Minneapolis, M~nnesota 55439 ' i6l 2) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160
I I
EAW Memorandum
February 25, 1993
Page Two
The City of Mound responds to the comments received and makes a
decision on the need for an EIS based on the EAW, comments received,
and the responses to the comments. The City of Mound and other units
of government may require modifications to the project to mitigate
environmental impacts that were disclosed in the EAW process.
How will the Teal Pointe EAW be assembled? According to the rules, Teal Pointe Development
Co. is required to supply any reasonable data or information requested by the City of Mound.
The City of Mound, however, is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the
information contained in the EAW. Therefore, the City decides what information should and
should not be in the EAW. The City must attest that it has independently verified that the
information contained in the EAW is accurate and complete.
What decision does the City make and when does it occur? The City of Mound is required to
make a decision on the need for an~ between 3 working days and 30 calendar days after
the close of the 30 day comment per~o'~ If the City determines that information critical to the
EIS decision is lacking, it may postpone the decision for an additional 30 days to allow time for
the needed information to be assembled. The actual decision must be made in conformance with
part 4410.1700 of the EQB rules.
After the City (RGU) makes its decision, is there an appeal process? There is no administrative
appeal process for an RGU's decision. The City's final ruling can be appealed in the District
Court in Hennepin County. According to the rules, appeals must be filed within 30 days of the
notice of the decision being published in the EQB Monitor.
What does an EAW look like? Exhibit 2 is a blank copy of the current form used for an EAW.
This is the form which will be completed for Teal Pointe. In order to provide you with some
sense of the level of detail of the information requested on the form, Exhibit 3 is a copy of the
EAW form that was completed for Pelican Point in 1984. Please note that the form itself has
been updated since the Pelican Point EAW was completed.
EXHIBIT I
EAW Process
RGU d~m~gnes EAW is necessary
RGU ~ EAW
RGU approves EAW f~
RGU studs EAW lo ~ list
RGU issues txess release
at~ acll~ may
I I
I I
7~o21 caleaiar days
No6ce mb[shed in EQB Mmita-
7 ~o 21 days after receipt of EAW
(starts at EQB Mcnimr
put~:at~ dae)
RGU decides if l~oject needs ElS
and respax~ ~o canme~
RGU disln'butes no6ce c/decision
7 ~1~_~ p~blisbed in F~B Mofli~
21 days af~- rece~ ~ ~
! I
I I 7 to 21 calendar days
I
tlt111
5
EXHIBIT 2
Environmental Assessmem Worksheet (EAW)
NOTE TO PREPARERS ~
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit 0RGLO or its agents. The project proposer must supply
any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer
does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free)
1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult "EAW Guidelines,' a booklet available from the EQB.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB
Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has
been prepared for the scoping of an ElS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness bf the information
and suggest issues for investigation in the ElS.
1. Project Title
Proposer 3. RGU
Contact person Contact person
Address and title
Address
Phone
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
1-'1 EIS scoping El mandatory EAW I-1 citizen petition
Phone
[] RGU discretion [] Proposer volunteered
If EAW or ElS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s)
5. Project Location
__ 1/4 __ 1/4 Section Township Range
County City/Twp
Attach copies of each of the following to the EA W:
~. a county map showing the general location of the project;
b. copy(les) of USGS 72 minute, 1'.24,1300 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries;
C. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
6. O~scrlption Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or
produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice:
Project Magnitude Data
Total Project Area (acres) or Length (miles)
Number of Residential Units
Unattached Attached
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total square feet;
Indicate area of specific uses:
Office
Retail Manufacturing
Warehouse Other Industrial
Light Industrial Institutional
Other Commercial (specify) Agricult'ural
Building Height(s)
8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and feder~ permits, approvals, and funding required:
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the
compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental
matters. Identify any potential environmental haTz~rd due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage
tanks.
10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and
after totals should be equal):
Types 2 to 8 Wetlands
Wooded/Forest
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
Before After
Urban/Suburban Lawn
Landscaping
Impervious Surface
Other (descn'be)
Before After
11. ~h, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or spedal-concem species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird
nesting colonies; native prairie or other ram habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? ["1 Yea I-I No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was
conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
I I I
12.
Physical Imp~ct~ on W~ter Fte~ource~ W~ t~e ~roje~ ~nvolve ~ ph~ic~fl or h~drob~¢ ~Jt~t~on (&ed~& ~& stm,~
ouffall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water Oake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? [2] Yes [] No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of
dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations
in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
13. w. ter u.
IL Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? [] Y~ f-I No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give
the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known).
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (inducting dewatering)? C1 Yes C1 No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropj'i~ion permit number of
any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels.
¢. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? [] Yes [] No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used.
14.
Water-related Land Use Management Dlsl~lcte Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 10G-year
flood plain, or a state or f~clerally designated wild or scenic river land use district? F'I Yes [] No
If yes, identify the district and discuss the compata"vility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district.
15. Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? [] Yes CI No ?L
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with OthEr users
or fish and wildlife resources.
16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water: minimum average Bedrock: minimum average
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil borin8 logs need not be attached.)
17. Erosion and Sedlmentalion Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved:
acres ~; cubic yards ~
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project.
Water Quality. Surface Water Runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and aher the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or
treat runoff.
b. Identify the mute(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of
the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affa:t a la~ ~onsult ~EA W Guiddin~s" about whether a nutrimt budget analysis is needed.)
19. Water Quality - Waatewaters.
a. Describe sources/quantities/and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters
produced or treated at the site.
b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project
involves on-sim sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters
(including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge
may affect a ~ ~onsult "EA W Guidelines' about whether a nutrient budget analy~'is is ~_~__,,d.)
C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the
system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary.
20. Ground Water- Potential for Contamination
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: ~ minimum; ~ average.
b. Describe any of the following site b~rds to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow
limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
C. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to
prevent them from contaminating ground water.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures,
sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if
there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling.
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum
products or other materials (except water).
I I I
22. TtZ~C Parking spaces added Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) Estimated total Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) generated Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: ~
For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project.
Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will
be necessary.
23.
Vehicle-related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon
monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the Froject
involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult 'EA W Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality analysis is ~,~,t_,,d.)
24. Stationary source air ernlssl0na Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust
stacks)? [-I Yes [] No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the
quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? [] Yes [] No
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse
impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vidnity and estimate the impacts on these receptors.
26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
8. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? [] Yes [] No
b. prime or unique farmlands? [] Yes [] No
C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? [] Yes [] No
d. scenic views and vistas? I-I Yes VI No
e. other unique resources? [] Yes [] No
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe
any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large
visible plumes frora cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) [] Yes [] No
If yes, explain.
28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted lo(al comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water,
or resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal agency? [] Yes [] No
If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how
any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
29. Impact on Infras~ucture and Public Services Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be
required to serve the project? I'-I Yes lq No
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a "connect~l action~ with respect
to the project must be assessed in this E. A W; ~ #EA W Guidelines' for details.)
30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? [] Yes [] No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? [] Yes [] No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review.
C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlets? [] Yes Iq No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. If a,b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other
development.
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by
items l to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
32. SUMM~RY 0F ISSUES (This section need not be oomplete, d if the EA W is being done fvr EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the
draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require
further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may
be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
CERTIFICA'rlONS BY THE RGU (all 3 certifications must be signed for EOB acceptance of the EAW for publication of
not/ce in the EQB Monitor)
k I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
B. I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or
project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or
"phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60.
Signature
C. I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list.
Signature
Title of signer Date
Mmn~ F.~VU'r~m~l Quality Bo~. Rcv~xl Jun~ 1990.
EXHIBIT 3
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
MARK APPROPRIATE BOX:
[~] REGULAR EAW
F-] SCOPING EAW
NOTE TO RE¥1EWERS: For regular EAWs. written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW
information, potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an ElS. For scoping EAWs, written com-
ments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. Such
comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30-day period following notice of the
EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 612/296-8253: non-metro: 1-800-652-9747. ask for envi-
ronmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30-day comment period ends.
Pelican Point
1 ,, Project Name
o
Proposer P/S Development Co.
Contact Person C/O John Adams
325 Russell Lane
Address
_L°nq Lake, MN 55356
473-5970 (H)
Phone
473-52fl8 (W)
Project Location: .'/4 '/4 Section 19
a. County Name Hennepin
b. Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW:
0
RGU City of Mound
Contact Person Jon Elam
andTitle City Manager
Address 5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
472-1155
Phone
... Township
City/'T,~.~xlxil~ Name
117 .Range 23
Mound
1. a county map showing the general area of the project.
2. a copy(les) of USGS 71/2 minute, 1:24.000 scale map.
3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of flood plain.
wetlands, wells, etc.
4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area, if available.
Describe the proposed project completely (attach additional sheets as necessary).
The project consists of three 8 story luxury condominium buildings (42 units/
bldg.) with a total of 126 units, 60 boat slips on Lake Minnetonka, 315
parking spaces (2/unit enclosed, 0.5/unit open), tennis courts, indoor swim-
ming pools, putting green, pathways and other amenities. The project will be
developed in 3 phases over about 4 years. Phase one, being the center build-
ing, will slart construclion in mid-1985 with occupancy in 1986. Project
completion is anticipated to be in early 1989.
1
8.
9.
10.
11.
Reason for EAW preparation: Discre t ionary
Listallmandatorycalegoryrule~"swhichapply:.. 6 t'ICA~ :~.040
Estimated construction cost $30,000 ~ 000
Total project area (acres)
Number of residential units.
16.0 +- acres
or length (miles) NA
126
or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage NA
Number of proposed parking spaces 315
List all known local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required:
Level of Government Type of Application Status
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
DNR
Federal: LMCD
State: Minnehaha Water-
shed
MPCA
Mn Dept. Health
Local: City off Mound
-Bridge
-Docks
-Grading/Drainage
-Sanitary Sewer
-Watermain
-Site Plan, Plat, Bldgs, Util.,
comprehensive plan change,rezoning
-Pending
-Pending
-Pending
-Pending
-Pending
-Pending
Met Council -comprehensive plan amendment ,.. ,, .. ,.- -Pending
Is the proposed project inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use
plan or any other adopted plans? O No [] Yes
If yes, explain: The land use plan identifies the site as low density residential
and the zoning is presently R-1 single family. The City of Mound supports
a land use plan amendment to multifamily and a zoning change to R-4. The
project will be p..rocessed as a Planned Development Area.
Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site.
The site ~vas used as a summer residence in the past. Currently, only a shed
remains and the site is unused. To the west across Tuxedo' Boulevard exists
neighborhood commercial, single and two-family residential. Adjacent to the
north is multifamily residential. To the south is single family. Lake
Minnelonka is to the east.
Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories?
(Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.)
Before After Before After
Forest/Wooded ~.~_...0_~:P ' 9.3~ Wetland(types3-8)- ~--Ponc~ing/Sedementation basin
Cropland Impervious Surface --~~_Bldgs, parking, driveways,~
Brush/grassland .75= Other (specify) ~ ..... ~.~ennis courts.
Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known. >~Lake Peninsula (o!he r )
See attached map. Soils consist of Erin Loam, 2-24% slopes with sandy lake
beaches on lake Minnetonka. These soils ~ill support a development of the
type proposed given due respect for the steep slopes.
Does the site contain peat soils, highly erodible soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow
limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? If yes. show on site
map and explain: Steep slopes of up to 24% and a syindmill/~teil F--] No [-~ Yes
exist on the site. Development is proposed to occur on the flatter 2-12,~
slopes within the center of the site so as to protect the steep slopes
leading down to the lake. The ~indmill/~ell will be removed and capped per
state Health Department standards. Also, see discussion under item 21.
Wha! is Ihe approximate depth (in feet) to:
a. groundwaler_~mi,n. 60 ~,vg.. b. bedrock 300rain_
18.
19.
20.
I I I
L No ~ Yes
No Yes
No Yes
occur on the flatter,
Steep slopes lead-
see 19, 21, 22.
Dues any part of ibc project area involve:
a. shoreland zonin~ dislricl?
b. delineated lO0-year flood pl.
c. state or federally designated river land use district?
If yes. identify water body and applicable state classificalion(s), and describe measures
p, rotect waler, and,related land resources:
ake Ninneconka is adjacent to the site. Development ~ill
upper area of the site a minimum of 100 ft. from the lake.
lng to the lake ~ill be protected and no~ developed. Also,
Describe any physical aJleralion (e.g., dikes, excavation, fill. stream diversion) of any
drainage system, la~e, stream, and/or wetland. Describe measures to minimize im-
pairment of the water-related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged
and indicate where spoils will be deposited.
Site grading ~ill direct storm ~ater run off to a proposed ponding/sedementation
basin ~ithin the site that ~ill control developed runoff rates to Lake Hinnetonka
such that they ~ill not exceed undeveloped runoff rates consistant ~ith the
standards of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
a. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? if yes, explain
(indicate quantity and source):
~ No [-] Yes
21.
22.
23.
b. Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? If yes, ex-
plain:
[] No ~:] Yes
Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and aher
construction of the project.
During construction, methods such as silt fences, deversionary dikes, sumps, etc. ~ill
be used as necessary to control potential erosion. After construction, existing
vegetation, proposed plantings and turf establishment, building and drive~ay construct
and storm se~er directing storm runoff to the ponding/sedementation area sill control
erosion.
a. Will the project generate:
1. surface and stormwa~er runoff?. -. t~ No ~1 Yes
2. sanitarywastewater? ~ No ~ Yes
3. industrial wastewater? No Yes
4. cooling water (contact and noncontac't)? No Yes
If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage),
and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. · '
A storm ~ater ponding/sedementation basin ~ill be provided to control site discharge
rates and ~ater quality to that of existing runoff. Sanitary ~aste~ater for this
residential development ~ill be approima~ely 19,845 gal./day and be picked up by
municipal sanitary se~er (2.1 people/unit; 75 gal. ~aste~ater/person; 12~ units).
b. Identify receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the
discharges listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide per-
colation/permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available.
Lake Hinnetonka ~ill receive storm ~ater runoff in a manner consistant ~ith the
standards of the Hinnehaha Creek Watershed DistriCt
Will the project generate (either during or after construction):
a. air pollution?
b. dust?
c. noise?
d. odors?
if yes, explain, including as appropriate: distances to sensitive land uses; expected lev-
els and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from st~cks, mobile
sources, and fugitive emissions (dust); odor sources; and mitigative measures for any
Impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates.
Air pollution and odors from the exhaust systems as well
U No ~ Yes
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
as noise and dust ~ill be
generated by the equipment during construction of the project. Ail equipment ~ill
be muffled and ~ater used as necessary to control dust during construction. These
concerns ~ill be eliminated upon completion of construction and establishment of
turf, housing and s~reet surfacing. Air pollutants normal to increased resident-
iai auto traffic ~ill occur. ~
3
24.
25.
26.
Describe the type and amount olid and/or hazardous waste including sludg,'
ashes that will be generated an, ,e method and location ofdlsposal: NO haz~ Joes ~/aste
Solid ~asEe ~till consisE of normal residenEial ~aste at a rate of
day (approximately 662 lbs/day for project). ~ashe ~till be
refuse collection company.
Will the project affect:
a. fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals?
b. any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, or of
special concern (animals and/or plants)?
If yes. explain (identif~ species and describe impact):
Increased boa~ ~raFfic in the docking area may impac~ fish habitat.
Docks ~ill be concentrated in a small area ~o minimize any potential
impac~.
Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project
site? If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): ~ No
· ill be generated.
about 2.5 lbs/persor
picked up by a private
ONo I ves
No 1--1 Yes
Yes
27.
Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of:
a. designated park or recreation areas?
b. prime or unique farmlands?
c. ecologically sensitive areas?
d. scenic views and vistas?
e. other unique resources (specie)?
if yes. explain:
No ~ Yes
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
28.
29.
For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT
contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic.
CounEy Road 125 -Curren~ ADT -5,200
Tt.~cedo Boulevard -Current ADT -2,750
Tuxedo Boulevard -Increase in ADT -643+- (ITE: Trip Genera[ion-Cond-.s)
Traffic ~uill generally distribute north on Tuxedo Boulevard and County Road 125, t
typically mes[ on County Road 15 [o Wayzata and Hinneapolis or eas~ to the Hound busin
Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? If not, dis~r
what additional utilities and/or services will be required? ' F-~ No l-~ Yes
Summary of Issues
For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by"yes' answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these
issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS.
I~ems 12; 16; 18.a.b.; 22.a.1 & 2; 23; 25.a. have been reviewed under their
respective headings.
CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that
copies of the completed E~.W have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list.
Signature.
Title
Date
4
14
Droke Dr.
Independence
I I I
-.,. ~/~Half Moon
'~Lake ~7
Morris~ T. Baker
Par
Lake4
Katrin
3O
Reserve
t6
North Arm Drive
Hrlnch ~ Rd,
ennings Bay
Luce
er~ r
nwQoCl
ests Ba
arrlsons
Cooks Bay
West Arm
Bay
Bay
Crystal . ~,,
Mlnnetonk;
ell
Beach
Lafayette
Bay
Bay
Lake Minnetonka
Upper Lake
Tonk;
33
rewood
Medi'na
3:3
27
Long
Lake
Smiths
Bay
Browns Bay
tS
t4
Lake Minnetonka
Lower Lake
23
[cho
Gideon
Bay
127 ·
Greenwo~
Excelsior(,
Christma.,
HENNEPIN COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
4.b.1.
Wa
c
ike
Robinsons ·
.ake
CITY
OF
MOUND
'-" #2
E
M
N
'\
N
E
//
/
/
/ ,~
/
i
i
i
I
SITE
CITY LOCATION MAP
4.b.1.
O. No. 136
ROAO
./
SECTION MAP
~.b.1.
Dutch
Point
Point
x //
'o /
~0
Phelps
Island
Cedar Point
'-./O~ - . ' .
~ .. ¢ ~ . ~'
%..%
.-' / .". ,.':"---,0 /"-%( h~,?)~/ ~\lsland," - -
MOUND QUADRA~-bLE :'
SCALE 1:24
I
* ' DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL L C~gVgA ~0 I --
,Black Lake
Island' -
Park
( ~ Goose
\', ~ Island
/30 ~- Spray
Islan(
Island
SHOREWO
U.S.G.S. MAP
4 .b .2.
I IJ I
TUXEDO Bt..,. ~VARD
8TOI:~
LAKE MINNETONKA
SITE ,-
AERIAL PHOTO
4.b.3.
R-2
L A K [ M. I N N E TONKA
ZONING MAP
R-1 Single Family 10,OOOsq. ft.
R.2Single Family 6,000sq. ft.
R.3Two Fam~
R-4Multi Family
B.I Central Business
B-2General Business
B'3Neighborhood Business
,btJndustrial
:?
/
SITE/
BIBIBI
north
Mound, Minnesota
Revised I-2-83 Revised 8-25-83
ZONING MAP
~q
SOILS MAP
ITEM 15
I IL _ i
A. THOMAS WURST, P.A.
CURTIS A PEARSON, P.A,
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A.
CRAIG H.
ROGER ~. FELLOWS
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ME:RTZ
ON[ F'INANC]A,~[~/~Ze,~I~, St~,[~I~I~· IIOO
120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1803
March 1, 1993
REC'O MAR g. lgg3
(~12) 338 - ~.~00
Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Mound, Minnesota
Re: Teal Pointe - EAW
Greetings:
Neil Weber called me a day or two after our last meeting regarding
some rumors he had heard about what transpired at the Council meeting. I
told him the Council was interested in learning more about the EAW process.
I have asked him for a copy of the instruction sheet and a copy of the permit
request.
! am sending each of you a copy of the EAW form. Please note that
the form is being filled out by the City of Mound, and in this case Nell is
working with Mark Koegler and is trying to provide as much of the
information as possible to try to minimize his expenses. When it is
completed, the City will submit the matter to the EQB and there will be a
publication opening a 30 day comment period. I would think once it is
completed by Mound and Mr. Weber it could be circulated to any commission
that the Council wishes to review the matter. There will be plenty of time
to obtain comments, and obviously people can reply to the EQM. Hopefully
this will simplify the matter for the Council.
CAP:ih
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager
Very truly ~:~
~urtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 62-1993
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF LAND IN MOUND BY DISTRICTS
INCLUDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE LOCATION, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHT
OF BUILDINGS, THE ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE
DENSITY OF POPULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
CITIZENS OF MOUND
(BEING THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MOUND)
This ordinance amends Ordinance #422 (Appendix B, Mound Code of Ordinances) by modifying
and replacing Ordinance #422 with Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 350 - Zoning
Regulations, Subsections 100 through 1100. The Ordinance also adds Section 350, Subdivision
1200 which is entitled Shoreland Management. Subsections 100 through 1100 are designed to
regulate the use of land in Mound by districts for the purpose of promoting the public health,
safety, order, convenience and general welfare of the Citizens of Mound. Section 1200 is
designed to protect shorelands and bluff areas within the City of Mound and to implement
certain shoreland management requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Section 350, Subsections 100 through 1100: The Ordinance specifically adds and modifies
words and phrases used in the body of the Ordinance. The Ordinance regulates the placement
of sheds and buildings less than 120 square feet in size. The Ordinance modifies allowable front
yard encroachments. The Ordinance modifies the required setbacks for residential properties
abutting alleys or fire lanes not exceeding 15 feet in width. The Ordinance requires that all lots
and parcels have direct access of a specific length on an improved public roadway. The
Ordinance modifies the provisions allowing the construction of fences in all zoning districts.
The Ordinance limits the allowable number of variance extensions.
The Ordinance renames the residential zoning districts as follows: R-2 is now known as R-lA,
R-3 is now known as R-2 and R-4 is now known as R-3. The Ordinance limits the amount of
impervious cover to 30% within residential zones. The Ordinance modifies the required lot area
and lot width for two family dwellings and twin homes. The Ordinance lists all allowable uses
for each zoning district in chart form. The Ordinance modifies permitted accessory uses in
residential district. The Ordinance places restrictions on the location of hot tubs. The
Ordinance identifies minimum requirements for landscaping for commercial, industrial,
institutional and multiple family residential uses. The Ordinance promotes diversity of types of
residential structures and places restrictions on acceptable materials for commercial and
industrial structures.
Section 350, Subsection 1200: This Ordinance is applicable to all property within the City of
Mound which is within one thousand (1,000) feet of Lake Minnetonka, Dutch Lake, Lake
Langdon, Lost Lake and/or Saunders Lake. The Ordinance requires that copies of all notices
to consider variances, subdivisions and conditional use permits for shoreland district properties
be sent to the Department of Natural Resources for review and comment. It also sets standards
establishes new structure setbacks from the top of a bluff, unplatted cemeteries, bluff impact
zones and street rights-of-way. The Ordinance allows specific types of water-oriented accessory
structures. The Ordinance regulates what may be located in the shoreland setback zone,
including fences, retaining walls, stairways, lifts and landings.
The Ordinance regulates shoreland alterations, including removal of vegetation, clear cutting,
grading and filling, and other topographical alterations. The Ordinance establishes criteria to
regulate the location and use of roads and parldng areas within the shoreland areas and regulates
the elevation of the lowest floors of structures. The Ordinance contains special provisions
applying to commercial, industrial, public/semi-public, agricultural and forestry uses. The
Ordinance regulates nonconformities and contains evaluation criteria for the issuance of
conditional use permits. The Ordinance contains Planned Development Area standards which
contain provisions effecting lot size, density, design criteria, open space requirements, erosion
control and stormwater management.
This Ordinance shall take effect from and after passage and publication thereof.
This Ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota on February
23, 1993. The Summary was adopted by the City Council on March 9, 1993.
This summary of the ordinance adopted on February 23, 1993, has been reviewed and is
approved by this Council for publication and determines that the summary ordinance clearly
informs the public of the intent and effect of the adopted Zoning/Shoreland Management
Ordinance.
A printed copy of the entire text of the Mound Code of Ordinances Section 350, Subsections 100
through 1200 is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk (8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., Monday thru Friday). A printed copy of the entire
text of the Mound Code of Ordinances Section 350, Subsections 100 through 1200 and the
revised Zoning Map as published herewith is also posted in the Westonka Branch of the
Hennepin County Library, 2079 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Publish in The Laker - March 15, 1993
,, ! I I, I
I I I
CITY of MOUND
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
534~ MA'/WOOD R(.,AD
612 472 0600
FAX {6!2~a7~ 0620
CASE NO. 93-006
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AN OPEN SALES LOT AT HARRISON BAY HOBIL, 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE,
IN THE B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will
meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
April 13, 1993 to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for
Harrison Bay Mobil to operate an Open Sales Lot which is defined by the Mound
Zoning Ordinance as "Any land used or occupied for the purpose of buying and
elling goods, materials, or merchandise and for the storing of same under
le open sky prior to sale." The application specifically states that the
materials for sale will be automobiles. This operation is proposed for the
property at 4831 Shoreline Drive, legally described as:
Lots 1 to 4 inclusive and Lots 20 and 21, and that part of the
vacated alley lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from the
Northwest corner of Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of Lot 20, all in
Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, PID $13-117-24 44 0014.
Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Published in "The Laker" 3-22-93 and mailed to property owners within 350' by
26-93.
~.,4~ h,'~ ,WOOD
L'~'7 . ",, Z' B,'h N NE$OTA
March 1, 1993
FOR THE MARCH 9, 1993, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
LICENSE RENEWALS - EXPIRES 3/31/93
TREE REMOVAL
NEW LICENSE PERIOD
4/1/93 TO 3/31/94
Approval contingent upon all required forms,
insurance, etc., being provided.
Aaspen Tree Service
Robert F. Dahlke
Eklunds Tree
Emery's Tree Service
Lutz Tree Service
Shorewood Tree
The Tree Stump Co.
NEW LICENSE - Approval contingent upon all required forms,
insurance, etc, being provided.
PUBLIC DANCE - License Period 3/15/93 to 3/14/94
Headliners Bar & Grill
BILLS
-March 09, 1993
BATCH 3024
TOTAL BILLS
$89,849.67
$89,849.67
Z
0
O
·
! !
O0
o ~o
',r -')
,,;. ~. ..
Z
0
,cD
..l
Z
I
! I
oo
! !
.-4
1
8
CITY of ,XlOLr
March 2, 1993
To:
From:
Subject:
Ed Shulke
City Manager
Greg Skinner
Public Works
February Activity Report
Water Department
In February we pumped 27,738,000 gallons of water. We had 4
watermain breaks. The bulk of our time was spent on meter
repair and locate's. We did get some pumphouse maintenance
completed also. I have been wanting to abandon Well #4 in
Three Points for last few years, but the DNR has been using
this to monitor water levels. Last month the DNR televised
the well and I have received their report and video tape of
the well's condition. In my discussions with the DNR they
will not be using this well for testing any more. I will be
meeting with Stevens Well Company to review the video and
than decide what action will be taken.
Sewer Department
This month we had 1 forcemain break on Arbor Lane. Scott
spent one week helping the Water Department with meter
reading and 4 days working in the shop with equipment repair.
Damon spent time working in the pumphouse's with the chemical
equipment.
Street Department
This was a busy month for us. We plowed snow twice and just
sanded twice. We mixed 100 tons of salt sand. I hope this
will be the last mix for the winter. No parking signs and two
stop signs were installed at Fairview Ln. and Maywood Rd.
Additional sign work was also done. Road restriction will be
in effect starting March 15, .1993. As in the past we will not
issue any permits. We began tree trimming and chipping in
Island Park.
Shop
We replaced bearings and repaired two sanders. The chipper
required some repairs and blade sharpening. Unit #6 was sent
out for rear spring repair. Unit #8 was sent to Gary's for a
complete brake job.
In the past the City has been leasing it's gas welding tanks
from a Company called Genex in Minneapolis. We were paying
$670.00 a year for the lease. I felt that this was out of
line. We now have a lease program with Toll Welding in
Wayzata. We now have a 6 year lease for $870.00.
There is a few differences between the two lease programs as
far as what you get for your money. But the bottom line is
that we now have a lease that we a happy with and a cost
saving of about $2,500 over the 6 years.
I I
CITY of MOUND
March 3, 1993
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR ~,/(
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 1993 MONTHLY REPORT
If I didn't have a calendar, I could still tell when February
arrived because this is the time of the year when the beer
distributors raise the prices of their goods. Just like clockwork.
This time, however, it is only the major companies, (Miller,
Anheuser-Bush and Stroh's) who are doing the major gouging. So
far, the smaller players (Pabst and G. Heilman) are holding back.
Probably, in an attempt to hold their spot in the market share.
Our retail prices went up to our customers by about 25 cents a 12
pack and 50 cents a case. Now, if the beer wholesalers figures
continue to decline, we may see them roll these prices back come
spring.
Speaking of beer, the State is getting very particular as to
how municipals pay for their beer. Private liquor stores are all
on a C.O.D. basis. Municipals have a 30 day grace period. In the
past, our distributors would send us a statement after the first of
the month for merchandise received the preceding month. Thus, some
of our shipments were taking 45 days to get paid. For example; if
we received beer on February 1st, the distributor wouldn't get out
their statement to us until about March 7th. Then, depending upon
when the Council met and approved bills, the beer distributor may
not get paid for the beer they sent us February 1st until about the
middle of March. Technically, we were in violation. Now we are
under strict orders to make sure all invoices go no longer than 30
days. What this does is create extra work for Dee Schwalbe. She
now pays by invoice and not be statement. There is one huge
advantage for us in all of this confusion. Usually, (95% of the
time) beer deals to us end at the end of the month. I always
inventory enough of a certain package to carry us through a whole
month. The purpose being so that we don't have to be raising and
then lowering our prices all the time. This way our prices are
always consistently low. This gives us an edge over our
competitors who don't have the storage capability. In the past, if
we ordered beer for example on February 28th, that beer was being
paid for in "less" than 30 days, because we paid off a monthly
statement. Now when I load in at the end of a given month, that
particular invoice will not be paid until 30 days have elapsed.
This is wonderful because our biggest beer bills are the ones that
I order at the end of each month. I wish to thank Dee for her
understanding, cooperation and patience on this matter.
JK:ls
()[ ,\I(
D&TE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECTI
MARCH 4, 1993
CITY MANAGER
CITY CLERK
FEBRUARY MONTHLY REPORT
There were two regular Council Meetings in February. There was
agenda preparation, minutes, 11 resolutions, 1 ordinance and
clean-up items from the two meetings.
I am continuing to input the 1993 minutes (resolutions and motions)
on the Clerk's Index Program.
Cigarette and Garbage Hauler Licenses were issued.
The sales and burials in the Cemetery in the last part of 1992 and
the beginning of 1993 have been inputted into the computer.
I completed my annual report which was presented at the February
23rd Meeting.
Several members of the MCFOA Elections Committee and myself met
with the Secretary of State's Office regarding upcoming legislation
on elections. We are continuing to monitor proposed bills dealing
with the following: Presidential Primary by mail; absentee
balloting; uniform election day; and a general housekeeping bill.
There were the usual calls and questions from citizens regarding
various subjects.
fc
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
Len Harrell
Monthly Report for February 1993
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 942 calls for
service during the month of February. There were 24
Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2
criminal sexual conducts, 3 burglaries, 14 larcenies, 4
vehicle thefts and 1 arson.
There were 46 Part II offenses reported. Those
offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF
check, 2 narcotics, 5 damage to property, 1 liquor law
violation, 6 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 7 domestics (4
with assaults), 8 harassments, 5 juvenile status
offenses and 5 other offense.
The patrol division issued 120 adult citations and 3
juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for
an additional 68 tickets. Warnings were issued to 44
individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 3 juveniles arrested for felonies. There
were 11 adults and 4 juveniles arrested for
misdemeanors. There were an additional 11 warrant
arrests.
The department assisted in 7 vehicular accidents, 2
with injuries. There were 33 medical emergencies and
50 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on
7 occasions in February and requested assistance two
times.
Property valued at $29,193 was stolen and $10,455 was
recovered in February.
I I I
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - FEBRUARY 1993
II.
III.
IV.
Vo
INVESTIGATION
The investigators had a very busy February. Eight
child protection issues and 4 criminal sexual conduct
cases were investigated, accounting for 71 plus hours
of time. In addition, a large vehicle theft ring was
discovered in which 5 stolen snowmobiles were recovered
and parts of three cars. Charges are pending for
several suspects. Other cases included assault, theft,
arson, liquor violations, burglary, NSF/forgery, theft
by swindle, and assistance in executing warrants with
the State Patrol and Hennepin County Narcotics.
One formal complaint was issued for possession of drug
paraphernalia.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 71 hours of overtime
during the month of February. Officers used 45 hours
of comp-time, 48 hours of vacation, 64 hours of sick
time, and 8 holidays. Officers earned 49 hours of
comp-time.
Off. Niccum had knee surgery which accounted for a
large portion of the sick time.
Both new officers are now working on their own and we
are finally getting back to full strength.
Training
officers attended six days of training during the
month. The training included "Advanced Driving
Techniques,,, Wilson Leadership course, and the Traffic
Institute.
Sgt. John McKinley is presently attending the Southern
Police Institute, Administrative Officers Course in
Louisville, KY.
Police Reserves
The Reserves donated 427 hours during February.
OFFENSES
REPORTED
CLEARED
UNFOUNDED
FEBRUARY
EXCEPT.
CLEARED
1993
CLEARED BY
ARREST
ARRESTED
ADULT JUVENILE
PART I CRIMES
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 2 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0
Burglary 3 1 1 0
Larceny 14 0 2 1
Vehicle Theft 4 0 0 0
Arson 1 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
TOTAL 24 1 3 1 0
PART Il CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 3 2 0 1 1
Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 5 0 0 0 0
Weapons 0 0 0 0 0
Narcotics 2 0 0 2 2
Liquor Laws 1 0 1 0 0
DWI 6 0 0 6 6
Simple Assault 3 0 2 0 0
Domestic Assault 4 0 0 1 1
Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0 0
Harassment 8 0 2 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 5 0 1 4 0
Public Peace 0 0 0 0 0
Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Offenses 5 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 46 2 6 15 11
PART Ill & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 5
Personal Injury Accidents 2
Fatal Accidents 0
Medica[s 33
Animal Complaints 50
Mutual Aid 7
Other General Investigations 774
TOTAL 871
Hennepin County Child Protection 1
TOTAL 942
16
11
1
I I I
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
FEBRUARY 1993
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS
MONTH
Hazardous Citations 61
Non-Hazardous Citations 47
Hazardous Warnings 21
Non-Hazardous Warnings 14
Verbal Warnings 202
Parking Citations 68
DWI 6
Over .10 3
Property Damage Accidents 5
Personal Injury Accidents 2
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 0
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 20
Adult Misdemeanor Citations 0
Juvenile Felony Arrests 4
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 5
Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 0
Part I Offenses 24
Part II Offenses 46
Medicals 33
Animmal Complaints 50
Other Public Contacts 774
YEAR TO
DATE
114
100
37
30
307
111
14
9
15
3
0
4
42
0
5
7
1
40
85
57
122
1,211
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
82
43
12
67
211
198
6
2
15
4
0
12
39
7
2
11
4
34
108
47
154
889
TOTAL 1,385
Assists 49
Follow-Ups 23
Henn. County Child Protection 1
Mutual Aid Given 7
Mutual Aid Requested 2
2,314
83
33
5
18
2
1,947
112
40
12
15
9
CITATIONS
DWI
More than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired, or No Plates
Illegal Passing
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
MV/ATV
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
FEBRUARY 1993
ADULT
6
3
6
10
0
48
0
0
9
0
4
0
1
0
25
0
1
68
0
1
1
1
0
188
JUV
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
! I I
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
FEBRUARY 1993
WARNINGS
No Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony Warrant
Misdemeanor Warrants
ADULT
0
19
9
0
5
5
1
0
0
2
41
0
9
JUV
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
Run: 2-Mar-93 14:52 PRO03
Primary ISN,s only: No
Date Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
Activity codes: ALL
Property Status: All
Property Types: ALL
Property Descs: ALL
Brands: All
Models: ALt
O~ficer$/Badges: ALL
MO~JND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Page
Prop Prop [nc no [SN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov,d Value
Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Code Assnd Assnd
5 Prop type Totals: 1
C Prop type Totals: 105
E Prop type Totals: 16
H Prop type Totals: 977
! Prop type Totals: 25,500
R Prop type Totals: 428
S Prop type Totals: 1,348
T Prop type Totals: 618
~ Prop type Totals: 200
**** Report Totals: 29,193
10,000
428
0
11
0
10,455
0 1.000
0 1.000
16 1.000
0 2.000
6.000
1.000
4.000
5.000
4.000
25.000
I ! I
Run: 2-Mar-93 9:57 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
Ti~- range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: Att
Officers/Sadges: Att
Grids: ALL
Patrol Areas: A{l
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9000 SPEEDING 48
9001 J-SPEEDING 1
9006 TEST REFUSAL 3
9014 STOP SIGN 4
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 1
9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 6
9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 1
~ ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 1
9040 NO SEATBELT 1
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 5
9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 63
9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 10
9201 J-DAS/DAR/DAC 1
9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9
9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 25
9221 J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 1
9301 LOST PERSONS 1
9303 lOST/ ALL OTHER 1
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 15
9~'~' FOUND PROPERTY 6
9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 2
9420 DERELICT AUTO 1
Page
Run: 2-Mar-93 9:57 CFS08
Primary ISN~s only: No
Date Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions: AlL
Officers/Badges: ALL
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCR I PT I ON ! NC !DENTS
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 2
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 5
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1
9567 DANGEROUS DOG 1
9710 MED!CAL/ASU 5
9730 MED ICALS 27
9731 MEDI CALS/DX 1
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 3
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 3
9900 ALL HCCP CASES 1
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 4
9920 !NSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1
9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 6
9945 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 3
9950 INFO/INT 1
9980 ~ARRANTS 12
9990 M!SC. V!OLATIONS 4
9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 2
9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 3
9994 MUTUAL A!D/ ALL OTHER 1
9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS 1
A5351 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 4
Page
,; ! I I I
Run: 2-Mar-93 9:57 CF$08
Primary ISN~s only: No
Dat~.Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
T' nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: Alt
Grids: Alt
Patrol Areas: Alt
Days of the week: Alt
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Ca[Is For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT 8D HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC 1
A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM
A5355 ASLT 5-1NFL|CTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 2
81230 BURG I-OCC RES NO FRC-D-UN WEAP-UNK ACT 1
B3394 BURG 3'UNOCC RES FRC'U-UNK WEAP'COM THEFT 1
B3494 BURG 3'UNOCC RES NO FRC'U'UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1
C3~ FORGERY'MS-UTT POSSESS PLACE'CHECK'PERSON 1
D2440 DRUGS-SCH 1 NON NARC-POS SEL-MARIJU-UNK CHAR 1
D4570 DRUGS-SCN 2 NON NARC-POSSESS-AMPHET-UNK CHAR
E4700 ESC-GM-FLEE AN OFFICER 1
F2260 ARSON 2-UNiNHAB-NO WEA-PUB BLDG-UNK LOSS 1
J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER ]NFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 2
J2FO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 2HR-UNK [NJ-UNK VEH 1
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DR]VE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 4
J3FO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 2HR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2
L7004 CSC 4-UNK ACT-UNK ASSA[L-13-15-M 1
L7053 CSC 4-UNK ACT-POS AUTH-13-15-F 1
M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 1
M3003 JUVENILE-HABITUAL TRUANT 1
M5 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 4
N3190 D[STURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUN[CAT[ONS
;3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PR[VATE-UNK ]NTENT
Page 3
Run: 2-Mar-93 9:57 CFS08
Primary ISN~s on[y: No
Date Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions: Att
Officers/Badges: Att
Grids: Att
Parrot Areas: Att
Days of the week: Att
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Carts For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBL[C-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
P3120
P3130
TC029
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TF061 THEFT'201-5OO-GM-MAILS-MONEY
TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BU]LDING-MONEY
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-FISHOUSES-OTH PROP
THEFT-FE-BY SWINDLE OR TR]CK'$2501-$19999
THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS
VEH THEFT-FE-OVER 2500-SNOWMOBILE
VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOgMOB]LE
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
TG189
U1062
U3288
V1024
VA024
**** Report Totats:
359
Page
I I
Run: 1-Mar-93 10:26 OFF01 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Primary ISN~s only: No Enfors Offense Report
Date Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
T( -ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges: All
Grids:
Page 1
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX-
CODE DESCRIPTION PERCENT
....... REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 4 0 4 3 1 0 0 1 25.0
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
A5354 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
A5355 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0
B1230 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-D-UN WEAP-UNK ACT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
C3211 FORGERY-MS-UTT POSSESS PLACE-CHECK-PERSON 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
D2~ DRUGS-SCH 1 NON NARC-POS SEL-MARIJU-UNK CHAR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
D4570 DRUGS-SCH 2 NON NARC-POSSESS-AMPHET-UNK CHAR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
E4700 ESC-GM-FLEE AN OFFICER 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100,0
F2260 ARSON 2-UNINNAB-NO WEA-PUB BLDG-UNK LOSS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0,0
J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100,0
J2FO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 2HR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 0 1 0 ~) 0 0 1 100.0
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0
J3FO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 2HR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 0 2 0 '8 0 0 2 100.0
L7004 CSC 4-UNK ACT-UNK ASSAIL-13-15-M 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
L7053 CSC 4'UNK ACT-POS AUTN-13-15-F 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
M3003 JUVENILE-HABITUAL TRUANT 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
MS~ JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 4 0 4 0 0 3 1 4 100,0
~3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 8 0 8 6 0 0 2 2 25.0
:3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 1-Mar-93 10:26 OFF01
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 01/26/93 - 02/25/93
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: Ali
Officers/Badges: At[
Grids: AIl
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TF061 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MAILS-MONEY
TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TG189 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-FISHOUSES-OTH PROP
U1062 THEFT-FE-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-$2501-$19999
U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS
V1024 VEH THEFT-FE-OVER 2500-SNOI~MOBILE
VA024 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SN(7~IMOB[LE
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 r
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 100.0
I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
**** Report Totats:
66 3 63 35 14 5 9 28 44.4
CITY of X, IOUND
t612 4-2 060C
FAX~6~2 -'72 062:
FEBRUARY 1993 PARKS DEPARTMENT REPORT
General Comment
February was consumed by work on the Dean Hanus trial,
completion of the shoreline rip rap project, Jennings Cove
excavation of vegetation to allow boat navigation and my vacation
out west skiing.
The dock applications began to come back for renewal at a
large number. The majority of site holders wait until the last day
to send in their applications.
As always, this is a time of the year where we get a lot of
calls from realtors and people looking at properties abutting
docking areas.
Parks
I have had confirmation from all of the 1992 seasonal staff
that they will be returning in 1993. This always makes for a
better start up for the summer season because the staff is already
to go to work without orientation to the machines and property
locations.
JF:ls
04-Mar-93
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
FEBRUARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
INVESTMENTS
The following is the February investment activity:
Bought: CP 3.12
CP 3.17
CD 3.50
Dain Bosworth Due 04-05-93 198,967
Shearson Due 04-12-93 397,900
Norwest Due 08-25-93 200,000
Matured:
CD 7.00 Norwest (100,000)
CP 3.21 Shearson (498,489)
CP 6.55 Dain Bosworth (156,128)
Balance:: February 31;1993
Refunding Bonds
The refunding bond sale has been awarded to FBS at a rate of 4.55.
Both Moody's Investors and Standard & Poor's Corporation assigned
the bonds a rating of 'A'.
The process went well. Springsted did an excellent job all the way through.
Insurance Plan for 1993
With the assistance of all the city departments, the information necessary
to put together the 1993 Insurance Plan has been completed.
Carl Bennetsen of R. L. Youngdahl & Associates was very helpful
in the process.
I I I
CIT ' of
MOUND
FAX 6~2,472 562'8
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 4, 1993
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
FEBRUARY 1993 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
In February, five building permits were issued for a value of
$93,135. There were 15 plumbing, mechanical and miscellaneous
permits issued for a total of 20 permits this month.
PLANNING AND ZONING
The Zoning Code Modifications and Shoreland Management Ordinance
have been approved by the City Council. City planner, Mark
Koegler, is to prepare a summary ordinance for publication in "The
Laker" and it will soon be in effect. Review of the proposed Truth
in Housing Ordinance is continuing at the planning commission level
and the proposed rental regulations are still being reviewed by the
task force. Also considered by staff, Planning Commission, and
City Council were the usual number of variance cases.
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND MEETINGS
I attended a Floodplain Workshop sponsored by the DNR for local
government agencies.
JS:pj
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: FEBRUARY Year: 1993
· n~o tavtr~'n YEAR TO DATE
~ t PER. frs t uNrrs V~LU^T~ON t o~ V~UA~ON
~0~
SINGLE F~Y O~ACH~ 2 2 2 8,5 3 5
s~o~ ~mv n~AC~ED (CON~)
~O F~Y / DU~
~L~E F~v 0 OR MO~ UN~)
8~ 2 228,535
~ t P~ V~UA~N t ~ V~UA~ON
~C~ ~TA~
O~C~ / ~O~S{ON~
~U~
XOm ~ ~ V~UA~O~ ~ ~ V~UA~O~
~U~O~S ~ ~C~ ~U~O 2 50,000 3 53,000
D~ACH~ A~SORY BU~D~OS I 13,91~ ~ I 13,91~
D~
~U~US ~OU~U 1 3,000 7 28,000
~ ~ 66,91~ 11 94,91~
TZOS t e~ v~un~n t P~ V~UA~O~
~C~ / ~ 2 11,545
O~CE / ~O~SION~
mDU~ 1 26,221 I 26,221
PUBLIC /
D~AC~ A~ORY
~H~:
S~ 1 26,221 3 37,766
D~OLITION8 ! e~ I UN~ V~UA~ON t P~S V~UAT{ON
~E~ D~GS
D~AC~D A~SORY BU~D~OS
NON-R~E~
~ D~LXTIONS
~RSIONS/C~OE OF USE ~ P~ ~ UN~ V~UA~ON ~ I P~ffS V~UA~N
~O~O:
~ CO~RSXON$
~ P~ ~ UN~ V~UA~ON ~ V~UATION
TOT~ ~ ~, ~
· 361,215
· 16
P~XT ~ ~ MO~ YE~-~DATE
· BU~D~O 5 ~ 6
~C~ ~ ~ W~ 0 ]
S~ONS 1 3
~mo 12 20
M~H~C~ 2 8
o~o 0 0
~w. ~ ~XCAV., F~, ~C. 0 2
~ 20 50
MOUND VOLUNIEER F1RE
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1993
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
2/I:~8/93 ~ ~ ~ l~II~. ~ I ~
2/15/9~' W~E5 IiXBS ~ RAqZ
1 ~F ~ X 'X 2 19.~ ~ 38 6.~ 228.~
2 G~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 0 33 6~ 198.~
3 J~Y ~B X X 2 19.~ 2 16 6.~ 96.~
4 DAV~ ~ X ~ 1 9.50 O 13 6.~ 78.~
5 ~ BRYCE X X 2 19.~ O 20 6.50 1~.~
6 S~ BRYCE X X 2 19.~ 2{ 16 ~,~ 96.~
7 DA~ ~N X X 2 19.~ 2 19 6.~ 114.~
8 J~ C~ ~ X 1 9.50 2 22 6.~ 132.~
9 S~ COLU~ X ~ 1 9.50 2 10 6,~ ~.~
l0 ~Y ~ X X 2 19.~ 0 7 6.~ 42.~ ,.
[1 S~ ~N X X 2 19.~ 0 29 625 181.25
12 P~L FI~ X X 2 19.~ 2% 13 6.~ 78.~
13 G~ ~V~S X X 2 19.~ 2 22 6.~ 132.~
14 D~ O~ X X 2 19.~ 5% 41 6.~ 246.~
15 K~m G~ X ~ 1 9.50 0 19 6.~ 114.~
16 CRAT~ ~g~ ~ X 1 9.50 4 26 6.~ 156.~
X X 2 19.~ ~ 17 6.~ 102.~
17 p~, ~y
X X 2 19 .~ 2~ 23 6.~ 138.~
18 n~ I~
X X 2 19 .~ 4~ 18 6~ 108.~
19 R~
X X 2 19 .~ 1~ 26 6.~ 156.~
20 j~
21 d~ ~-~ X X 2 19.~ 2~ 22 6.~ 132.~
22 ~V ~-q~ ~ X I 9.50 0 14 6.~ 84.~
23 B~ ~ ~ X 1 9.50 2 18 6.~ 108.~
24 G~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 20 6.~ 120.~
25 M~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 0 25 6.~ 150.~
26 T~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 28 6.~ 168.~
27 G~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 20 6.~ 120.~
28 T~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 18 6.~ 108.~
29 M~ ~VA~ X X 2 19.~ 16 22 6.~ 132.~
~ ~ SIP~n,L X X 2 19.~ 0 32 6.~ 192.~
31 R~ S~ ~ X I 9.50 9 16 6.~ 96.~
32 T~ S~ X ~ 1 9.50 2 18 6.~ 108.~
33 ~ ~N ~ X 1 9.50 I 11 6.~ 66.~
~ ED V~ X X 2 19.~ 2 34 6,~ 204.~
]~ RI~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 6 18 6,~ 108.~
~ T~ W~LI~ X X 2 19.~ 2 21 6.~ 126.c'~
37 D~S ~ X X 2 19.~ 5 23 6.~ 138.~)
31 33 64
~ '7% ~S:82~S 1~ ~ 608.~ 98~ ~S 788 Ires ~ 4,745.25
160 ~S ~nls ~.~
98!~ ~S ~ .. 1,167.~
~ 6,520.25
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
MON/H MON/M TO DATE TO DATE
MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1993
NO. OF CALLS
40 29 69 75
MOUND FIRE
EM~:RGENOY 14 14 28 2q
MINNETONKA BEACH .FIRE
EMI~GENCY
MINNETRISTA FIRE
ORONO .F,IRE ~ 0 6 Z
., m~mom~c~ Z 2 4 o
SHOREWOOD ?,~RE 0 0 0 0
m'~IZGENOY O 0 0
SPRING PARK FIRE 2 3 ~ ?
I~.I~RGENCY 3 ! 4 9
MUTUAL AID STAND BY FOKFIRE 1 0
· O~A~ ~E CA~S
TOTA~ E~EROENC¥ C^~S
CO~Cl~ ~ 0 ~ 4
RESIDENTIAL 7 ~ 10 ] ?
INDOSTRIAL 0 0 0 1
.GR~. ,$ & M~SCELLANFDUS 1 1 2 2
,AtrrO 0 O O 1
FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS ~ 7 12 10
NO. OF HOURS FIRE 202 178 380 427
- MOUND I~GE~ 250 Z~ 518 571
TOTAL 452 445 898 998
FIRE 19 ~ 25 56
- MTKA BEACH ~I~ERGENCY O 0 0 0
TOTAL 19 6 25 56
FIRE 11 0 11 117
- M' TRISTA ~IERGE~ 26 0 26 118
IOTAL 37 0 37 235
F!RE 125 0 125 33
- ORONO I~GENCY 41 29 70 0
TOTAL 166 29 195 33
.FIRE 0 0 0 0
- SHOREWOOD I~4I~GIg~CY 0 0 0 16
TOTAL 0 0 0 16
F.IRE 34 56 90 121
SP. PARK .MsfERGENCY 50 24. 74 189
TOTAL 84 80 164 310
FIRE 30 0 30 0
- blJTUAL AID EMERGI~qCY 0 30 30 0
TOTAL 30 30 60 0
TOTAL DRILL HOURS 160 160 320 342½
TOTAL FIRE HOURS 421 240 661 754
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 367 351 718' 894
_
TOTAL FIRE & EM~GENCY }IDURS 788 591 1379 1648
MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 0 0 1
MUTUAL AID OIVEN 0 1 1 0
DATE
MOUND F~IRE DEpAR%'MENT
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF
MEN ON DUTY
~ J. ANDERSEN
0 G. ANDERSON
~ J. BABB
0 D. BOYD
O ._ D. BRYCE
..2~ S. BRYCE
_.g D. CARLSON
~,~ J. CASEY
___~___ S. COLLINS
d~) R. ENGELHART
~ S. ERICKSON
~ P. riSK
~ J. GARVAIS
6=,~ D. GRADY
dP K. GRADY
_ ~ C. HENDERSON
R. MARSCHKE
/~=~,_ J. NAFUS
o2.~z_. ~. NELSON
D M. NELSON
& ~. NICCUM
~ G. PALM
f'~ M. PALM
.~_ T. PALM
~. G. PEDERSON
~ ~. ~ASXOSS~N
/~ ~. SAVAGE
~ K. SIPPRELL
. ~ R. STALLMAN
~ z. SWANSON
/ W. SWENSON
~ ~ E. VANECEK
_ ~ R. WILLIAMS
~ T. WILLIAMS
~ D. WOYTCKE
TOTAl, blONT}ILY HOURS
bDUND FIRE DEPARll~II'~I'
Discipline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
Pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained b~asks
X
Ptm~per Operation
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
llouse Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
I_adder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
ltouse Evolutions
Nozzles & }lose Appliance
}Burs Training Paid :
M Excused
X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid
PERSONNEL
J. Andersen
G Anderson
J Babb
~ D. Boyd
tjD. Bryce~
S. Bryce
Ca rl son -~
i Casey
~RS. Collins
· ~gelhar t
~J~S. Erickson~-
~/~. P. Fisk
~J/~J. Garvais
t D. Grady
!Grady
Henderson
Henry
Landsn~n
Marschke
Nafus
i' Nelson
· Nelson
Niccum
~--~f'Z G i Palm
zKs.
'-%Y-r/~-T. Palm
,.G. Pederson
T. Rasmussen
~.. Savage
· Sipprell
Stallman
~l Y~ T' Swenson
W. Swenson
E. Vanecek
R. Willi~
T. Willi~
D. Woytcke
,~ I I II I
b~)UNI) FIRE
l) l? [ I,I,
R I.] P 0 R T
cipline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
Pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
}bnd ~xtinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Fi lms
First aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained Flasks
X
N]mper Ojx~ ration
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
llouse Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & ttose Appliance
Hours Training Paid :
~ Excused
X Unexecused
0 Present / Not Paid
PERSONNEL
j~J. Andersen
G. Anderson
J. Babb
D. Boyd
D. Bryce
S. Bryce
D. Carlson~
J. Casey
.~S. Collins
R. ~gelhart
~ S. Erickson~
~ P. Fisk
. Garvais
. . Grady
~_~. Grady
· llenderson
~_ P.
B.llenry
Landsman
~____~,~R1. Harschke
~: Naft,s
Nelson
~1. Nel son
~--T~ B. Niccum
~ Y~_G. Palm ~'
M. Palm~
T. Palm
~/a- G. Pederson
~7~,.T. Rasmussen
2'/~ M. Savage
~K. Sipprell
~.ff~ R. Stallman
/T. Swenson
W. Swenson
~--~E. Vanecek
/~R. Willianm
~ T. Williams
J ~,~. Woytcke
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEHONE 612473.703
EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD MEMBERS
David H. Cochran, Chair
Greenwood
Tom Reese, ~
Mound
Douglas E, Babcock, Secretary
Spring Park
J. P. Boswmkel, Treasurer
Minnetonka Beach
Scott Carlson
Minnetrista
Albert (Bert) Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
JoEtlen L Hurr
Orono
William A. Johnstone
Minnetonka
Duane Markus
Wayzata
George C, Owen
Victoria
Tom Penn
Tonka Bay
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Robert E. Slocum
Woodland
TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 1, 1993
FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY REPORT - LMCD
1.0 Euraslon Watermilfoil Task Force
The enclosure size for the tests has been reduced from an acre to
approximately 14 by 14 feet! The initial cost, installation and maintenance
problems with acre size enclosures were insurmountable. The Technical
sub committee and the DNR are standing f'u'm on the 1997 timetable. St
Albans Bay may still be a test site for enclosures, but the chances are
perhaps 50-50. The whole exotics program, I feel, has reached critical
mass, and is out of our hands to control or effect. Perhaps I am overly
pessimistic, but this is typical government at work. We'll just have to run
our program as well as we can, and participate in the state program to the
extent that we have funds and resources. What are your thoughts? 2.0 Lake Management Plan
2.1 Lake Access. This remains a highly emotional issue. Some
groups could do a more statesman like job of defusing it, because it is going
to happen, and who needs another Regional Park issue to separate the users
into camps? Boat trailer parking agreements have been signed or are near
with Wayzata, Mound, and Minnetrista 3.0 _Other General Items
3.1 An ordinance was passed that limits to two years the length of
time that a multiple dock can be licensed but not built. An example of this is
the so called Yacht Club next to the Water Patrol in Spring Park. They
advertised occupancy for 1991. They are yet to get financing. The amenity
requirements have changed since thc license was issued to the extent that the.
facility could not be licensed today. There is a further question as to
whether or not they will be the new HQ for the Upper Lake Yacht Club.
4.0 Mound Specific Items
4.1 In the Lake Management Plan, there is an intent to stagger the
terms of the directors, so that all would not expire at the same time. The
Admin Committe has set the staggered terms such that the Mound term runs
January 1994-1996. Under the previous arrangement my term would have
expired October 1994. I had planned to serve out that term. I am not sure
~T~~f ~R~at my intentions are now. Much depends upon what happens in the next
°iths'
Mound Representative - LMCD
cc. Gene Strommen
I C'Q MAR 1 1993
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata MN 55391
473-7033
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Saturday
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday
Monday
Wednesday
9
10
11
13
16
18
19
22
24
L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE
MARCH 1993
(**as amended)
Environment Committee
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Fee Study Subcommittee
3:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Lake Access Task Force Siting Subcomm.
6:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Lk Access Task Force Steering Committee
8:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
**Fluridone Evaluation Enclosure Trials
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Administrative Committee
3:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Water Structures Committee
7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
**Lake Use Density Study Review
8:00 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Lake Access Con~nittee
7:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Lake Access Task Force
7:00 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Lake Use and Recreation Committee
4:30 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall
02/26/93
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT~ FEB 24 1993
Action Report:
Water Structures Committee
Meeting:
7:30 AM.. Saturday. February 13. 1993
Norwest Bank Building. Wayzata. Room 135
Members Present: Douglas Babcock. Chair. Spring Park: Bert
Foster, Deephaven: James Grathwol. Excelsior: David Cochran.
Greenwood: Scott Carlson. Minnetrista; Tom Penn. Tonka Bay:
Robert Slocum, Woodland.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Babcock at 7:30 AM.
1. First reading of draft ordinance prohibiting non-encased
molded polystyrene foam in floating structures.
The committee received a draft of the subject ordinance.
Babcock submitted a letter from the City of Spring Park express-
ing its objection to the sunset provision on pre-existing struc-
tures being set at 12/31/94. except mooring buoys less than 2' in
diameter which will be allowed to exist to 12/31/97. The Spring
Park Council expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance
was showing favor to sailboat owners and their mooring buoys.
Babcock explained that Spring Park believes the deadline for
buoys should be same as the dock structures. He interpreted the
committee action as based on the fact that there are so many
buoys that time is needed to communicate the prohibition to the
owners. Grathwol questioned the reasoning that the purpose was
to favor sailors. Babcock responded that, while there is a
logistical problem in notifying users, there is a perception of
favoritism. He agreed the problem is disintegration of the po-
lystyrene at docks and at the time of ordinance preparation the
thought was that the buoys were not an immediate problem. The
purpose was to eliminate the disintegration of non-encased po-
lystyrene foam in an orderly manner. Foster added it is his
belief the large buoys fields are using encased buoys and the
extended deadline was aimed at the individual buoy user.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to amend the draft
ordinance to bring both docks and buoys into the same time frame.
DISCUSSION: In response to a question from Carlson regarding the
number of buoys involved, Thibault will get the actual count for
1992 from the Water Patrol.
Grathwol suggested a letter to Spring Park explaining that
it was a matter of enforcement rather than an intent to favor any
group of users. Carlson added that the letter should explain
where the problem now exists, noting that the larger buoys fields
are using encased polystyrene.
VOTE: Babcock voted aye. Foster, Slocum. Carlson, Grathwol.
Cochran and Penn voted nay. Motion failed.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: Grathwol suggested eliminating ia) from Subd
13, a preamble in which the LMCD Board of Directors gives reasons
for the adoption of the ordinance. He said it could be moved up
to Section 1 and not put into the Code.
- continued
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE February 13, 1993
MOTION: Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, to amen(! the draft
ordinance by moving (al Preamble. from Subd. 13 out of the Code
section and the ordinance renumbered accordingly.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Carlson seconded, to recommend approval
o£ the first reading of An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Non-
Encased Molded Expanded Bead Polystyrene Foam btaterial in Buoys
and Floating Structures on Lake Minnetonka as amended. '
VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay.
The executive director said a letter of explanation will be
drafted to Sprin§ Park, the actual count of buoys on the lake
will be obtained from the Water Patrol and the District Mooring
Area licensees will be contacted to determine the type of buoy
they are using. .
2. Second reading of draft ordinance amending Sect. 2.05,
Subd. 8 Facilities with Special Density License/not constructed.
The committee received an amended version of the ordinance
relating to the effect on Special Density licenses of failure to
construct licensed docks within a specified time.
Fred Bruntjen, representing the Excelsior Park Tavern (EPTI
and Skip Jewett and Les Rennet representing RDP Partners
were present as the two affected licensees.
Carlson asked for a clarification of what two year perio~l is
being considered when setting the effective date as 11/30/q3.
Babcock said by adopting the ordinance effective on 11/30/93 it
gives the licensees this year to construct according to tile
license if there has not been any construction for two years
prior to the 11/30/93 date. Babcock ad(led there is a provision
for partial construction with approval from the Board. Cochran
asked if there is an existing dock. as in the case of EPT. could
that be construed as partial construction. Penn responded that
it would not make sense to allow the licensee to hold onto the
old license. He said it is clear that the ordinance says it is
violation if construction has not been started.
Bruntjen said the EPT is doing its planning now but there is
not enough time before 11/30/93 to follow all of the procedures
required for reconstruction of the docks, including approval by
the City of Excelsior. Carlson said it is important that if the
multiple dock with a Special Density license has not been put in
place the applicant should have to abide by any new rules for
provision of amenities. ' '
The executive director said the staff would need guidance on
what constitutes partial construction. Babcock said this is
something that would have to be determined by the Board, possibly
on a case by case basis when the application for the multiple
dock license is received. The executive director suggested that
all of the amenities should be in place to support the first par-
rial construction.
- continued
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE February 13, 1993
Foster wondered, if there are only two affected multiple
docks involved, could they be exempt from construction by
11/30/93. Babcock noted that the amenities ordinance has changed
since the original approval of RDP's Special Density license.
Grathwol said the committee should figure out what has to be done
to preserve the Special Density and multiple dock license granted
but not installed without allowing an open end. Babcock suggest-
ed changing enactment of the ordinance back to the present
rather than 11/30/93 and changing the wording back to "any two
year period commencing at any time after the effective date of
this ordinance" That would give everyone a two year notice.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend re-in-
serting "commencing at any time after the effective date of this
ordinance" and change the enactment date to be in effect upon
approval by the Board and publication.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
The EPT and RDP representatives indicated their acceptance.
3. Second reading of draft ordinance changing "3 feet" to "4
feet from the 929.4' OHW" amending Sect. 1.07 Subd. 3 Length
Variances and Sect. 2.01, Subd. 2 a)authorized Dock Use Area.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Carlson seconded, to recommend approval
of An ordinance Amending LMCD Code of Ordinances Sect. 1.07,
Subdivision 3: Relating to Length Variances for Docks on Lake
Minnetonka and Section 2.01, Subdivision 2; Relating to Dock Use
Areas, waiving the third reading.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
4. Multiple Dock Licenses: per staff reports
A. Renewals without change, Village Certificates Received
MOTION: Babcock moved. Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval
of the following Renewals Without Change:
Bayview Condominiums, Spring Park Bay
Cedarhurst Assn., Robinsons Bay
City of Deephaven, Carsons & St. Louis Bay
Driftwood Shores Assn., Harrisons Bay
City of Excelsior, Excelsior Bay
Grandview Point Assn., Carsons Bay
Hennepin County, Spring Park Bay
Lakewinds Assn., Spring Park Bay
City of Minnetonka Beach, Lafayette Bay, Crystal Bay and
Lower Lake North
City of Mound, Priests, Cooks, W Upper Lake, Phelps, Black
Lake, Emerald Lake, Seton Lake. Harrisons, Jennings &
West Arm Bays
Dr. Glen Nelson, Stubbs Bay
PM Pizza Enterprises, Black Lake
Presbyterian Homes on Lake Minnetonka, Black Lake
Seton Village Assn., Harrisons
City of Tonka Bay, Gideons
Walden Tract X Property Owners Assn., St. Louis Bay - continued
WATEI~ STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
February 13, 1993
West Beach Apt., Coffee Cove
Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments. Spring Park Bay
Lord Fletchers of tile l. ake. Coffee Cove
Lafayette Club, Crystal Bay
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
District Mooring Area License Renewals:
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval
of the following District Mooring Area License Renewals:
City of Deephaven, Carsons & St. Louis Bays
City of Excelsior, Excelsior Bay
Minnetonka Yacht Club, Carsons Bay
Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Multiple Dock License Renewals Without Change, Deposit Paid
VOTE:
MOTION: Babcock moved, Carlson seconded, to recommend approval
of the following multiple dock licenses, subject to the balance
due being paid by 3/31/93. Licenses will not be issued until
after full payment is received.
Boat Rentals of Minnetonka, Harrisons Bay
Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Lower Lake N
Lord Fletcher's Apartments, West Arm
Park Hill-Park Island Apartments, Black Lake
Rockvam Boat Yards, Site 1, Coffee Code
Tonka Bay Marina. Lower Lake S
City of Wayzata. Wayzata Bay
Motion carried unanimously
VOTE:
B. Multiple Dock License Renewal With Minor Change in Site
Plan, Not Increasing BSU or Slip Sizes:
MOTION: Babcock moved, Carlson seconded, to recommend approval
of the following subject to balance due being paid by 3/31/93:
Rockvam Boat Yards, Site 2, Coffee Cove (Density 1:10' -
Special Density) Changing seasonal docks to permanent docks
this spring. An as-built survey to be supplied after
construction is completed. DNR permit to be updated if
needed.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval
of the following subject to balance due being paid by 3/31/93:
Minnetonka Yacht Club Site 2 and 3, St. Louis Bay, renewal
without change and Minnetonka Yacht Club, Site 1, Carsons
Bay (Density 1:11' - Special Density) Amended site Plan:
Slips #33 and 34, slide storage for service boats, to be -'
- continued
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE February 13, 1993
moved from the south east corner to a platform next to slip
#15. Slip #32, also slide storage for a service boat. to
be moved from a location on the west near slides #17-31 to
the former location of slips #33 and #34.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval
of the following subject to receipt of Village Certificate being
returned or time expiring (2/13/93):
Big Island Veterans Camp, Veterans Bay (Density 1:100')
New site plan, adding one dock and changing boat storage
locations. There is an increase in WSU because only two
boats will be stored at dock I instead of four. There is
an increase of 2 WSU.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval
of the following subject to the balance due being paid by
3/31/93, the dock to extend no more than 100' from shore, a new
certified as-built survey to be provided:
City of Greenwood, Site 1, St. Albans Bay (Density 1:9)
Amendeq site plaq, changing distance into the lake from 87'
to 96'; and changing the width of the section of slips
including #1 -4, #19-22 from 56' to 48', and changing the
width of the section of slips including #5 -11 and #12-1S
from 78' to 72', decreasing the westward extension, and
approve Sites 2 and 3 renewal with no change.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. RDP Partners Special Density License, Spring Park Bay, Spring
Park, review of Order conditions under which license was granted
and present status
The committee received a memo from Thibault regarding the
renewal without change application from RDP Partners (RDP) for
the 1993 season. The memo includes the conditions under which
the Multiple Dock License and Special Density License Order were
issued.
Les Rennet, speaking for RDP Partners, said they continue
working on funding for the construction of the building. The
amenities required for the Special Density license depend on the
building being in place, tle said there have been questions about
the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club (UMYC) continuing its association
with the project. The UMYC made other arrangements until the
building is completed, but the UMYC still intends to be a tenant,
use the docks and have the sailing school there. Rennet agreed
to remove a sign at the site indicating a 1991 construction datc.
The executive director explained that the Order is very
specific that the dock slips be made available only to members of
the UMYC, the University of Minnesota sailing school and the
Water Patrol. Slips are not available to tenants in the build-
lng unless they are also members of the UMYC. The Order does not
specify the type of boat to be docked.
Grathwol was excused.
WATER S'I'RI/CTURES COMMIT'I'i£E February 13, 1993
MOTION: Babcock moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend approva !
of tile RDP Partners Multiple Dock and Special Density License
renewal, with no change. -
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
D. Forest Arms Improvement Association, Forest Lake, Orono
In a memo dated 2/5/93 Thibault commented on the 10/26/92
request of Forest Arms Improvement Association (Forest Arms) for
consideration of allowing the association to pay back license
fees to regain slip sizes for five slips reduced from ~2' Ion~
to 24' long in 1987. This is a grandfathered license with non-
conforming density. The licensed site plan shows 10 lake side
slips, 5 - 32' long and 5 - 24' long, and 4 16' long inside
slips. A 30' side setback is required.
The current request is to move the 4 inside slips to the
lake side. The proposed site plan submitted shows all 14 slips
11.5' x 32' long, with 15' side setbacks.
Jim Lange, speaking for Forest Arms, explained the history
of the multiple dock. Originally the agreement with the City of
Orono was to allow 14 slips of equal size for the 14 members of
the association. Over a period of time there were changes in the
dock configuration, at the request of the association, when there
was a size reduction due to the adoption of the WSU charges, lie
said at no time did they think that the changes would affect
their original understanding of the slip sizes.
The committee viewed the current dock site plan showinz
slips #11 - 14 along the walkway opening to the sides, the pro-
posed site plan of 14 equal size slips all opening lakeward, and
an aerial photo. Tom Theisen, Forest Arms. also showed a July.
1983 site plan which, according to Thibault, did not have LM£;P
approval and was not part of its file.
The committee and Forest Arms representatives discussed a
number of arrangements, none of which were satisfactory to either
party. The proposal to change Slips 11 - 14 to 32' long presents
a problem to the LMCD in that their size was listed at 10' x 16'
since 1987. Forest Arms contends the original, grandfathered
agreement was for 14 equal sized slips.
Babcock explained to the applicants that the records show
this site was originally licensed for slips #1 - 10 at 12' x 32'
However, slips #11 - 14 were never shown to be that size. The
Code does not allow increasing slip sizes at a site with grandfa-
thered density. Carlson suggested allowing the 4 slips to be
changed from 10' x 16' to 8' x 20', which would be the same
square footage.
Babcock offered a compromise, based on the 12/2/83 site
plan, changing the widths to meet the 30' side setbacks, for 10
slips 9.5 x 32' and 4 slips 9.5' x 21', with the dock to extend
no further than 100' into the lake and a certified as-built
survey to be furnished after the docks are rebuilt. Carlson
agreed with Babcock's proposal. Theisen offered to compromise at
10 slips @ 9.5' x 32' and 4 @ 9.5 x 24'
- continued
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
February 13, 1993
MOTION: Cochran moved, Carlson seconded, to table the discus-
sion, without action, until a plan consistent with the committee
suggestions offered can be agreed on, Forest Arms to work with
the LMCD staff. A presentation may be made to the Board at the
2/24 meeting, if an acceptable plan is submitted in time. A slip
size worksheet is to be included.
VOTE: Motion c~trried unanimously.
E. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; public notice advertis-
ing unauthorized off-lake storage for in-out service
The committee received a copy of an advertisement being
distributed by Lakeside Marina, Inc. offering unlimited in-out
launch and park service. Babcock commented that is an unaccept-
able service at that location.
The executive director said Lakeside Marina is not licensed
for that type of off-lake storage. They advertised a similar
service in 1992 but said they did not have any response. Because
of the many boats at that location it is difficult to determine
if this activity takes place.
Foster would like to see the LMCD attorney obtain a re-
straining order to stop this immediately. Babcock responded he
would want the attorney to come back with a detail of what ordi-
nances are being violated. Carlson suggested finding out how the
City of Orono feels about this as they have jurisdiction over the
land use.
MOTION: Penn moved, Carlson seconded, to place the Lakeside
Marina, Inc. advertising as an agenda item at the next Board
meeting with staff putting together recommendations from the LMCD
attorney and the City of Orono. working together, for a concept
to stop this type of off lake storage.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
5. Unrestricted Watercraft Subcommittee - 2/4/93 meeting
The committee reviewed the report of the Unrestricted Water-
craft Subcommittee meeting of 2/4/93 along with a summary of
slide storage at multiple dock licensed facilities.
Babcock suggested eliminating the words "sailing and" in d)
on page 2 under the committee recommendation for storage of
unrestricted watercraft at commercial, multiple dock sites. The
committee members were in agreement that there was no need to
specify a type of boating school.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to approve the concept
of the Unrestricted Watercraft Subcommittee report with the
understanding this will lead to ordinance changes that will
affect certain licenses for the 1994 season.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
6. Deicing Inspections
Thib(tuit reported all of the deicing locations that are
operating have been inspected. Most were in compliance after
WA'i'ER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE February 13, Iqg3
the first inspection. Three locations required a third inspec-
tion. Minnetonka Boat Works was deicing at the Orono site with-
out a fence. They also did not have a fence at the launch area
of the Wayzata site and were missing signs at both sites. North
Shore Drive Marina's fence was down.
Carlson suggested denying refund of the deposit if three
inspections are needed. In addition, if the violation is a lack
of fence or other serious violation there should be provision for
a fine.
Babcock asked staff to make recommendations as to the
deposit refunds for these licenses.
Penn was excused.
Deb Breneman, North Shore Drive Marina, has raised the aues-
tion of the environmental impact of "curtains" used for deicing
installations. It has been suggested they deter the free move-
ment of fish. Staff will ask the DNR Fisheries for its comments.
7. Carlson Real Estate Dredging Project; correspondence from
City of Minnetrista - informational only
The committee received a letter from Jay Blake, blinnetrista
City Planner. dated 1/28/93, responding to the Board's concerns
at the 1/27 meeting over the alteration of wetlands in the Carl-
son development. The committee also received a copy of a letter
from Minnetrista Mayor Carlson, dated 1/29/93, to Ceil Strauss.
MnDNR Division of Waters, commenting on the dredging project
the Carlson Real Estate Company. His letter included concerns to
be considered during review of the dredging application, recov-
nizing the need to reduce any negative impact on the natural
environment and at the same time giving safety to the boaters
within the channel. A compromise channel configuration was
submitted with the letter.
Both letters were for the committee's information. There was
further discussion regarding the dredging of wetlands.
Foster mentioned comments he received from Clarkson Lindley,
~innehaha Creek Watershed District, regarding the dredginv.
Lindley feels the dredging of this channel for access to the lake
should not be allowed as it will encourage similar areas, cut off
from the lake by wetlands, to request the same access. Carlson
spoke in defense of the dredging project. The City of Minnetris-
ta would like to see this area developed. Carlson pointed out
that Minnetrista has very restrictive development ordinances
which will limit the scope of the project.
8. New Business
A. Grays Bay Causeway
The executive director distributed a news article announcin~
the MnDOT selection of a same bridge replacement only as the
alternative for the Hwy. 101 Grays Bay Bridge Replacement
Project. There was no action at this time.
q32.
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE February 13, 1903
B. Lake Access Parking Agreement
Carlson reported the City of ~tinnetrista has the lake access
parking a~reement on its next meeting agenda. Foster wondered il'
directors should attend city council meetines when these aeree-
ments are being discussed with cities. The executive director
recommended the Board member be in attendance at all city discus-
sions relating to its Lake Access Agreements.
Carlson said he has put together a letter to his city ex-
plaining the background of the agreement. He expressed his
willingness to help other members on their presentations.
C. Technical Review Committee
Babcock said the City of Spring Park has some reservations
about the actions of the Technical Review Committee.
The executive director reported that the Technical Review
Committee has been very considerate of flexibility requests from
the cities requesting them. Spring Park is probably experiencin~
questions on its flexibility needs which may call for some reduc-
tion in what it prefers.
In response to Babcock's suggestion that an existing proper-
ty could not be redeveloped from an existing 100% hard cover, if
it had to meet the new ordinance requirement of 30% hard cover,
the executive director responded he believes the city is being
provided flexibility above 30% but certainly less than 100% in
the case of a major redevelopment. That would preserve property
values and at the same time brine severely non-conformin~ proper-
ties into some better level of helping to attain a move toward
the desired new regulations. If there are specific concerns, the
executive director would welcome working with the city and brine
Consultant Steve Prestin into the discussion.
In conjunction with hard cover variances, the executive
director suggested this be part of a future committee a~enda, lie
is seeing variances being granted already for redevelopment where
the allowance to exceed hard cover requirements is questionable.
He would like direction on how the district might proceed.
Adjournment
Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 A~I.
FOR THE COblMITTEE:
Eugene Strommen. Executive Director
Douglas Babcock, Chair
~ ! I I I
Action Report:
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FEB 2 4 1993
Lake Use and Recreation Committee
Meeting:
4:30 PM, Monday, February 22, 1993
Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 135
Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grath-
wol, Excelsior; Thomas Reeve, Mound, Also present: 5gr. Wm.
Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Eugene 8trommen, Executive
Director.
The meeting was called to order by Foster at 4:35 PM.
1. Water Patrol Report
A. Monthly Activity Report
Chandler reported the following significant activity on Lake
Minnetonka since the LMCD Board Meeting of 1/25/93:
Accidents
* A one car roll over, Excelsior Bay
* Fifty year old male had fatal heart attack while ice
fishing, Lower Lake.
* Hazardous Spill, Manitou, Tonka Bay.
NSP truck containing 30,000 gallons of transformer oil
containing PCBs overturned. The spill soaked into a
wetland. It is believed there is no significant impact
on the environment.
* Car fire - East Upper Lake - confirmed stolen from Rose-
ville. Car had been stripped and burned.
Criminal
* Two thefts from fishhouses, Lower Lake and Wayzata Bay.
* Two thefts of fishhouses, Phelp's Bay and Smithtown Bay.
* Vandalism - Point Comfort
* Recovered Narcotics - Lower Lake
* Recovered Stolen Snowmobile - Maxwell Bay
* Theft - South Upper Lake
Chandler said the criminal activity is less than last
The ongoing investigation of snowmobile thefts is
well.
year.
going
DWI~s
Two DWI's were issued for a total of six for the year
Miscellaneous
Fishhouse Count - Chandler submitted a fishhouse count of
989. This is more than last year but less than traditionally
observed. The Police Explorer Scouts assisted the Water Patrol
in making the fishhouse count. It was through their assistance
that some narcotics were recovered and a stolen snowmobile recov-
ered.
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
February 22, 1993
Special Events - Chandler said there were no problems with
the Wayzata Chili Open, 2/13-14/93. The Westonka Winter Fest.
2/13, did not have enough rest rooms and will be advised they'
need more for any future events. There was also a problem durin~
the soft ball game.
2. Decibel Subcommittee Report - Plan Date and Arrangements for
Decibel Testing Program
Foster reported the Pollution Control Agency will handle the
actual decibel testing. It was agreed there is a necessity to
have a variety of boats including boats with straight pipes as
well as fishing boats of various types.
The executive director will contact the Minnetonka Power
Squadron and Minnetonka Boats Works for the use of boats.
The committee set Tuesday, May 25, 1993, 2 PM at the Water
Patrol dock for the decibel test.
3. Special Events
A. Deposit Refund
MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend a deposit
refund of $100 to Lafayette Club Family Fishing Derby, 2/7/93.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Draft Code Amendment to Allow the Executive Director to
Approve New Special Event Licenses
Foster explained the purpose of the Ordinance is to allow
the executive director to grant or deny Special Event licenses.
There is a provision for the applicant to appeal any restrictions
and denial by the executive director.
MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of
An Ordinance Relating to Issuance of Special Events Licenses on
Lake Minnetonka: Amending LMCD Code Section 3.09, Subdivision 1.
2, 3, and 4.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
4. Hennepin County 1993 Lakes Improvement Program The com-
mittee received the following: 1) A plan for the location of
the Quiet Water Area buoy placement at the North Seton channel:
2) A map of the Lake showing the 1993 "Slow" buoy placements.
Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, supplied the
committee with a listing of the proposed Hennepin County services
and projects for the Lake in 1993 at a proposed budget cost of
$174,000.
Grathwol observed that the slow buoys approved for Halsted
Bay were not shown on the map. The executive director will let
Bailey know of the need for them to be added.
The executive director reported that Hennepin County has
verbally advised it wilI eliminate ~he trash containers at the
accesses on a one year trial basis as a result of LMCD Board
action encouraging trash container removal. Instead signs will
be placed at accesses asking public cooperation with proper trash
disposal. - continued
I I i
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
February 22, 1993
This is in line with the motto "What you take to the Lake. take
it back again."
5. Adjournment
Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM.
FOR THE COMMITTEE:
Eugene Strommen
Executive Director
Bert Foster. Chair
FEB 2 5 t993
i I I
G~ry R. Johnson
Vice Presi6ent and General Counsel
Vi~ Pre~i6~n~. ~r~n~y and Fin~a~i~l Couns~!
D~dd A. t.m~m~
D~ruct~--Law
Number
Northern States Power Company
Law Department
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Telephone (612) 330-6600
Fsx No. (612)330-,5827
February 27, 1993
lt~'U MAR 2 199B
TO MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES IN NSP'S
ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICE TERRITORIES:
Re:
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Docket Nos. E-002/GR-92-1185 & G-002/GR-92-1186
On November 2, 1992, Northern States Power Company ("NSP") filed for an electric
and gas rate increase with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"). The
Commission has referred this filing to the Office of Administrative Hearings for
evidentiary and public heatings.
In accordance with paragraph 4b of the Commission's Notice and Order for Hearing
dated December 14, 1992, attached is the notice of scheduled public and evidentiary
hearings to be held in this proceeding.
If there are questions, feel free to call the undersigned.
Mi~~
Attorney
Attachment
PRICE INCREASE NOTICE:
HEARINGS ON NSP'S
REQUESTS FOR ELECTRIC
AND GAS PRICE INCREASES
Evidentia.,'y hear~op For p~nta~on of fonnaJ ditec~ t,".'limony, ~but~ ~d mbutt~
I~o~, ~ ~M~ of ~ t~timony ~ ~ to ~ W~y, Ap~ 7, ~ ~
minue th~ft~ u ~ ~ ~ ~blk U~H~ Co~ ~e H~I ~
7th Ph~ L ~ Paul MN ~101-2147.
l~n a~t t~ pub~ ~ ~d~t~ ~ my ~ ob~ ~mm ~e
~ ~ ~ ~ C~l~ ~ iu ~ ~ ~ f~ n ~ ~t {Sli~ ~n)~
~ ~ua ~ a 6 ~l ~1} ~) ~ ~ lU ~u~ ~ the ~ b ~id~nl
U~ ~io~
A~FuIe Monthl}, Electrk. Bills
Monthly UM Previous Interim Proposed
Re~deorJal J00IC~VI~ S 36.~ $ 31.0~ S
SmaU Gene~ ~ I~ ~ S 69.~ S 7].~1 S
Average .~,loutld! Gas BUll
_ Monthly U~e . ,Pttvlous Interim ~ Propo~
~denOM I~ CCF S ~.~ 49.79 SI.lO
~ CCF b l~ ~b~ ;~ or ~)
~P ~Q~ ~ ~ ~G~ D~ ~O~ ~ MIN~
e~MC ~ CO--ION CO~ ~H~ G~ OR D~
~G~ l~ ~O~ OR ~ PA~ ~%~ ~G~ G~ A ~ OR G~
L~E ~ ~E O~ ~Q~ FOR ~ ~ OR ~ OF S~
lf~ mt ~ ~f~n a~m ~ ~ ~n~ ~ M~ ~b~ U~ti~
~ o r~ ~ 414 ~
Steve Smith
State Representative
District 43A
Hennepin County
IEC'D MAR
1993
Minnesota
House of
Representatives
COMMITTEES: GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS, PENSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE: JUDICIARY, FAMILY LAW SUBCOMMITTEE,
CIVIL LAW SUBCOMMITTEE; LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND METRO AFFAIRS, TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE
February 26, 1993
Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr., City Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear Ed:
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1993 outlining your concerns with the Governor's
"budget proposal" as he outlined in late January. You voiced the same concerns that I have
read in the League of Minnesota Cities' preliminary response to the Governor's budget
proposal, the preliminary response being dated January 28, 1993, a copy of which is enclosed
for your reference.
1) They say the proposal destroys the Local Government Trust Fund (LGTF) and the trust
between the state and local governments.
In actuality there are not any cuts in the Governor's proposal for LGA. Each city will be
given the same amount of money in 1993 as they received last year for employee wages.
The question of how the growth in the LGTF is to be allocated, has never been absolutely
determined and continues to be the subject of legislative bickering.
2) The proposal does not address the underlying structural imbalance between state
revenue growth and state spending growth.
The problem with the salary freeze is that it is a short term answer to a long term problem.
If the legislature passes Carlson's budget proposal, it is important that it starts working
immediately to permanently solve the problem. Carlson is hoping the freeze will buy CORE
time to help point the way to revamp and streamline our state's budget. It is interesting to
note President Bill Clinton has announced plans to freeze federal employee wages to help
balance the federal deficit. If this approach is good enough at the federal level there is no
reason why Minnesota cannot do the same.
2710 Clare Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364
State Office Budding, St Paul, Minnesota 55155
IR FAX (612) 296-3949
(612) 472-7664
(612) 296-9188
Page Two -
Governor Carlson's proposal does not limit local governments from raising local public
employee wages, if they choose to do so by raising property taxes. The Governor has
assigned the decision making power to the local level.
3) The proposal does not provide adequate funding for LGA.
The LGTF was set up to insulate cities from the unpredictability of revenue growth. LGA
is not receiving any cuts it is just being frozen at last years level. Since nearly everyone in
the budget process is being asked to scale back, the Governor feels it is only fair for local
government to be affected also. The state of Minnesota has decided to deal with its budget
problems not by raising taxes on its already over taxed economy but by cutting spending. I
support this approach.
4) The cuts in aid to local governments will result in further property tax increases and
service cuts.
Local government has been given the opportunity to control more of how they spend and
how much they raise taxes. Governor Carlson has a choice of whether to raise state taxes
or cut spending and so should local units of government as well. Carlson realizes these
choices may not be easy but in a time when President Bill Clinton is asking Americans
everywhere to "sacrifice" and "share the pain", Governor Carlson does not feel he is asking
too much by asking local governments to do as everyone else. Minnesota is not the only
state asking public employees to share the pain of budget cuts. According to Carlson,
"Eighteen other states report no pay raises for 1993." (Also fifteen states are laying off and
eight states are cutting salaries not just freezing).
5) Public employees are expected to shoulder most of the burden of balancing the state's
budget.
The proposed budget, like any new proposal, has its good points and bad points. While the
state has $1.3 billion in new revenue it is spending $769 million more than revenue raised,
so the legislature is faced with deciding what to cut back on. In order to balance the
budget, we either have to cut programs or freeze public salaries. At a time when many
businesses such as Sears and Northwest are being forced to lay off employees and cut wages,
the Governor feels it does not seem unreasonable to ask public employees to do their part
to share the pain. The other option would likely force job layoffs and seriously debilitate
Page Three -
programs. Keep in mind the rationale behind this salary freeze. Minnesota government
employment has grown twice as fast as U. S. government employment; twice as fast as total
Minnesota employment; five times as fast as Minnesota population; and the disparity
between public and private wages in 1990 MN government wage is $31,840 and private
employment wages is $18,730.
6) Saving $600 million through a salary freeze is not realistic because the proposal does not
include a suspension of PELRA, pay equity or any of the other tools government managers
would need to actually freeze salaries.
Local government has a variety of options available to them to handle contract agreements.
If they wish to raise the salaries of their employees they can levy for the additional funds,
or they can find alternative methods to fund any wage increases. The Governor is not
mandating a pay freeze, he is saying however, that if local governments want to raise their
employee salaries, and the result is a property tax increase, they will have to obtain voter
approval for the increase. Failing to obtain voter approval, does not invalidate the contract,
only the ability to levy a property tax increase to pay for it.
During times when state funds are short there are always heated debates over where the
limited resources are spent. I realize that if Governor Carlson's budget proposal passes in
the Legislature, difficult decisions will have to be made within every governmental
department, agency, and local unit of government, perhaps it's about time. I sympathize
with those who will be affected by these decisions but we must all do this together.
Thank you again for your letter. I didn't know if you had copied your letter to the Mayor
and Council, but I'm sure these issues are on their minds as well. If you have any additional
questions or comments regarding this or any other state matter please feel free to contact
me. re/~A/~/
Since
Ste~ Smith j
State Representative
League of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, M'N 55126
(612) 490-5600
Preliminary Response to Governor's Budget Proposal
Even though the Oovemor'~ budget proposal for the next biennium acknowledges the need for
continued funding of LGA, HACA and other property tax relief programs, the League of
Minnesota Cities is disappointed with many aspects of thc proposal.
The proposal destroys the Local Governmen!_'l~r~t, Fund O.~TF) and tl~e trust
between the llale and I~eal ~nvem~entm. For ~e third year in a row the Governor is
proposing cu~ in aid Io cities, ~d again the ~ts would be m~e after cities have set their
bud~vl~ mid levies. ~c Governor would al~ t~f~r nv~ly $~2 million ~om the LGTF
~ ~c general ~d. ~is is a ~or st~ towwd a more ~op~a~ve relations~p betw~n
the s~tc and local gove~ents.
This proposal does not address the underlyin_e structural imbalance between state
revenue _erowth and state spending growth. The propoaal is a short term solution. The
state must address the underlying structural problems in its budget before cities will be
able to depend on property tax relief and other state aid as a leliable and stable source of
revenue for local budgets.
The proposal does not orovlde adequate funding for L~A. Freezing LGA at lag! year'~
level violates promises already made, and violates thc principle that funding for LeA
should grow at the same rate as revenues Into the
The cuts in_aid to local _~overnmcnta will result In further nronertv tax Increases and
~rvlee opts, Reasonable inerea~e~ in LGA and other property tax relief program,~ are
essential to prevent property laxes from escalating. This proposal cuts LGA and HACA
by nearly $50 million for thc biemfium ~;ompai'ed to thc amounts ami¢ipatcd last
November.
Publi_g_emplnyees are expected Io shoulder moat of the burtlan__0_f .balancing the
state's budget. It is unclear how publio employee wage restraint can solve the state's
budget problem, without being unfair to many and causing layoffs for others, The
proposal to save over $600 million through public employee wage restraint is unrealistic.
January 28, 1993
CITY of MOUND
534~ MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND M'NNE$OTA5536a
,612) 472-0600
FAX ~612 4,"2-0620
February 9, 1993
Representative Steve Smith
311 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
RE: Governor Arne Carlson's Budget Proposal
Dear Steve:
As you know, Governor Arne Carlson has given his budget
proposal for the next biennium. The focal point of his proposal is
a public employees salary freeze, that supposedly will save the
state nearly $600,000,000. I think its obvious that city officials
know that freezing salaries is unrealistic because of existing
contracts, pay equity requirements enforced by the Governor's own
administration, escalating health insurance costs and other
factors. Governor Carlson has not offered any help or proposed any
tools for government officials to actually implement a salary
freeze.
The only conclusion that one can reach is that Governor
Carlson is not serious about freezing salaries. Rather, his
proposal really means layoffs, cuts in services and property tax
increases.
The Governor's budget "breaks the trust".
following:
It includes the
Service cuts, layoffs and property tax increases. Saving
$600,000,000 through a salary freeze is not realistic
because the proposal does not include a suspension of
PELRA, pay equity or any of the other tools government
managers would need to actually freeze salaries. Until
the Governor's proposal includes those components, it is
nothing more than another proposal for cuts in services,
layoffs and property tax increases. It is unfair to the
public to pretend that this money can be saved without
serious cuts in services and cost to taxpayers.
printed on rec~, c,'ed paper
I ! I
February 9, 1993
Page 2
Destruction of the Local Government Trust Fund (LGTF).
Carlson has proposed taking nearly $52,000,000 from the
LGTF to pay for other state spending. In fact, he has
proposed that any money left in the trust fund should
automatically be transferred to the state's general fund.
Under this proposal the LGTF as a separate trust fund
dedicated to property tax relief has no meaning.
Cuts in LGA and HACA for 1993 once again break the trust
with cities. Carlson has proposed cutting this year's
LGA by $10 million from the amounts certified to cities.
1993 HACA to cities and counties would be cut by an
additional $9 million. This proposal comes only one
month after cities set their levies and budgets based on
LGA amounts promised by the state. State revenues are
expected to grow by over $1.3 billion. Why must the
cities take a cut?
Funding for LGA for 1994 is inadequate. LGA should grow
along with revenues into the LGTF. Growth in LGA is
essential to prevent property taxes from escalating
faster than they have already. Although, we are pleased
that the Governor has not proposed eliminating LGA, we
are disappointed that he has frozen it at 1992 levels.
With state revenues increasing, it is unfair to property
taxpayers that city revenues should be frozen causing
property taxes to increase.
As you can see, Governor Carlson's proposal indicates further
difficult times for cities to financially manage the level of
services that they are currently providing. I would urge you to
oppose Governor Carlson's proposal as the legislative session moves
on. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
cc:
Don Diddams, Sr. Legislative Representative, LMC
Gino Businaro, Finance Director
ES:ls
P.S. I look forward to seeing you and Senator Olson at the February
23, 1993 City Council meeting.
M/NUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 22, 1993
Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael,
Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill ross, and Jerry Clapsaddle,
and Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James.
Absent and excused were: Commissioners Mark Hanus and Brian
Johnson, and City Council Representative Liz Jensen.
The following people were also in attendance: Mrs. Duane Beimert.
The Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1993 were presented
for approval. A change was noted within the motion on page 6, Voss
is shown as voting in favor of the motion, however, Voss was not
present at the meeting. The Secretary was directed to change the
minutes accordingly.
NOTION made by Nueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
the Planning Commission Ninutes as amended. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE ~93-002=
DUANE BEIMERT, 5125 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 7 & 8,
BLOCK 14t WHIPPLEt PID ~25-117-24 12 0113.
VARIANCE.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained that this request was
previously heard by the Planning Commission on January llth, and
concern was expressed regard the impact of the addition towards the
street. The Planning Commission tabled the request to allow the
applicant the opportunity to consider alternate designs.
The applicant's revised request consists of a 22' x 28' addition
with a tuckunder garage and living space above along with repairs
to the existing foundation.
The request was clarified to include replacement of the foundation
on three sides of the house, the foundation wall closest to
Drummond Road will remain. Two courses of block will be added to
the entire foundation to allow for the required ceiling height.
The 22' x 28' addition will meet all required setbacks with a 20'
+/- setback to the side property line and a 26'+/- setback to the
front.
Weiland suggested that if all the foundation walls but one are to
be replaced, why not move the existing structure into a conforming
location? It was noted that it would be a considerably larger
expense to do this. Clapsaddle noted that the three dimensional
plan submitted is not to scale and warned the applicant that this
is not what the house will look like, that the elevations will be
different.
Planning Couisslon Minutes
February 22, 1993
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend
approval of the variance recognizing an existing
nonconforming front yard setback of 7.9 feet to allow
construction of a conforming 22' x 28' addition. Finding
of Facts The addition will increase the size of the
substandard home, the addition meets all required
setbacks, and there is practical difficulty. Motion
carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael,
Clapsaddle, Mueller, and Voss. Weiland opposed.
Weiland stated that he opposed because he believes the house should
be moved back, considering the amount of work they are doing to the
existing house and foundation, and now is the time.
CASE ~93-033:
JOHN & JANET PAGE, 1927 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 10,
BLOCK 11, SHAD~WOOD POINT, PID ~1S-117-23 23 0056.
VARIANCE.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained to the Commission that
this case will be heard by the City Council tomorrow night, the
applicant has slightly modified his plan and it is required the
Commission review this change. The Building Official placed the
revised survey on the overhead and distributed copies to the
Commissioners for discussion. He explained that the revised plan
shows an addition at the lakeside of the house which measures 2.5'
x 4.75' and involves only the second story. The Commission did not
have any concerns relating to the small lakeside addition, however,
Mueller noted that the survey reflects a garage 27.5' deep and
noted that the Planning Commission recommended only a 24' deep
garage. Also, the proposed entry addition appears to be larger
than originally proposed.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to
recommended approval of the supplementary second floor
addition measuring 2.$' x 4.75', as requested by the
applicant. The Planning Commission re-states their
original recommendation to allow construction of the
second story addition, entry/breezeway addition (as
originally proposed at 5.5' x 12.5'), and expansion of
the existing garage. The garage shall be limited to 24
feet wide and 22 feet deep. It is also recommended that
a new survey be submitted prior to building permit
issuance. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on February 23
1993. ,
2
Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993
TRUTH IN HOUSING REVIEW.
The Commission continued review of the proposed Truth in Housing
Ordinance, specifically the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing
(draft printed 1/19/93).
Dicussion was recalled from the last meeting on Line 155 which
reads as follows: "The ,valuator shall determine if all plumbing
vents terminate properly as required by the State Plumbing Code.
Any improper conditions shall be noted as hazardous on the form."
There was discussion about requiring a "hazardous" notation, and
other items within this section which do the same. It was
determined to check and see how Minneapolis addresses these issues.
Universal changes include~
Every section entitled "Plumbing Fixtures" shall include the
following statement: "The Evaluator shall determine if these
plumbing fixtures are properly installed and protected with a
water seal trap and properly vented."
Every section entitled "Floor (Structural)" shall include the
following: "A. The Evaluator shall comment on apparent out-
of-level or structurally unsound (spongy) floor conditions."
Every Section entitled "Window Conditions" shall be amended as
follows:
ae
The Evaluator shall determine if the windows have been
kept in good workinq condition, a professional stat~ ~f
~ including the condition of the paint, glazing and
also note if decay or rotting is evident.
Be
The Evaluator shall note broken glass or panes of glass
that are missing.
Ce
The Evaluator shall also determine if the windows are
~ equipped with hold open devices, as
Items with the verbiage "maintain in a professional state of
repair" should be looked at to see if they could be changed to
"good working condition" or similar applicable phrases.
Specific changes include:
- Line 207: Delete "Type I".
- Line 216: Typo "combustio__n".
- Line 217: Delete "(See 13.E.)".
3
Plaun£n9 Commiss£on Miuutes
February 22, 1993
Line 231: Delete "also".
Lines 265 - 276:
lines 210 -218.
Delete all lines. This is covered in
Line 522: Relating to "gas lights,- the Building Official is
to check if gas lights are prohibited and what are the current
requirements.
Lines 652 - 656: Amend as follows: "The Evaluator shall
determine if the required water closet is properly connected
to a water supply and is provided with the proper anti-siphon
device ~ as required by the plumbing code and properly
connected to a sewage system.
Lines 781 - 788: Amend as follows: ".~ORC~ - ~UI.~OO~ OTHER
ROOMS: It will have to be assumed that this category covers
all other rooms not previously evaluated ~h d~,,s, ..... ~
~b ....... All the
room classifications set out here must be deemed to be used
for living and thus must meet the minimum size requirements
for habitable rooms and the minimum ceiling height, window
area and other such standards as set out in this Guide.
Line 789: Delete.
Lines 900 - 903: Amend as follows: "A. The Evaluator
shall determine if the windows have been kept in ~ood working
condition, .... ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. -
~ ~ ....... on~ s~a~e ..... including the
condition of the paint, glazing and also note if decay or
rotting is evident·
Lines 908 - 911: Amend as follows: "A. The evaluator
shall determine if exterior stairways, porches and other
appurtenances have been constructed so as to be safe for
normal use and loading ~-~ kept in a professional ~ ~
Line 964: Delete "(DISCUSS GFCI REQUIREMENTS
determined this was not necessary.
Lines 974 - 977:
Delete all lines.
· )" It was
Line 981: Change as follows: "as set out in Number ~9 78
entitled "Roof Coverinq and Flashing.,~ --
Lines 983 - 984: Change as follows: "The Evaluator shall
determine if the garage is structurally sound ~ ~
............... t ........ and repai~.
Lines 986 - 989: Change as follows: "The Evaluator shall
determine if the entrance ways to accessory structure are
provided with exterior doors which are maintained in a fully
operational condition ...... ~ ~
~~ona state ~ ~ ~
~i~." The Building Official is to check on the point of
06o
Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993
law regarding overhead garage doors.
Mueller commented that he knows a very qualified evaluator who has
volunteered to review and comment on this proposed ordinance.
At the next meeting the Planning Commission will review the Housing
Disclosure Report form and review the changes made to the Housing
Evaluator's Guide, and from there they will proceed with review of
the zoning portion.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael, to adjourn
the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Bill Meyer
Attest:
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 18, 1993
The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul
Meisel, Mark Brewer, Stan Drahos, Jerry Longpre, Sharon McMenamy
Cook and Marj Friedrichs. Also present: Bruce Chamberlain, Gino
Businaro and Ed Shukle.
Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously,
the minutes of the January 21, 1993 regular meeting were approved.
The Mound Visions project was discussed. The promotional packet
has been distributed to the Economic Development Commission members
for distribution to local businesses. It has also been distributed
to area real estate companies, city staff, advisory commissions and
the Mayor and City Council. Further discussion was held with
regard to an appreciation reception for all of the participants of
the Mound Visions program. It is scheduled for Monday, March 1,
1993, at 6 PM, at city hall. The purpose of the reception will be
to formally thank all participants and have a brief update on the
progress of the Mound Visions program. The Expression of Interest
was discussed. The Expression of Interest is a document that will
be sent to potential developers for possible interest in projects
within the Mound Visions downtown program. Discussion focused on
the contents of the Expression of Interest letter as well as the
developers that will be receiving an Expression of Interest letter.
It was moved by Brewer, seconded by Meisel and carried unanimously
to have the Expression of Interest sent to several developers and
not to just a selected few. Based upon the response of the
developers, individual meetings will be set up to discuss possible
projects. A target date of March 1st is being used to send out the
letters with the response date of April 1st.
Mark Brewer brought up the idea of working with the city of
Minnetrista on its long rang comprehensive plan dealing with trails
within the city of Minnetrista and connecting those trails to any
trails that may be developed for the City of Mound. Brewer is
planning to attend a park commission meeting in Minnetrista on
February lSth, and was directed to "scout" Minnetrista's
intentions.
City Manager Ed Shukle brought up the Public Works outdoor storage
issue as it pertains to Lost Lake. He indicated that the City
Council had dropped the Anthony's Floral site from consideration
due to federal wetlands laws as well as the inability to negotiate
a purchase price with Mr. and Mrs. VanderSteeg. Ken Smith,
councilmember had asked that this matter be given to the Economic
Development Commission for the purposes of "brainstorming" their
ideas as they relate to potential sites. It was moved by Brewer
and seconded by Meisel to table this matter until the next meeting
so that City staff could prepare some background information as to
the sites that have been looked at for future storage of outdoor
materials that are currently stored at Lost Lake.
Minu~ - Economic Development Cco~nission - Parc 2
city Manager Ed Shukle updated the Commission on the Community
Services building and the possibility of a warehouse grocery to be
located at that site.
The next meeting of the Commission will be held on Thursday, March
18, 1993, 7 AM, at city hall. Paul Meisel will be bringing the
rolls. It was moved by Brewer, seconded by Meisel and carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 AM.
R~pectfully submitted,
Ed Shukle
City Manager
ES:is
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
e
e
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay~ Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU~ Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
A. Renewals without change
~. New with minor'changes
Co
Lakeside Marina~ Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft~ review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
I I i
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
West Point Place Homeowners Association~ Tonka Bay~ Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
A. Renewals without change
B. New with minor 'changes
Lakeside Marina~ Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft, review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
1993
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
A. Renewals without change
B. New with minor changes
Lakeside Marina; Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
0
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft~ review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
5. Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
it I i
MAR 8 19 3
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
e
o
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
~. Renewals without change
B. New with minor changes
Lakeside Marina~ Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft, review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
I
5
e
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
A. Renewals without change
New with minor ~changes
Ce
Lakeside Marina~ Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft~ review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
MAR 8
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
e
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
A. Renewals without change
New with minor'changes
Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft, review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
5. Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
I II I
MAR 8
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
A. Renewals without change
~. New with minor'changes
Cm
Lakeside Marina~ Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft~ review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93
i I I
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
AGENDA
7:30 AM Saturday, March 13, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
m
e
West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay;
New multiple dock license application for 8 BSU, Public Hearing
Report and Findings
Multiple Dock Licenses
~. Renewals without change
New with minor ~changes
Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; discussion of off-lake
storage issues
Resolution 86, in part setting fees for new dock licenses; staff
recommending that the WSU part of the fee be changed to the current
WSU rate instead of $15. (excerpt attached)
Unrestricted watercraft, review of ordinances affected by the
concept policy approved by the LMCD Board 2/24/93
Additional business recommended by the committee
3/5/93