The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-04-231, I I i ! I,, CITY 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 OFMOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING 7:~0 P.M., TUESDAY, APRIl. 27, 1993 CITY COUNCIl. CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 13, 1993, REGULAR MEETING AND THE APRIL 20, 1993, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 1279-1293 PUBLIC HEARING: FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS. PG. 1294-1308 CASE t93-009: DOUG JEPSON AND ANN SCHOUWEILLER, 2545 BLACK LAKE LANE, LOTS 10 & 37, BLOCK 11, SETON, PID #19-117-23 21 0031. REOURST= VARIANCE MODIFICATION. PG. 1309-1329 CASE ~93-0~0: DAVE AND KATHERINE STREETER, 4700 ABERDEEN ROAD, PART OF LOTS 17 - 20 & 47, BLOCK 6, PEMBROKE, PID #19-117 23 33 0204. REOUEST: VARIANCE. PG. 1330-1347 CASR #93-0~X: MONICA J. BRUBAKKEN, 6615 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 8 IN HALSTEAD HEIGHTS & PART OF LOT 2 IN HALSTEAD VIEW, PID #22-117-24 43 0010. REOUEST= VARIANCE. PG. 1348-1365 1276 i ,I, I,, CAS~ ~93-0Z3: KEN MEYER, 2196 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOTS 29 & 30, BLOCK 1, CREVIER SUBD. OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117- 24 43 0068. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ~ HARDCOVER VARIANCE. PG. 1366-1375 (This item will be heard by the Planning Commission on April 26, 1993.) COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION, DECISION FLOW CHART AND PROCEDURE MANUAL RE: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT PROCESS. PG. 1376-1457 PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT USING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER PROPERTY - HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC. PG. 1458-1469 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PART-TIME POSITION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITHIN THE POLICE AND PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTS. PG. 1470-1475 DISCUSSIOn: RECONSIDERATION OF MID BLOCK CROSSWALKS REMOVAL ON SHORELINE DRIVE AT THE HOUSE OF MOY. PG. 1476-1488 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK, MAY 3-7, 1993. PG. 1489-1490 APPROVAL OF CHARITABLE BEER PERMIT & SET-UP PERMIT - NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS (MOUND CITY DAYS) - POND ARENA AND MOUND BAY PARK - JUNE 19 & 20, 1993. PAYMENT OF BILLS. ZNFORMa%TZON/HISCEL~wEOUR PG. 1491-1498 Bo Financial Report for March 1993 as prepared by Gin· Businaro, Finance Director. L.M.C.D. Mailings. Letter from the City of Or·no about meeting to discuss common issues to cities. Tuesday, May 4, 1993, 7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. at the Lafayette Club. Please let Linda know by Friday, April 30th if you plan to attend. PG. 1499-1500 PG. 1501-1504 PG. 1505 1277 De I~MI~DRR: Governor Arne Carlson is scheduled to speak to a group of government officials and business owners, Monday, April 26, 1993, at 11:30 A.M. - 12:15 P.M., Burl Oaks Golf Club. Lunch will follow address at $10.00 per person. Please plan on attending this event to hear the Governor's thoughts on the remaining weeks of the Legislative Session. 1278 L I I ! I Mound Ci~ Coundl Meeting ApHil3,1~3 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 13, 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., Acting city Clerk Peggy James, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Dennis Erickson, Lynne Robertson, Michele Berglund, Pat Andre, and Ray Matson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. On Tuesday April 6, we were presented a new flag for the Council Chambers by American Legion Post #398 & the Auxiliary. It is the 200th flag that the Post & Auxiliary have issued to the city since 1983. Also, a plaque commemorating the flag presentation is in the display case in the hallway. The Council expressed appreciation for the donations of the flags. Councilmember Jessen stated that the Legion will continue to donate flags. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the March 23, 1993, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 RECYCLOTTO WINNER The Mayor announced that Sohns/Sabin, most recent winner of the Recyclotto. $50.00 Westonka Dollars. 1.2 5444 Spruce Road, are the They will be receiving PUBLIC ~RING: CASE ~93-006: CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OPEN SALES LOT AT H~RRISOh BAY MOBIL, 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, IN TH~ B-2 GENERAL BUSINESb ZONING DISTRICT, PID ~13-117-24 44 0014 The Building Official explained that the applicant is requesting modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of used cars on the property. The proposal calls for the ability to sell 5 vehicles on site. The vehicles will be parked along the west property line as shown on the overhead. The existing Conditional Use Permit allows the following activities on the property of: 1. Motor fuel station; Mound City Council Meeting 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Minor automotive repairs; Valve jobs; Tire repairs; Service maintenance on automobiles; Gas Welding; A vehicle impoundment area; and Sales of small miscellaneous bait. April 13, 1993 fishing tackle and live The site is located at one of the primary entrances to the City. The City has always been sensitive to appearance of businesses and other uses in this area. The Building Official then reviewed the City Planner's report. The Planne~ q~estioned whether a used car lot was appropriate at one of ~sP~m~orYreg~e?~%l~ t~e City? Also the Planner stated that P y issue than a simple zoning matter. He also stated that Staff has serious reservations that the proposed use is appropriate because of the.p~ominent location of th? site and its role in s~aping the public s erce ' Mound. The Plannl . . . P _ ptlon of the Cat o · . . ng Commission discussed this a Y f Planning Commission asked the Staf t len~t~.. The the previously · f to research the application of Issued Conditional Use Permits and see how they affect this request. The Building Official explained that the proposed resolution combines all the uses into one. The Planning Commission suggested moving the fence at the west end of the building to allow more parking. The applicant agrees. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 2 for approval and the proposed resolution, with conditions, is in the packet. The Council discussed deleting some of the uses in the proposed resolution that are not being used at the present. The Council then discussed the number of cars to be allowed to be parked in the selling area noted on the site plan. The City Attorney stated that this could become an enforcement problem because whether there are 3 or 5 cars parked in front or 8 parked in the.impound lot, it will be a problem. He suggested not making the entlr · of the used car sales h~,, .... e impound area part lot ..... oe th~n the council has changed the use from a gas station to a used car lot. He suggested limiting the number that can be in front for used car sales. The applicant stated they intend to sell nice cars. The Council discussed the fact that the Conditional Use Permit goes with the property and someone else could sell something less than nice cars at a future date. The Mayor opened the public hearing. DENNIS ERICKSON, 2424 Avon Drive - spoke in favor of allowing the used car sales. He also stated he would favor other cars for sale being stored in the fenced area. Mound CityCouncilMeeti~ Apdi ~,1~3 Ray Matson - stated 5 cars would be a better selection that 3 for people shopping for cars. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as proposed: RESOLUTION #93-40 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HARRISON BAY MOBIL IN THE B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW AN "OPEN SALES LOT" AT 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS I AND 4, LOTS 20 & 21, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0014, P & Z CASE #93-006 Councilmember Jensen stated that in previous resolutions and included in this one, it states that wooden fencing shall be maintained in good condition at all times and worn or broken boards shall be replaced immediately. She stated that the fence is broken in front and has been since it was at the Planning Commission and on the Bartlett Blvd. side, it is half painted. The applicant stated this will be fixed. The Council asked that the fence be fixed and painted be added as a condition before any sales are allowed. Councilmember Jessen stated she would have to vote against this because she would like to see the number of cars in front limited and the others behind the fence· She also would like to see the impoundment area deleted. The Council discussed deleting the impoundment area and the sales of bait at length. Councilmember Smith disagreed with deleting those two items. Councilmember Smith withdrew his motion and Ahrens withdrew her second. After discussion the proposed resolution was amended as follows: After the NOW, THEREFORE, 1. A. Delete proposed ~'an~ ~plac~'~] ~'No more than ten (10) cars shall be for sale on the premises at one tim,-. .and that no more than 3 cars be parked in the location, noted on the site plan (Exhibit A)." B. Remains the same as proposed. C$ Amended as follows: "Except as modified herein compliance with those conditions in Resolutions 92-120, ~7-126, 87-27, and 86-176, shall be adhered to an~l subject to the following: 1) Remains as proposed. Mound City Council Meeting April 13, 1993 2) Remains as proposed. 3) Remains as proposed. 4) Amended as follows: "There shall be no retail sales of live bait and/or sales of small miscellaneous fishing tackle. Sales of fishing equipment, rods, reels, boats, motors and trailers shall be expressly prohibited." 5) Amended as follows: "Storage within the fenced area shall include only abandoned, wrecked and impounded vehicles referred by the Mound Police Department and vehicles resulting from normal business repair operations. Except that there may be seven (7) cars stored in this area which are for sale." 6) Remains as proposed. 7) The fence be fixed and painted before any sales are allowed. The Council asked if this was acceptable to the applicant. agreed. He Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution with the above amendments: RESOLUTION %93-40 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HARRISON BAY MOBIL IN THE B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW AN "OPEN GALES LOT" AT 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS I AND 4v LOTS 20 & 21v BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID %13-117-24 44 0014, P & Z CASE %93-006 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE CDBG PROGRAM - CONTRACT ~A07483 The City Manager explained that the City has always been under contract with Hennepin County and it is now time to renew this contract for the CDBG Program. The current agreement expires in October. Staff recommends approval. Mound City Council Meeting April 13, 1993 Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HAYORANDCITY NJ%NAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT COOPERATION AGREENENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE CDBG PROGI~M - CONTRACT #A07483 The Council discussed several paragraphs in the contract that are new items in the contract, i.e. page 1174, Subd. L, policies prohibiting excessive force. The City Attorney stated that he thinks these policies are consistent with policies of the Police Department. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING T~g MAYOR ~WD CITY NANAGER TO BX~CUTk ~S ~993 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GR~NT AGREENENT The City Manager explained that this is a resolution approving what we are doing on our recycling program per the budget that was approved in December. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following: RESOLUTION #93-42 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYORANDCITY NANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ~993 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESEI~ There were none. ~.5 RECEIPT OF PETITION TO ESTABLISH "NO PARKING" ON HANOVeR RoBr, The City Manager explained that a petition has been received from residents of 5125, 5138, 5137 Hanover Road and 3188 Tuxedo Blvd. asking that that part of Hanover Road be designated a "no parking,, street. It has been reviewed by the Police Department and recommended that the request be approved. This would be both sides of Hanover Road. Shelley Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road, stated that all customers of A1 & Alma's park on Hanover Road. She asked for residential parking only. The Council discussed permit parking only. The City Manager stated that parking by permit was only done in one area and it is a disaster. Mound City Council Meeting April 13, 1993 Lynne Robertson, 4613 Hanover Road, asked if she was included in this request. The Council stated no. She also stated she would like "no parking" in her area. The Council discussed restricting parking for just certain months, i.e. May to October. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION J93-43 RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE PETITION ~ND TO ESTABLISH "NO PARKING'* ON HANOVER ROAD FROM TUXEDO BLVD. EASTERLY TO THE DEAD END FROM MAY I TO OCTOBER 31 EACH YEAR The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 BID AWARD: 1993 8EALCOAT PROJECT The City Manager explained that four bids were received as follows: Allied Blacktop Astech Corporation Caldwell Asphalt Bituminous Roadways, Inc. The low bidder was Allied Blacktop. was $41,000.00. $38,570.50 $39,264.00 $45,332.60 $45,988.50 The estimate on the project Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION J93-44 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE 1993 SEAL COAT PROJECT BID TO ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,570.50 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Mayor asked if Greg Skinner could comment in a report, his opinion, of how one company can be over twice as much for rocks? 1.7 RESOLUTION GRANTING A WAIVER TO TRIAX CABLEVISION REGARDING THE SIGNAL CARRIAGE OF METRO CABLE NETWORKS (REGIONAL CHANNEL 6) IN THE CITY OF MOUND CABLE SERVICE TERRITORY The City Manager reported that he has received a letter from Triax asking to amend the franchise because Channel 6, the Regional Channel, does not come in very well. Reception is bad due to the Norwest Building in Minneapolis blocking the signal to this area. They would like to substitute Channel 6 with C-SPAN II until such time as it can obtain a better signal from Channel 6. Tom Creighton, Attorney who prepared the Franchise Ordinance, has reviewed this and has prepared a proposed resolution. This is the Mo~dCiU Cou,~lM~ Apdll3,1~3 same as the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission has done. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-45 RESOLUTION GRANTING A WAIVER TO TRIAX CABLEVISIONREGARDING THE SIGNAL CARRIAGE OF METRO CABLE NETWORKS (REGIONAL CHANNEL 6) IN THE CITY OF MOUND CABLE SERVICE TERRITORY The Council asked if the Manager could find out what Triax or Channel 6 could do to get better reception. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 REVISION OF NETLANDS ORDINANCE MAP FOR AREA ~8 (SAUNDERS L~KE) TO MATCH THE OHW ELEVATION OF 943.6 AS USED BY THE DNR The Building Official explained that it has come to our attention that the City's designated wetlands has an elevation for the Ordinary High Water (OHW) 3-1/2 feet above the DNR's OHW for SaundersLake. The Planning Commission reviewed this last evening. He reported that in the DNR Report it was stated that, "Based on all the available evidence the appropriate OHW of Saunders Lake is 943.6. The elevation of 947 determined by the SWCD limnologist is associated with evidence on the landscape which resulted from artificially high water levels. The City Engineer has recommended that the City revise its Wetlands Ordinance (Map for Area #8 (Saunders Lake) to match the OHW elevation of 943.6 as used by the DNR. Minnetrista is also using 943.6 for Saunders Lake. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-46 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY OF MOUND WETLANDS ORDINANCE MAP FOR AREA %8 (SAUNDERS LAKE) TO MATCH THE OHN ELEVATION OF 943.6 AS USED BY THE DNR The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 LICENSE APPROVALS The City Manager reported that the following are license renewals: - HAWKER'S LICENSE - Blue Bell Ice Cream (4-2-93 - 4-1-94) The following licenses run from May 1, 1993 - April 30, 1994. - GAMES OF SKILL - A1 & Alma's (2) American Legion #398 (1) Headliners Bar & Grill (4) VFW Post #5113 (2) 12 5" Mound City Council Meeting - RESTAURANT - A1 & Alma's American Legion Post #398 Domino's Pizza #1974 Happy Garden Hardee's Headliners Bar & Grill House of Moy Mound Lanes Scotty B's Subway Sandwiches VFW Post #5113 - BOWLING - Mound Lanes (8) April 13, 1993 Class IV Class III Class II Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class IV Class I Class II Class III - AMUSEMENT DEVICES (JUKE BOX) - American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 - POOL TABLES - Headliners Bar & Grill (2) VFW Post #5113 (2) New License - Expires April 30, 1993 - Games of Skill - Headliners Bar & Grill (5) MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the above listed renewals and new licenses as submitted, contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being completed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 pUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - MONAWK JAYCEES (PLEASE WAIVE FEE) 8~ 1993 MOTION mad~ by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to approve a public dance permit for the Mohawk Ja~cees, for ~ay 8, 1993, at the American Legion. Fee for permit to be waived. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 REOUEST FROM DENNIS E. ERICKSON, 2424 AVON DRIVE RE: WAIVINC OF PARK DEDICATION FEE AS IT RELATES TO MINOR SUBDIVISIO:' The Building Official explained that Mr. Erickson is requesting a waiver of the park dedication fee as it relates to his minor subdivision. He has worked in the adopt a green space program for several years in his area and felt it should be worth something. The City Attorney stated that he does not understand how the Council can waive this without some kind of variance process or changing the laws for everyone. He stated that the fact that Mr. Erickson did something for the community is not grounds to drop or change the ordinance. Mound CiO Council M~fi~ Apdll3,1~3 The Council discussed the issue and talked about changing the way the park dedication ordinance reads which requires a fee for each lot. Mr. Erickson withdrew his request for the waiver of park dedication fees. The Council asked that the park dedication fee ordinance (relating to a minor subdivision) be reviewed by the Park and Planning Commission for their input and opinions. 1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jenson to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $273,547.85, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 320 AND 43~ The City Manager stated this is an ordinance amending Section 320 of the City Code by adding Subd. 6, relating to a Procedure Manual for rules and regulations for private activities on public lands. Also amending Section 437:04, Subds. 4 and 6, relating to dock permits and required compliance with City regulations. He stated that this is tied to the process of dealing with structures on public lands that has been discussed for the last several months and have had discussions at Committee of the Whole (COW) Meetings. The Staff has been in the process of putting together a Procedure Manual that the Council will be reviewing at the next COW Meeting. This manual will talk about how to deal with some of these issues. In a meeting with the City Attorney, these amendments would make the Procedure Manual part of the ordinance. The second amendment deals with stairways and applications for those kinds of things under Section 437. The Building Official stated that these amendments tie the privilege of a dock to the responsibility of providing safe access over public land. These changes will aid in the enforcement of the City Code. Councilmember Ahrens stated she is not in favor of these amendments because she feels the City will be taking away privileges from--~-,~ people who have situations like this. The S~/lding Official commented that there is one sentence at the end, ...satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures,,, so there is some flexibility in the proposed amendment to Section 437. The Council discussed the fact the this section specifically references ,, ...stairway or structure used to access the dock". '' Mound City Council Meeting April 13, 199~3 The Council discussed that the amendment to Section 437 is merely a safety issue. Councilmember Ahrens asked how this would affect the Hanus and Munson litigations that the City has going on right now. The Building Official stated that there are some handrails that need to go on. The city Attorney stated he could not answer Councilmember Ahrens question, because he does not know if there is a correction order pending concerning a stairway or a structure on either parcel as its used to access the dock. He further explained that the proposed amendment is as it is because this is the way that the Dock Inspector, Building Official and Park Director asked for it to be drawn. The Building Official stated that in the construction on public lands permit process, if there are any modifications, such as a hazardous stairway, it would be brought back to the Council with recommendations, but the Council would issue the order. The Building official stated that safe access over public lands to a dock is the goal. The City Attorney stated that the key words are "corrective order" as it relates to a stairway or structure which is used to get to a dock. If there is a corrective order and the person does not make the correction, then the Staff could interpret this to say the person would not get a dock permit. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #62-~99~ AN ORDINANCE AHENDING SECTION 320:00 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SUBD. 5 RELATING TO A PROCEDURE HANUAL FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDSANDAMENDING SECTION 437:05v SUBDIVISIONS 4 AND 6v RELATING TO DOCK PERMITS ANDREQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REGULATIONS The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELIu%L'EOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1993. Be L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for March 1993. Tom Reese has requested a few minutes on next week's COW Meeting Agenda. C. L.M.C.D. Mailings. Mailing from Lake Minnetonka Multiple Docks Owners Association re: Committee work in studying LMCD expenses as they pertain to issuing and monitoring multiple dock licenses. E® Information re: Property. CDBG Program - Rehabilitation of Private Mound City Council Meeting He April 13, 1993 Jo Letter from Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National League of Cities, (NLC) thanking the Mayor and City Council for assistance in shaping a national economic recovery program. Letter from the City of Apple Valley requesting that the City of Mound adopt a resolution opposing legislation authored by Representative Myron Orfield, DFL - Minneapolis, dealing with housing, metropolitan governance, development controls and transportation. Le Mo Letter from Ted Fox, local resident, re: Real Estate Value (CRV's). Certification of Letter of Commendation written by Police Chief Len Harrell to Investigator Gary Lotton. R~MI_____~ER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, April 20, 1993, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. Memorandum from City of Minnetrista re: upcoming meeting to discuss future trail development along the Dakota Rail line. Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday evening, April 13, 1993. This is the same night of our City Council Meeting. I have asked Jim Fackler to mention it to the Parks & Open Space Commission to see if they are interested in attending. R~MINDER: Spring Clean Up & Recycling Days - Saturday, April 24, 1993 - $ AM to 5 PM, Sunday, April 25, 1993 - 10 AM to 5 PM. This flyer is going out to 5500 households in the Mound area. Joyce Nelson, Recycling Coordinator, has also designed an evaluation form for people to complete and return to the City. Mayor Johnson suggested this as a way of getting feedback from users of the Clean Up and Recycling Days Project. The Council asked that the evaluation be returned to the people at the Lost Lake site or City Hall. The Council received an invitation from Senior Community Services regarding a appreciation reception to be held next Tuesday, April 20, 1993, 1:30 P.M., at the Earle Brown Center in Brooklyn Center. Please let the City Manager know if anyone is planning to go. Letter from Emily Ann Staples, County Commissioner, to the Mayor regarding opportunities to serve on various County committees and commissions. There is a Bicycle Advisory Committee, a Capital Budgeting Task Force, a Community Action for Suburban Hennepin County (CASH), Board of Equalization, and Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee. If the Council knows people interested in serving, please contact Ms. Staples. There is a brief description of each committee enclosed. Mo~dCi~ Council M~fi~ Apfill3,1~3 MOTIOH made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 9:SO P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk I(TNUTES - COMI(ITTEE OF THE NHOLE - ~PR'I'L 20, ~.993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Liz Jensen, Ken Smith, Andrea Ahrens. Also present: Tom Reese, LMCD Representative; Jim Grillo of Sensus Corporation; Greg Skinner, Utilities Superintendent; Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Len Harrell, Police Chief and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Tom Reese gave an update on the following issues before the LMCD: 2. 3. 4. 5. Eurasian Water Milfoil Lake Access Shoreland Management Ordinance Shore Lighting Ordinance LMCD as an Elected Body With regard to Milfoil, Reese discussed the 1993 budget on the project. With regard to lake access he inquired as to the status of the City's cooperation agreement with LMCD as it pertains to car/trailer parking sites in the City of Mound. The city manager indicated that this item should be appearing before the City Council at its April 27th regular meeting. With regard to shore lighting, Mr. Reese indicated that the LMCD has an ordinance against the type of shore lighting that the City of Mound presently has in existence in one of its multiple dock locations at the end of Highland Blvd. Council consensus was to further study this problem and determine if there was some other way that the area could be lighted for the security of the docks and the sliding hill, all at the same time complying with the LMCD's shore lighting ordinance. The goal of June 1, 1993 was established to try to accomplish this task. With regard to the LMCD being an elected body, Reese indicated that his term will expire in December of 1996. He asked for a letter of support regarding an elected body, that could be sent off to the LMCD board and state legislators. Jim Grillo of Sensus Corporation and Greg Skinner, Utilities Superintendent were present to review the differences between touch read water meter reading systems and telephone water meter reading systems. Following the presentation there was a consensus that the touch read system seems to be the appropriate method by which to undertake meter reading at this time from both a cost standpoint as well as benefits of improving the overall water meter reading system. More information will be available on this at a later date. Jim Fackler, Parks Director and Jon Sutherland, Building Official were present to present a proposed plan of action, decision flow chart and procedure manual for dealing with construction on public lands permits. The City Council directed that this matter be MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - APRIL 20, 1993 - PAGE 2 placed on the council agenda for April 27, 1993. Exterior Maintenance was discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle provided some background on this matter as it relates to the existing nuisance ordinance and the desire of the City Council to become more aggressive in enforcement of the nuisance ordinance. The city manager indicated that Len Harrell, Police Chief and Jon Sutherland, Building Official would outline the need for a position on a part time basis that would be overseen by both the police department and the planning and inspections department. The proposal discussed an estimated cost of $10,000 or less to be split between both departments. A part time code enforcement officer working up to 25 hours a week would be involved in handling derelict automobiles, nuisances, exterior storage and trash complaints. The individual would also assist in the handling of animal control problems. Paraprofessional law enforcement tasks would assist patrol officers in the performance of non-criminal police tasks such as responding to accidents and medicals. Council consensus was to put this on the next regular meeting agenda for discussion and action. The elevated water storage tank repainting was briefly discussed. Also discussed were watermain improvements and possible lift station improvements to be combined with the water meter reading system project. The city manager indicated that he would like to put together a financial plan to cover these areas and come back at the next COW meeting with this plan for issuing revenue bonds for water and sewer. Council agreed with this approach. A resolution from the city of Apple Valley on legislation proposed by Representative Myron Orfield was briefly discussed. There was no interest in adopting a similar resolution at this time. city Manager Ed Shukle presented a proposal for City signage. Council consensus was to proceed with this idea. However, request for funds is to be made to local service organizations the funds to pay for the project. The estimated cost is just over $1000. City Manager Ed Shukle presented some information in preparation for the Board of Review to be held May llth, that he received from the County Assessor's office. Other business discussed was the preliminary feasibility report on using tax increment financing for the redevelopment of the Community Services Center property. This matter will appear on the city Council agenda April 27th with a presentation by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. City Manager Ed Shukle distributed the petition for a possible referendum on Teal Pointe and other park properties that was given to him by Pete Meyer local resident and community member promoting this project. Shukle indicated that Mr. Meyer wanted to seek the MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - APRIL 20, 1993 - PAGE 3 Council support. The City Council declined to sign the petition or to have anything to do with it. It was unclear whether this was a sample petition or the actual petition that was being distributed within the City. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM. ectfully~mitted, Ed ~huk~ele -- City Manager ES:is PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT OF MOUND'S FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS, SECTION 330:Z5 OF THE HOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on Tuesday, April 27, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held by the City Council to modify Section 330:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Section 330:15 which contains Floodplain Overlay Regulations, affects properties within the designated floodplain areas. The change in the City Code is mandated due to changes in Federal and State regulations. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" April 5, 1993. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIl, 12, 1993 FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE UPDATE City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained to the Commission that this draft of the Floodplain Ordinance is substantially unchanged from the version that was reviewed by them last fall. This new draft includes comments offered by the DNR after their initial review of the document. After the Planning Commission has reviewed this item, it will be forwarded to the City Council for final public hearing. Koegler noted one typo on page 5, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), which is two feet above the HUD designated floodplain elevation, should be as follows: Lake Minnetonka Dutch Lake Lake Langdon = 933.0 = 942.0 = 937.0 The RFPE previously used for Lake Minnetonka was 933.5, and Koegler noted that the Planning Commission had previously discussed lowering this elevation. Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1993 Koegler highlighted the changes recommended by the DNR, as follows: Subd. 7. Variances, a. Procedures. The following language was added: " A variance shall not be granted for a residential structure to allow the construction of the basement or lowest floor, if there is no basement, below the RFPE." Koegler further explained that this section also allows accessory or non-residential structures to receive variances to be below the RFPE if they are flood proofed in accordance with the State Building Code requirements. The DNR did provisionally accept the ordinance subject to these modifications. Koegler reviewed the intent of the ordinance is to limit the amount of damage that can be done by controlling the type of structures or controlling the flood proofing of those structures. Hanus questioned if there are any exclusions in the ordinance for lock boxes and if lock boxes should be required to be flood proofed. Koegler suggested that language be added clarifying that because it was the intent to allow lock boxes without flood proofing. The definition for an Accessory Structure relates back to the definition in the Zoning Ordinance which classifies structures over 120 square feet to be accessory structures. Hanus noted that the Zoning Ordinance defines "Accessory Buildings.,, Koegler will investigate and clarify. Mueller referred to "Subd. 7., a., 1) Accessory Structures,, and questioned how we would interpret "minimal investment". And, to whom would the minimal investment apply? Koegler can pursue investigation into this issue, he will question if this statement can be removed, prior the ordinance going to the City Council. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no comments, Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the proposed Floodplain Ordinance upon the condition that the City Planner investigate the issues relating to "minimal investment,, for accessory structures, and lock boxes as discussed by the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanlmously. The proposed amended Floodplain Ordinance will be heard by the City Council at a public hearing on April 27, 1993. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 7, 1993 SUBJECT: Floodplain Ordinance Update Attached, please find a copy of the update of Mound's flood plain provisions. This draft is substantially unchanged from the version that was reviewed by the Planning Commission last fall. The new draft includes comments offered by the DNR after their initial review of the document. After the Planning Commission has reviewed this item, it will be forwarded to the City Council for a final public hearing. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Section 300:15. Floodplain Overlay Regulations. Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization, Purpose and Disclaimer of Liability. a. Statutory_ Authorization. The floodplain regulations contained hereinafter are mandated by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota and adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 103F and 462. b. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and to minimize potential losses due to periodic flooding including loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. c. Disclaimer of Liability. This ordinance does not imply that areas outside of the flood plain or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding and flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the City of Mound or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decisions lawfully made hereunder. Subd. 2. Gen?ro,1 Provisions a. Adoption of Flood Insuranc~ Rate Map. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Mound, dated September 29, 1978, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is hereby adopted by reference as the Official Flood Plain Map and made a part of this ordinance. b. Land~ to Which Ordinance Applie~. This ordinance shall apply to all lands designated as flood plain within the City of Mound. c. Interpretation. The boundaries of the flood plain shall be determined by scaling distances on the Official Flood Plain Map. Where interpretation is needed, the Building Official shall be responsible to make the interpretation based on the regional flood profile, if available. If not available, the Building Official shall require the applicant to furnish a floodplain evaluation consistent with Subdivision 5(b) of this ordinance to determine the Regional Flood elevation. d. D~finition~. Unless specifically defined below, words and phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage so as to give this Section 300:15 its most reasonable application. "Accessory Use or Structure" means a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. "Basement" is any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as a first story as defined herein. "Flood Fringe" means that portion of the flood plain lying above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "Flood Hazard Areas or Flood Plain" means the channel or beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. "Floodway" means that portion of the flood plain lying below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "Obstruction" means any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, dredged spoil, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, stockpile of sand or gravel or other material, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, lake bed, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of flow, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by floodwater. "Regional Flood" means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and is reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 2 "Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation" means an elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from a change in the designation of a floodway. "Story" is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as defined herein for more the 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. "Story, First" is the lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected on the ground including but not limited to buildings, streets, parking lots and on- site utilities. "Variance" means the modification of a specific permitted development standard required by ordinance, to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable by ordinance, but only as applied to a particular property, for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 3. Overlay Regulations and General Compliance a. Overlay Regulations. Section 300:15 shall be used as an overlay regulation which supersedes the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Permitted uses shall be those specified by the underlying zoning district subject to the standards and criteria established by Subdivision 4 of Section 300:15. b. General Complianc~. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, or 1900 Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 3 structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses of land within the City of Mound. Subd. 4. Development Stan~tards The following standards shall apply to land uses in flood plain areas: a. Floodway Protection. The construction of new structures, the addition to the outside dimensions of existing structures and obstructions such as fill or the storage of materials or equipment shall not be permitted in the floodway portion of the flood plain except as otherwise specified hereinafter. b. Flood Fringe Structures. The placement of new structures and land uses as permitted by the underlying zoning district, may be permitted within the flood fringe subject to the standards of this section. Fill placed within the flood fringe portion of the flood plain shall be properly compacted and the slopes protected with riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable methods. c. Flood Fringe Nonhazardous Materials Storage. The storage of nonhazardous materials may be allowed in the flood fringe if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning or if placed on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. d. Hazardous Materials Storage Prohibited. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life are prohibited. e. Floodway Capacity Impairment Prohibited. No use shall be permitted to adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributary to the main stream, or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. f. Minimum Basement/Floor Elevations. All structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing structures and manufactured housing, shall be constructed on fill so that the basement floor, or first floor, if there is no basement, is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation shall be no lower than one foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 4 leal Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for each lake is as follows: Lake Minnetonka g,71-1~0; Dutch Lake ~.~.0; Lake Langdon -o~3-5~. g. Vehicular Access. Any use within a floodplain area that would require vehicular access to lands outside of the flood plain, where all or part of the access would be below the Regional Flood Elevation, shall not be permitted unless granted a variance by the City Council. In granting a variance, the Board shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the use and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local emergency response and recovery procedures exist. h. Uses Acces~0ry t0 Commercial and Manufacturing Uses. Uses accessory to commercial and manufacturing uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots, may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If these facilities are to be used by employees or the public at large, a permit may be granted only if a flood warning system is installed by the owner that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater than two feet. i. Manufactured Housing. All manufactured housing located within the flood fringe must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. j. Utilities. Railroads. Roads and Bridges. All utilities and transportation facilities, including railroad tracks, roads and bridges, shall be constructed in accordance with State flood plain management standards contained in Minnesota Rules 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200. k. Travel Trailers. Travel Trailers are not permitted in the flood plain. Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 5 ,& ,B · · i,, Subd. 5. Floo~l Plain Evaluation Procedure a. Permit Required. A permit issued by the Building Official shall be secured prior to: 1) the construction, addition, or alteration of any building or structure, 2) the use or change in use of a building, structure, or land, 3) the extension of a nonconforming use, or 4) any excavation or the placement of an obstruction within the flood plain. b. Application. Upon receipt of an application for a permit or subdivision approval within a flood plain, the Building Official shall require the applicant to furnish sufficient site development plans and may require a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by a qualified engineer or hydrologist specifying the nature of the development and whether the proposed use is located in the floodway or flood fringe and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the site. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Rules 1983, Parts 6120.5600 (Technical Standards and Requirements For Flood Plain Evaluation) and 6120.5700 (Minimum Flood Plain Management Standards for Local Ordinances) shall be followed during the technical evaluation and review of the development proposal. c. Department of Natural Resources Notification. The Building Official shall submit one copy of the information required by Subdivision 5 of this ordinance to the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist for review and comment at least 20 days prior to the granting of a permit or subdivision approval by the City. The Building Official shall notify the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist within ten days after a permit or subdivision approval is granted. d. State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a permit or processing an application for a variance, the Building Official shall confirm that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal permits. e. Certification of Lowest Floor Elevations. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The City Manager shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) for all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 6 Subd. 6. Subdivisions and Removal of Flood Hazard Designation a. Subdivisions. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City for reasons of flooding, inadequate drainage, or inadequate water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All subdivisions shall have water and sewer disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this ordinance. In the flood hazard area or flood plain, applicants shall provide the information required by the City Engineer as set forth in this Section 300:15, and the subdivision shall be evaluated in accordance with procedures therein and subdivision regulations of the City as set forth in Sections 330 through 360, inclusive, of the City Code. b. Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the regional flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards shall be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. Subd. 7. Variance~ a. Procedures. Variances from the provisions of this Section 300:15 shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures contained in Section 325:00. No variance shall allow a use prohibited in a district or permit a lower degree of protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). A variance shall not be granted for a residential structure to allow the construction of the basement or lowest floor, if there is no basement, below the RFPE. When a variance is granted to allow a nonresidential or accessory use or structure below the RFPE, the use or structure shall be flood proofed in accordance with the applicable State Building Code as follows: 1) ACCeSsory Structures. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 flood proofing Page 7 Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500 square feet in size and, for a detached garage, the garage is used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: (a) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and (b) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the RFPE or properly flood proofed. 2) Nonre~i~tential Structures. All nonresidential structures, including basements, shall be dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code. b. Notification of Commissioner. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall receive at least ten days notice of all hearings on variances. A copy of all decisions granting a variance shall be forwarded to the Commissioner within ten days of such action. c. Appeals. Procedures to be followed in the appeal of an administrative determination shall be as specified by the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 23.502). d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Building Official shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance, and 2) such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. The City shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 8 Subd. 8. Nonconformities A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful prior to the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions: a. Alterations. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. b. Interior Alterations. An alteration to the inside dimensions of a nonconforming use or structure is permissible provided it will not increase the flood damage potential of the use or structure. c. Improvement Limitations Within Floodplains. When the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions to the interior and exterior of a nonconforming structure exceeds 50 percent of the Assessor's market value of the structure, the structure shall be made to comply with the standards of Subdivision 4 of this ordinance. The cost of alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the City's initial floodplain ordinance shall be calculated at current cost in making this determination. d. ]~r..il.C, ii.o.R. If any nonconforming structure or use of land within a floodplain is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The City may issue a permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon reconstruction, is adequately elevated on fill in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 9. P~naltie$ for Violations A violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variance) shall constitute a misdemeanor. a. Enforcement. In responding to an ordinance violation, the City may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after- the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 9 National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City is required to act in good faith to enforce these regulations and to correct ordinance violations, to the extent possible, so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b. Redress. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the City, the Building Official shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the ordinance. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information shall be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the City's plan of action to correct the violation. c. Notification of Violation. The Building Official shall follow due process of law in notifying the suspected party of the requirements of this ordinance and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Building Official may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, the Building Official may either 1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period, not to exceed 30 days, to bring the use or structure into compliance with the ordinance, or 2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. d. Lack of Response. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Building Official within the specified period of time after being properly notified, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly and the City shall take the appropriate action to accomplish the same. The Building Official shall, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the construction, development or use that was the cause for notification. Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 10 Subd. 10. Amendments , All amendments to this ordinance, including revisions to the Official Flood Plain Map, shall be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. The flood plain designation on the Official Flood Plain Map shall not be removed unless the area is filled to an elevation at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and is contiguous to lands outside of the flood plain. Changes in the Official Flood Plain Map must meet the FEMA Technical Conditions and Criteria and shall receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall be given ten days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration. Subd. 11. Abrogation and Severability a. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. b. If any section, clause, provision, or portions of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Draft 6, Floodplain Ordinance, April 7, 1993 Page 11 I I Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. rnm ltlll TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound City Council and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner April 20, 1993 Flood Plain Ordinance Update EC'D APR 2 2 1993 Enclosed, please find the draft of the Flood Plain Ordinance update as recommended by the Planning Commission. The DNR has required that all cities update their flood plain ordinances to comply with changes of rules and standards that have occurred over the past few years. The DNR has reviewed the enclosed draft and has approved the ordinance subject to final adoption by the City of Mound. At the Planning Commission public hearing that was held on April 12, 1993, the Commission requested clarification on three items. These items include the following: Lock Boxes - The provisions of the Flood Plain Ordinance require flood proofing for accessory structures that lie within the flood fringe area. All accessory structures are required to be either built on fill or flood proofed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. It is not the intent of the Planning Commission that lock boxes be flood proofed if they are located in the flood fringe area. After reviewing this issue with the DNR, specific language was added to the ordinance exempting lock boxes from the flood proofing provisions. Accessory_ Structures - Accessory structures are required to be located on fill or flood proofed if they represent a "minimal investment" and if they are less than 500 square feet in size. The Commissioned questioned the term "minimal investment". This term is used by both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State, however, it is undefined. Therefore, the application of such a term becomes a judgement call on the part of the City. Street Elevations - A question was raised at the Planning Commission meeting on required elevations for streets, particularly pertaining to street reconstruction projects. In accordance with the DNR's flood plain provisions, local streets need to be at a minimum elevation of 932.0 or the City would need to grant an elevation variance. In the case of a reconstruction project, DNR staff indicated that a variance would probably be appropriate. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Flood Plain Ordinance Memorandum April 20, 1993 Page Two Upon completion of the public hearing, appropriate action by the City Council would be to direct staff to prepare a summary ordinance of the modified Flood Plain Ordinance for subsequent approval by the City Council and for publication in the official newspaper. After that has been accomplished, the City needs to provide the DNR with three certified copies of the ordinance. This procedure ensures Mound's continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Section 300:15. Floodplain Overlay Regulations. Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization, Purpose and Disclaimer of Liability. a. Statutory Authorization. The floodplain regulations contained hereinafter are mandated by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota and adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 103F and 462. b. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and to minimize potential losses due to periodic flooding including loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. c. Disclaimer of Liability. This ordinance does not imply that areas outside of the flood plain or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding and flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the City of Mound or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decisions lawfully made hereunder. Subd. 2. General Provisions a. Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Mound, dated September 29, 1978, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is hereby adopted by reference as the Official Flood Plain Map and made a part of this ordinance. b. Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This ordinance shall apply to all lands designated as flood plain within the City of Mound. c. Interpretation. The boundaries of the flood plain shall be determined by scaling distances on the Official Flood Plain Map. Where interpretation is needed, the Building Official shall be responsible to make the interpretation based on the regional flood profile, if available. If not available, the Building Official shall require the applicant to furnish a floodplain evaluation consistent with Subdivision 5(b) of this ordinance to determine the Regional Flood elevation. d. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words and phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage so as to give this Section 300:15 its most reasonable application. "Accessory Use, Facility or Structure" means a use, facility, structure or portion of a structure subordinate to and serving the principal use structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. "Basement" is any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as a first story as defined herein. "Flood Fringe" means that portion of the flood plain lying above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "Flood Hazard Areas or Flood Plain" means the channel or beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. "Floodway" means that portion of the flood plain lying below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "Lock Box" means a structure accommodating the storage of boat and beach equipment, not exceeding twenty (20) square feet in total floor area and four (4) feet in height. "Obstruction" means any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, dredged spoil, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, stockpile of sand or gravel or other material, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, lake bed, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of flow, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by floodwater. "Regional Flood" means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and is reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average ]~O Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 2 frequency in magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Rate Map. "Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation" means an elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from a change in the designation of a floodway. "Story" is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as defined herein for more the 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. "Story, First" is the lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected on the ground including but not limited to buildings, streets, parking lots and on- site utilities. "Variance" means the modification of a specific permitted development standard required by ordinance, to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable by ordinance, but only as applied to a particular property, for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 3. Overlay Regulations and General Compliance a. Overlay Regulations. Section 300:15 shall be used as an overlay regulation which supersedes the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Permitted uses shall be those specified by Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 3 the underlying zoning district subject to the standards and criteria established by Subdivision 4 of Section 300:15. b. General Compliance. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses of land within the City of Mound. Subd. 4. Development Standards The following standards shall apply to land uses in flood plain areas: a. Floodway Protection. The construction of new structures, the addition to the outside dimensions of existing structures and obstructions such as fill or the storage of materials or equipment shall not be permitted in the floodway portion of the flood plain except as otherwise specified hereinafter. b. Flood Fringe Structures. The placement of new structures and land uses as permitted by the underlying zoning district, may be permitted within the flood fringe subject to the standards of this section. Fill placed within the flood fringe portion of the flood plain shall be properly compacted and the slopes protected with riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable methods. c. Flood Fringe Nonhazardous Materials Storage. The storage of nonhazardous materials may be allowed in the flood fringe if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning or if placed on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. d. Hazardous Materials Storage Prohibited. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life are prohibited. e. Floodway Capacity Impairment Prohibited. No use shall be permitted to adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributary to the main stream, or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 4 f. Minimum Basement/Floor Elevations. All structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing structures and manufactured housing, shall be constructed on fill so that the basement floor, or first floor, if there is no basement, is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation shall be no lower than one foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for each lake is as follows: Lake Minnetonka 933.0; Dutch Lake 942.0; Lake Langdon 937.0. g. Vehicular Access. Any use within a floodplain area that would require vehicular access to lands outside of the flood plain, where all or part of the access would be below the Regional Flood Elevation, shall not be permitted unless granted a variance by the City Council. In granting a variance, the Board shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the use and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local emergency response and recovery procedures exist. h. Uses Accessory to Commercial and Manufacturing Uses. Uses accessory to commercial and manufacturing uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots, may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If these facilities are to be used by employees or the public at large, a permit may be granted only if a flood warning system is installed by the owner that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater than two feet. i. Manufactured Housing. All manufactured housing located within the flood fringe must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. j. Utilities, Railroads, Roads and Bridges. All utilities and transportation facilities, including railroad tracks, roads and bridges, shall be constructed in accordance with State flood plain management standards contained in Minnesota Rules 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200. Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 5 k. Travel Trailers. Travel Trailers are not permitted in the flood plain. Subd. 5. Flood Plain Evaluation Procedure a. Permit Required. A permit issued by the Building Official shall be secured prior to: 1) the construction, addition, or alteration of any building or structure, 2) the use or change in use of a building, structure, or land, 3) the extension of a nonconforming use, or 4) any excavation or the placement of an obstruction within the flood plain. b. Application. Upon receipt of an application for a permit or subdivision approval within a flood plain, the Building Official shall require the applicant to furnish sufficient site development plans and may require a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by a qualified engineer or hydrologist specifying the nature of the development and whether the proposed use is located in the floodway or flood fringe and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the site. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Rules 1983, Parts 6120.5600 (Technical Standards and Requirements For Flood Plain Evaluation) and 6120.5700 (Minimum Flood Plain Management Standards for Local Ordinances) shall be followed during the technical evaluation and review of the development proposal. c. Department of Natural Resources Notification. The Building Official shall submit one copy of the information required by Subdivision 5 of this ordinance to the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist for review and comment at least 20 days prior to the granting of a permit or subdivision approval by the City. The Building Official shall notify the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist within ten days after a permit or subdivision approval is granted. d. State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a permit or processing an application for a variance, the Building Official shall confirm that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal permits. e. Certification of Lowest Floor Elevations. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The City Manager shall Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 6 maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) for all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. Subd. 6. Subdivisions and Removal of Flood Hazard Designation a. Subdivisions. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City for reasons of flooding, inadequate drainage, or inadequate water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All subdivisions shall have water and sewer disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this ordinance. In the flood hazard area or flood plain, applicants shall provide the information required by the City Engineer as set forth in this Section 300:15, and the subdivision shall be evaluated in accordance with procedures therein and subdivision regulations of the City as set forth in Sections 330 through 360, inclusive, of the City Code. b. Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the regional flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards shall be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. Subd. 7. Variances a. Procedures. Variances from the provisions of this Section 300:15 shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures contained in Section 325:00. No variance shall allow a use prohibited in a district or permit a lower degree of protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). A variance shall not be granted for a residential structure to allow the construction of the basement or lowest floor, if there is no basement, below the RFPE. When a variance is granted to allow a nonresidential or accessory use or structure below the RFPE, the use or structure shall be flood proofed in accordance with the applicable State Building Code as follows: 1) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 7 with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500 square feet in size and, for a detached garage, the garage is used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: (a) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and (b) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the RFPE or properly flood proofed. 2) Nonresidential Structures. All nonresidential structures, including basements, shall be dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code. 3) Lock Boxes. All lock boxes as defined herein, shall be allowed in the flood fringe without flood proofing. b. Notification of Commissioner. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall receive at least ten days notice of all hearings on variances. A copy of all decisions granting a variance shall be forwarded to the Commissioner within ten days of such action. c. Appeals. Procedures to be followed in the appeal of an administrative determination shall be as specified by the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 23.502). d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Building Official shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance, and 2) such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. The City shall maintain a record of Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 8 all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. Subd. 8. Nonconformities A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful prior to the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions: a. Alterations. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. b. Interior Alterations. An alteration to the inside dimensions of a nonconforming use or structure is permissible provided it will not increase the flood damage potential of the use or structure. c. Improvement Limitations Within Floodplains. When the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions to the interior and exterior of a nonconforming structure exceeds 50 percent of the Assessor's market value of the structure, the structure shall be made to comply with the standards of Subdivision 4 of this ordinance. The cost of alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the City's initial floodplain ordinance shall be calculated at current cost in making this determination. d. Destruction. If any nonconforming structure or use of land within a floodplain is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The City may issue a permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon reconstruction, is adequately elevated on fill in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 9. Penalties for Violations A violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variance) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 9 a. Enforcement. In responding to an ordinance violation, the City may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after- the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City is required to act in good faith to enforce these regulations and to correct ordinance violations, to the extent possible, so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b. Redress. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the City, the Building Official shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the ordinance. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information shall be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the City's plan of action to correct the violation. c. Notification of Violation. The Building Official shall follow due process of law in notifying the suspected party of the requirements of this ordinance and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Building Official may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, the Building Official may either 1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period, not to exceed 30 days~ to bring the use or structure into compliance with the ordinance, or 2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. d. Lack of Response. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Building Official within the specified period of time after being properly notified, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly and the City shall take the appropriate action to accomplish the same. The Building Official shall, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the construction, development or use that was the cause for notification. Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 10 Subd. 10. Amendments All amendments to this ordinance, including revisions to the Official Flood Plain Map, shall be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. The flood plain designation on the Official Flood Plain Map shall not be removed unless the area is filled to an elevation at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and is contiguous to lands outside of the flood plain. Changes in the Official Flood Plain Map must meet the FEMA Technical Conditions and Criteria and shall receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall be given ten days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration. Subd. 11. Abrogation and Severability a. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. b. If any section, clause, provision, or portions of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Draft 7, Floodplain Ordinance, April 20, 1993 Page 11 · · PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #92-%2 GRANTING & TEHPOI~y VJ~RIANCE TO J~.~LOW TWO PRZNCIPAL DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT UNTZL COMPLETION OF THE NEW DWELLING AT 46%8 KILDARE ROAD NOW KNOWN AS 2545 BLACK LAKE LANE LOTS %0 AND 37, BLOCK %1, SETON, PID #19-117-23 21 0031 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-009 WHEREAS, the applicants, Doug Jepson and Ann Schouweiler, have applied for an amendment to Resolution #92-12 which required removal of an existing dwelling structure and all related debris on their property at 2545 Black Lake Lane, and WHEREAS, the applicants are requesting that a portion of the foundation and the slab be allowed to remain to be used as a patio and parking area for winter boat storage, and WHEREAS, the applicants have complied with all other conditions outlined in Resolution #92-12, including removal of the encroaching portion of the existing foundation, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot setback from Kildare Road, a 10 foot setback from Black Lake Lane, and 6 foot setback from the west side property line, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water, and WHEREAS, all setbacks and lot area are conforming, however, there is a concern about the percent of impervious lot coverage, and WHEREAS, the applicant could re-install a patio parking area of this type without a building permit as long as hardcover and other provisions of the ordinance are met, and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve an amendment to Resolution #92-12 to allow an existing foundation and slab to remain as, as requested, upon the following conditions: The total lot coverage does not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #93-009 Be The lot area be adjusted to include only that area above the floodplain elevation. Ce The lot coverage calculations include future sidewalks and stairs leading to the patio. D. No driveway be provided to access the patio area. E. This resolution be filed at Hennepin County. 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. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the requested alteration to the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 10 and 37, Block 11, Seton, PID #19-117-23 21 0031. 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. 1VHNUTES OF A M~EETI~G OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANN~G CO]~IS$ION APRIL 12, 1993 CASB t93-009~ DOUG JBPSON AND ANN BCHOUWEILgRt 2545 BLACK LAK~ LANE, LOTS 10 & 37, BLOCK 11, 8ETON. PID ~t~-1~7-23 ~1 0031. V~RIANCE MODIFICATION. The Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explalned that the applicant is requesting a modification to Resolution $92-12 which approved a variance to allow two principal dwellings on one lot until completion of the new dwelling. A Condition in the resolution required the existing structure to be demolished and all debris to be disposed of, including the slab. The applicant is requesting to retain a portion of the foundation and slab as a patio and parking area. The applicant could re-install a patio parking area of this type without a permit as long a hardcover and other provisions of the ordinance are met. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's request to retain a portion of the existing slab as a patio/parking area, subject to the following conditions: 1. The total hardcover is not to exceed 30 percent of the lot area. 2. The applicant provide a site plan accurately detailing all existing and proposed hardcover on-site. 3. All other applicable provisions of the City Ordinance be met. Weiland questioned the useability of this slab as a patio and the accessibility. The applicant explained that steps are proposed to access the patio, and plantings are also planned. Mr. Jepson submitted some hardcover calculations which revealed that he would need to remove 6 feet of the slab at the south side in order to meet lot coverage restrictions. It was questioned how the applicant would access the slab with a vehicle for parking, would a driveway be installed? Mr. Jepson stated that he plans to drive over the grass, and if needed, he would lay boards down if the ground was soft. It was also noted that the lot area was calculated to the elevation of 929.9 and should include only the area above the floodplain elevation of 931.0. NOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend that Resolution #92-12 be amended to allow the slab to remain, subject to the following: I. The total lot coverage does not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. 2. The lot area be adjusted to include only that area above the floodplain elevation. 3. The lot coverage calculations include future sidewalks and stairs leading to the patio. 4. No driveway be provided to access the patio area. 5. The resolution be filed at Hennepin County. Motion carried unanimously. Jensen commented that she would like to see a revised survey, and questioned if the calculations submitted by the applicant included the deck, and if not, it should be taken into consideration. Hanus commented that he would be in favor of refunding the fee as requested by the applicant. Mueller and Meyer commented that staff time was still used to address the modification and that this issue should be address by the City Council, not the Planning commission. This request will be heard by the City Council on April 2?, 1993. 1311 CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534' L''a ~ A/OOD re©AD MOUND MIt,,r{SSQTASS36a '6S- (6~£ 472 063,~ FAX 6~2~ 4720620 DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of April 12, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official 55 ' Variance Request APPLICANT: Doug Jepson and Ann Schouweiler CASE NO. 93-009 LOCATION: 2545 Black Lake Lane Lots 10 & 37, Block 11, Seton PID #19-117-23 21 0031 ZONING: BACKGROUND R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a modification to the variance approved by Resolution #92-12. This resolution allowed the applicant to temporarily have two principal dwellings on the site during the period of construction. The City has established a $1,000 escrow to insure the old dwelling will be removed. The applicant now wishes to retain a portion of the foundation and slab as a patio and parking area. The resolution requires the whole structure, including slab and foundation, to be removed. The applicant could re-install a patio/parking area of this type without a permit, as long as hardcover and other provisions are in conformance with the ordinance. At the time this report was processed, accurate calculations for hardcover had not been received. printed on recycled paper )3 13 Staff Report Jepson, 2545 Black Lake Lane April 12, 1993 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to retain a portion of the existing slab as a patio/parking area, subject to the following conditions: The total hardcover is not to exceed 30 percent of the lot area. The applicant provide a site plan accurately detailing all existing and proposed hardcover on-site. 3. Ail other applicable provisions of the City Ordinance be met. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 27, 1993. JS:pj revised 4/2/92 · ' ~" ~ 11 mR25 VARIANCE APPLICATI0~ ~ !$ ~ .~, ~34~ ~a~oo~ Road, ~ound~ ~ 55a64 - -- ' Phon~: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:_ April 12 '93 City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to city Engineer: _ April 27 '93 Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Address of Subject Property. 2545 Black Lake Lane Owner,s Name_ Doug Jepson~ Ann Schouweile. Owner,s Address Same as above Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone~ome 4720754 Work Work 8711717 Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ Block l l Addition - ,~- t on PID No. -%9 19-117-23 21 0031 Zoning District. ~-1 _ Use of Property: R-] Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~O yes, ( ) no. If ]~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed constr~ction or alteration (size number of stories, type of use, etc.): , Retain foundation for use as a patio and winter boat storage. revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S 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. 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 use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), No ( ). If no, specifyeachnon-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 yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I would like to retain the existing foundation as a com letel conformin atio and winter boat stora e area. 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. 3/24/93 City Of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 To Whom It May Concern: I request that my variance application fee be refunded, considering that this matter concerns a revision of resolution #92-12 which remains fully conforming and attempts to complete this project. Sincerely, Doug Jepson and Ann Schouweiler January28, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-12 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE TO ~LLOW TWO PRINCIPAL DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT AND TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING SIDE YARD ENCROACHMENT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE NEW DWELLING FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4618 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 10 AND 37, BLOCK 11v SETONv PID %19-117-25 21 0031 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-001 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize an existing side yard encroachment of .9 feet (6.9 foot variance) and to allow the temporary existence of two principal dwellings on one lot during the period of time when the new dwelling is under construction, and; WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to remove the existing dwelling immediately after completion of the new dwelling, and; WHEREAS, the Building Official does not customarily require a variance if the applicant is willing to guarantee removal of the existing structure. Guaranteeing removal of the structure requires the submittal of a bond or letter of credit to the City of Mound in an amount equal to or exceeding the cost of removal. The applicant, in this case, is unable to post the necessary guarantee and is requesting that a $1,000 escrow be established. Three estimates for the removal of the dwelling have been submitted by reputable contractors, they are: $6,600, $3,360, and $2,848, and; WHEREAS, the proposed new dwelling will conform to all zoning code regulations, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a 8 to 1 vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing an existing side yard encroachment of .9 feet (a 6.9 foot variance) and to allow the temporary existence of two principal dwellings on one lot during the period of time when the new dwelling is under construction, contingent upon the following conditions: 14 January 28, 1992 ae Upon completion of the new home, the existing structure is to be immediately demolished and all debris is to be disposed of in a proper manner. be The applicant must establish a $1,000 escrow account. Proceeds from the escroW account shall be used by the City of Mound to defray the cost of legal expenses or actual demolition expenses associated with removal of the existing dwelling should the applicants fail to remove the structure of their own accord. The escrow account shall be refunded to the applicants upon final inspection of the demolished str~cture by the Mound Building Official. Ce The applicant shall execute an agreement as prepared by the City Attorney granting the City a temporary easement to enter the property (Lot 10 & 37, Block 11, Seton) and remove the existing dwelling and assess the cost against the property if the existing dwelling is not removed within 60 days after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the new dwelling. 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. 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 new conforming single family dwelling as shown on the attached survey (Exhibit A). This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 10 and 37, Block 11, Seton, PID t19-117- 23 21 0031. 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. 15 January28, 1992 The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennegin County and 9aying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until 9roof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: city Clerk 2.4. Certificate of Survey for Dcuclas W. Jcpson & Ann Schouwei]er ...cf Lets 10 an(] 37, Block 11, SET(N Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURV~YED: Lnts 10 and 37, Block ]I, SETON. P~7~e~ 'i nort~T'-- (~g%%-i ' 320 House/Porch (16x8)+(24x74) = 1904 DriVeway (26xlO) ~ 260 Patio (south) (22x10)+(17x16) - 492 TOtal 'Hardcover(square feet) = 2976 Total Land (236.63x42.5) = 10,056 Percentage Hardcover = 29.59% This survey intends to show the bound- aries of the above descrilned property~ the location of an existinG house %herecn,. and the proposed location of a proposed building. It docs not pur- port to show any other improver, chis or cmcroqchme~t s . ',Intended use of old foundation S_um..mer: Patio w. south exposure Winter: Boat storage _: o : Iron marker (9~.;) : Existing spot elevation ~ : Proposed spot olovation D~ tuz~: Mo~1nd City ',n~ C~C¢ 93"L91 I heTcby ccrti{} tha: ti i~ ~,ur~ t'y.',~as ~reparvd by me o~ un&'r m~ direct vis,on, and that ] am ~ dub' registered C~vil Engine, er and Land ~L,r~ e)'or under the la~ of tf, c St~l~' .~f M]nnes(,~a Mark S Gr,,:~b,'tz M:nnvs,,u b:et s~ Number 1"755 RECEIVED FEB 2 5 1993 '' ~.,( PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- , RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 4?00 ABERDEEN ROADv THAT PART OF LOTS l?v 18, 19, 20 AND 4?, BLOCK 6, PEMBROKE, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-010 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dave and Katherine Streeter, have applied for a 2,076 square foot lot area variance and a 9 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the construction of an addition at 4700 Aberdeen Road, and WHEREAS, this property was created by a subdivision in 1980, Resolution #80-352, at which time this property was found to be in harmony with adjacent properties. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback for lots of record with a lot depth less than 60 feet, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, all other setbacks' and impervious lot coverage calculations are conforming, and WHEREAS, there is a concern about drainage relating to the property at 4722 Aberdeen Road, and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 2,076 square foot lot area variance and a 9 foot rear yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition at 4700 Aberdeen Road, subject to the following condition: A. A drainage plan be reviewed and approved by the city Engineer, and the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with such review and approval. 2. 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. ,ft ,i ~ I i I, PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #93-010 It is determined that the livability of the residential property w~ll be improved by the authorization o£ the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a two story addition consisting of a two car garage, three bedrooms and one bath. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lots 17, 18, 19 and the West 20 feet of Lot 47, in Block 6 of Pembroke, lying South of a line drawn parallel with the South line of said Block from a point on the West line of Lot 17 distant 56.6 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 17, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI qSION APRIl, 12, 1993 CASE #93-010= DAVE AND KATHERINE STREETER, 4700 ABERDEEN ROAD, PART OF LOTS 17 - 20 & 47, BLOCK 6, PEMBROKE, PID ~19-117-23 33 0204. VARIANCE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 2,076 square foot lot area variance and a 9 foot rear yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition onto the existing dwelling. This property was created by a subdivision in 1980 and at that time was found to be in harmony with the adjacent properties. The request conforms to lot coverage requirements. Due to inadequate lot depth and topography the Planning Commission may find that hardship and practical difficulty exists. Staff recommended approval of the variance request subject to a drainage plan being reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with such review and approval. The Commission recognized a letter received from the neighbors to the west at 4722 Aberdeen Road from Kim and Dean Bartz. The Bartz's expressed a concern about drainage commenting that they don't need any more drainage into their property and they currently have water standing in their driveway. NOTION made by ross, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as requested subject to a drainage plan being reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with such review and approval. Notion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 27, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534: MAYWOCZ ROaD L~OuND ~.41NNESOT 6'2 472 ~-'-?0 FAX 6'2 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of April 12, 1993 TO: FROM; SUBJECT: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request APPLICANT: Dave and Katherine Streeter CASE NO. 93-010 LOCATION: 4700 Aberdeen Road Part of Lots 17 - 20 & 47, Block 6, Pembroke PID #19-117-23 33 0204 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant's are requesting a variance to construct a garage and second story addition onto the existing home. Interior remodeling is also proposed. The variances involved in this case include the following: Existing Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 7,924 Rear Yard 11' ,, 10,000 2,076 6' 15' 9' When this property was created by a subdivision in 1980 it was found at that time to be in harmony with adjacent properties. The current request is in conformance of the hardcover provisions of the zoning ordinance at 30 percent. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Streeter, 4700 Aberdeen Road April 12, 1993 Page 2 The existing dwelling is substandard in area, the floor plan is poorly laid out, and there is a hazardous stairway to the basement just inside the front door. The new ~ddition, coupled with the interior modifications represents a substantial improvement to the property. The addition follows the existing nonconforming rear line and thus accommodating the front entry to both the existing and proposed portion of the home. The Planning Commission may find that a hardship and practical difficulty exists in this case, as there is inadequate lot depth and the topography is such that it is difficult to construct a compatible addition without encroaching into the year yard. A concern of staff is that the additional hardcover may worsen the existing drainage problem existing from this property along the west line of Lot 17 as shown on the survey. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request as noted, with approval being subject to a drainage plan being reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with such review and approval. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 27, 1993. JS:pj revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: city Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~'OlO Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Owner's Name_~¥~_ ~ ~+~]~- S+Cf~- Day Phone Owner's Address ~00 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Addition PID No. /9-//7 Zoning District ~ ) Use of 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. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or. alterat, ion (sizeI number of stories, type of use, etc.): revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures com 1 wi setback regulations ~ ~_ ~ y ..th all area, hei ht. Yes (), No ~ ~n~ne zoning ~ls~rict in which i~ 'isb~lokc~f~ reason for va~i~a'~ce reaues~ ~P~clty_~a~ 9on-conformina use ,~i~' /~ ~ . ~ ~ ,-, ~-~. setbacK, lot area, etc~ SETBACKS: required Front Yard: (<~E W ) ~ ft. Rear Yard: ( S E W ) -- /~'-- -- ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) - - -- Side Yard: ( N S~E~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S ft. Lot Size: -- ft. Street Frontage _ /0 d~O _~q ft requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ~ ft. ft. -- ftc - - _ ft. ft. - ftc _ ~$1~ _~q ft --~o7~ ,~qft. -- ft ft. /~ O ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject p~operty prevent its reasonable use for district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small (~) too shallow Please describe:_ /O any of the uses permitted ~n that zoning ( ) topography ( ( ) drainage ( ( ) shape ( ) soil ) existing ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~<), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 required by law. ~ Applicant's Signature ' Date ~ ~- ? 5 LI ~o-].jo HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA "7 LENGTH HOUSE: ! TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT X 30% SQ FTX 15% WIDTH SQ FT GARAGE: TOTAL GI~t~GE DRIVEWAY: DECK: OTHER: X = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. MEET~ COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? i~o i I:q!7 ,_o I .......... ,~_ YES NO · · i~ ~ September lO, 1980 Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 80-352 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND WHEREAS, Ronald Gehring, Owner of property described as Lots 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 and the Southerly 56.6 ft. of Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 6, Pembroke, Plat 37910, Parce) 3430, PID #19-117-23 33 0183 has made application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and - WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict applicatlon of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial pro- perty right; and that granting the waiver wiJi not be detrimental to the pub)lc welfare or injurious to other property owners. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND MINNESOTA: 1) The request of Ronald Gehring for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres is hereby granted to permit division of the above described property in the following manner: Parcel A = South 56.6 ft. of Lots 17, 18, 19 and Westerly I/2 of Lot ,~,924 sq. ft. Parcel B = Lots 43 and 44, 12,OOO sq. ft. Parcel C Lots 45, 46 and Easterly 1/2 of Lot 47, 10,000 sq. ft. Note: Property zoned A-! Residential, single family residence. 2) That any deficiencies in Sanitary Sewer, Sewer Lateral on said subdivision are to be paid in full or waivers signed. That any pending assessments are to be the responslbility of owners of said new parcels. 3) It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a de- sirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. 4) The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this re- solution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council-I member Polston and upon Vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Withhart, the following voted against the 385 September 10, 1980 the Same; none, with U)rick being absent, whereupon said reso)ution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. . Attest: 'City Clerk CMC s/Tim Lovaasen Mayor · · I,, SIDEr S · # __15' u d I8 'rNI NG ? YE$~ ~ WILL TI~ PROPOSED I~PROVE~iENT$ CONroRJip ¥·S., 1606 ] PLAT ~ - ¥/__LOT fi I o o PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE VARI]~NCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING DAMAGED BY FIRE AT 6615 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT S, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, ~ND LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD VIEW, PID #22-117-24 43 0010 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-011 WHEREAS, The applicant, Monica Brubakken, has applied for a 6.05 foot street frontage variance to the required 60 feet to allow reconstruction of a dwelling damaged by fire, and WHEREAS, the house was damaged to greater than 50 percent of the assessed market value, and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Building official that the house is not damaged to the extent that it should be demolished, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, All other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the following Finding of Fact: "The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 350:530." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 6.05 foot street frontage variance to allow reconstruction of a single family dwelling at 6615 Bartlett Blvd., subject to the following condition: A. The dwelling shall be reconstructed to meet code, where applicable, as required by the Building official. 2. 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 #93-011 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: Reconstruction of a single family dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8, Halstead Heights, and Lot 2, Block 1, Halstead View. 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. 5,[INLrlT~ OF A M-EETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION APRIL 12, 1993 CASE ~93-011: MONICA J. BRUBAKKENt 6615 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 8 IN HALSTEAD HEIGHTS & PART OF LOT 2 IN HALSTEAD VIEW, PID ~22-117-24 43 0010. VARIANCE. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 6.05 foot street frontage variance to allow reconstruction of a dwelling damaged by fire. Staff recommended approval of a 6.05 foot street frontage variance to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone, to allow reconstruction of the fire damaged home, upon the condition that the dwelling be reconstructed to code, where applicable, as required by the Building official. If the Planning Commission elects to recommend approval of this request, it is suggested the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 350:530." MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 27, 1993. CITY of , IOUND STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. Planning Commission Agenda of April 12, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~.~ ' Variance Request Monica J. Brubakken 93-011 LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND 6615 Bartlett Blvd. Lot 8 in Halstead Heights, and Part of Lot 2 in Halstead View, PID #22-117-24 43 0010 R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a building permit to reconstruct the home damaged by fire. A street frontage variance of 6.05 feet to the required 60 feet must be recognized according to City Code Section 350.420, Subd. 4. The house is damaged to greater than 50 percent of the assessed value. Staff has received two bids, one of which is included in this report, by C.V. Construction, with total rehab cos $84,261.00 It is m-- o-j-' -. ts at · ~ pxnlon, after a site inspection, that the house is not damaged to the extent that it should be d~molished. The foundation appears sound and the framework is well constructed. COMMENT There are several building code issues that can easily be corrected during rehab that should be addressed, as follows: 1. All structural members damaged by fire must be replaced or repaired as required by the Building Official. printed on reck c/ed paper Staff Report Brubakken, 6615 Bartlett Blvd. April 12, 1993 Page 2 Ail exterior walls stripped down to the studs should be re- insulated in an acceptable manner to current energy code. New egress windows should be installed in each bedroom. The headroom at the stair to the second floor should be corrected to minimum 6'8". Ail plumbing and electrical, where possible, should be updated to current code. 6. Other code issues as exposed and recognized during construction should be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a 6.05 foot street frontage variance to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone, to allow reconstruction of the fire damaged home, upon the following conditions: The dwelling be reconstructed to code, where applicable, as required by the Building official. If the Planning Commission elects to recommend approval of this request, it is suggested the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: "The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 350:530." This case will be heard by the City Council on April 27, 1993. JS:pj revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATIO CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:_ City Council Date: ~._~N.~~Tj Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: Case $50.00 Zoning Sheet Completed: ;~-~~ Copy to City Planner: ~q_~ Copy to Public Works: ,I Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property . . Owner,s Name ~_~c.~ ~ '-~k~.~% Day Phone~ ~-~~_~ Owner,s Address_~_~~. - -..Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ m Block...~ Zoning District ~_~ Use of Property: ~(~(~'~( -- Has an application ever been made for zoning~ variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this ~operty? ( ) 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.) :~ revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No._~ ~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~.. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S 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. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft (~O ft. ~.q~ ft. ~ ,05-- ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ('~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (>~) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. qS.01l 6e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No q~. If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a var, lance p~c.uliar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~Q. 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. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 PROPERTY ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OUNER' S NAME: OWNER'S ADDRESS (IF OIFFERENT).: C~NER'S DAY PHONE #: APPL I CANT/TENANT: CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER'S ADDRESS & PHONE:*---.---.-- CONTRACTOR'S PHONE #: CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE #: ENGINEER'S ADDRESS & PHONE.~ CHANGE OF USE FROM(CURRENT USE): CHANGE OF USE TO (PROPOSED USE): DESCRIBE WORK: VALUATION ' ~ ~ )OC ' OF WORK: I ~ ~ I I VALUE APPROVED: ~ SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR ONRK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIO0 OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS CCWqJ4ENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNON THE SAME TO BE TRUE ANO CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. , / ~IMT ~ T~ ~LI~T'S ~ ~PLI~T'S Sl~ DA~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) W, n5. . I Const. Occupancy T~ Group Olvlslo~ al~g Size NO. ~ I~x. Oeo. ~. Of Z~IN Fire ~tl~lltl "~CBVED BY & DATE: ~ANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: J SPECIAL APPROVAL'S REQUIRED BY: ZONING: CITY ENGINEER: PUBLIC tJORKS: ASSESSING: SOIL REPORT: OTHER: Certificate of Survey for Monica Brubakken in Lot 8, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS. and Lot 2. Block 1, HALSTEAO VIEW Henneptn County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEY[D: Lot 8, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, and Lot 2, Block HALSTEAD VIEW. This Survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house anO.garage thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. o : Iron marker r,,~.~ : Spot elevation, Mound City datum. Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. RECEIVED FEI) - 3 1993 MIXIIIO PLANNING & INSP. ?~-/o Proposal C & V Construction P.O.Box 14 Mound MN. 55364 Submitted to:Mouica Brubakkeu Street:6615 Bartlett Blvd. City & State: Mound MN. 55364 Phone #4?2-5805 Job Description Burn Repair & Replacement Remove all sheetrock walls & ceiling Remove all base & trim. Spray to seal dl exposed freming Install new sheetrock ou walls & ceiling. Install new attic access & deco. access to match existing. Texture ceiling. Finish 2 doors & trim. Install new front door with storm. ( Allowance for both ~ S50.80 } Prime & paint walls. Clean stone floor. Entry Closet Remove & replace all sheetrock walls & ceiling. Spray & seal all exposed framing. Install new shelf & rod. Rime & paint. 1st Floor Bedroom Remove & replace all sheetrock walls & ceiling. Remove & replace all door & base trim. Replace ~ shelves & 3 rods with divider iu closet. Spray & seal all framing. Clean patio door, install & finish all trim. Clean bi-pass door & finish. Bathroom 1st Floor By Entry Remove & replace sheetrock walls & ceiling. Spray & seal all framfi'tg. Clean tile floor. Clean all fixtures & woodwork. page I of 6 I~me, p,~t & texture Replace & firdsh all l~im. Replace wayne's coating & install wall paper. I allowance for paper ¢ 15.00 per roll Replace patio door ( water damage ) Remove & replace sheetrock. Remove & replace beams. Remove & replace chair rail. Spray & seal all framing. Remove & replace all trim. Clean 2 built in cabinets, prime & paint. Prime, paint & texture. Replace & finish all trim. Dinning room Closet Remove & replace sheetrock. Spray a seal framing. Remove & replace new 2'x 6" left hand door & trim. Replace & finish all l~mu. Prime, paint & texture. Remove & replace sheetrock. Spray & seal wall framing. Remove & replace all rafters, tar paper ice shield & shingles. Clean & repaint · Z ' brick on fireplace. Replace patio door. ( water damage ) Replace & firdsh all trim. Prime, paint & texture. K/tchen Remove & replace sheetrock. Remove & replace soffits & drop ceiling. Spray & seal framing. Replace Replace Remove cabinets ( Merillat or equal J cetmter tops & back splash [ plastic laminate & replace 1 C~ 3'x 4' bi-pass window. page 2 of 6 Remove ,replace sub-floor & unde~layment Install new linoleum ( Am~ong or equal J Allowance ~ lZ.00 per yard. Replace & finish all trm.( ~- wrapped openings ) Pr/me, paint & texture. Apphance Allowance. Stove, lt. efrigeTato~ & Dishwasher. ( ~ 2275.00 ) page 3 of ~ LivinR room Remove ~ replace sheetrock Remove & replace allTafters, ta~ paper ice shield & shingles. Spray & seal wall framing. Replace patio door. I water damaged ) Remove & replace 40" x 41" bi-pass w~ndow. P,,emove & replace 1 ~ 2'6' I~H bitch Replace & finish all Pr/me, paint & texture. Living room Closet Remove & replace sheetrock. Sp~ay & seal framing. Replace & finish trim. Prime, paint & texture. B ~ et~ent Stai~ s Remove a~ replace 1 ~ 2' x 4" LH bitch door. Clean walls & ceiling. Prime & paint. F~h doo~ & ~. No carpen~y worh included in bid for basement Li~nR room Bath Remove & ~eplace sheeUock. Remove & replace 1 ~ 2' x 6' ~ b, ch door ( water damaged Spray & ~eal framing. ~ove & replace harwood flooring. ( water damaged ) ~eplace ~ephce & finish all ~im. Prime, paint & te~re. ," ,J I ,! I,, Rear En~7 Room Remove, replace paneling & sheetrock.( p~neling allowance ~ J5.O0 per sheet Spray & seal w~ fr~mg. Remove & rephce ~afters, t~r p~pe~ shield & ~hmgles. hemove & replace 1~ 2' 6' KH birch door. Remove & replace 1 ~ 3'0' ~ E~erior three p~e door. hemove & replace ~derla~ent. I~ta~ new ~oleum ( ~ms~o~ or equ~ ~ 12.00 per yard ) ~ephce & fimsh ~I1 ~. Te~e ceiling. Remove & replace 1 ~ 5' 6' x S' 6" b~pass ~ndow. Imtall new shelves in built-in cabinet are~. page 4 of 6 iud Floor Stairway Remove & replace sheetrock. Spray & seal framing. Remove & replace all molding. Cle~ stair railing. Remove & replace I ~ 22' x 40" awning window. Prime, paint, walls ,handrailing & pl~ter box. Texture ceiling. 2nd Floor Bathroom Remove & replace sheetrock. Remove & replace exterior studs as needed. Spray & seal balance on framing. Remove & replace I L~ 32" x 34" bi-pass window. Remove & replace 1 ~ 48" vanity { Merillat oY equal ) Install 1 (~ 49" plastic laminate top. Install 48" x 36" mirror over vanity. Remove & replace 1 ~ 2' 0" RH oak door. Remove & replace underJayment. Install new linoleum { Armstrong or equal ~ 12.00 per yard ) No plastic tile to be replaced. Replace & finish ali trim. Prime, paint & texture. N.W. Bedroom Remove & replace sheetrock Remove & replace west wall exterior studs as needed. Spray & seal balance of framing. Remove & replace 2 C~ 40" x 40" bi-pass windows. Replace & finish all trim. Prime, paint & texture Remove & replace 1 C~ 2' x 6" RH oak door. Remove & replace 1 C~ 4' bt-pass oak closet door. Remove, replace shelf & ~od ( 6' ) N.E. Bedroom Remove & replace sheetrock. Spray & seal t~aming. Remove & replace 2 C~ 40"x 40 "bt-Pass Windows. Remove & replace 2 ~ 2' 6' RH oak door. Remove & replace 1 C~ 5' 0" bi-pass closet door. I~tall shelves & rod both closets 1 ~ 48 ' I ~ 7'. Replace & finish all ~im. Prime, paint & te~re. Exterior Work Remove & replace 2nd floor roof, soffit & facia. ( trusses ) tar paper ice shield & shingles. ( heat, smoke & water damage ) Remove & replace all sheeting & siding damaged by fire. Replace all storm windows & doors as needed to match. Paint & stain exterior woodwork to keep balanced look throughout exterior. page 5 of 6 General Notes: Heating - Clean furnace change filter, & clean duct work. Plumbing - see attached. Electric - 3 wized smoke detectors Fixture allowance: ~ 1~00.00 Replace damaged receptacles & switches Replace all wiring damaged by fire only. No upgrade for code Violations bid. Carpet - Allowance ~ 3500.00 Replace carpet throughout entire house. ( no carpet bid for basement ) Approximately 175 yards C~ ~)20.00 per yard. carpet, pad & labor to install, including tax. page 6 of 6 We propose hereby to furnish material & labor-complete in accordance with above specifications for the sum of:~ 84.261.00 EIGHTY I~OURTHOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED, SIX'~ ONE DOLLARS Payments to made as follows:~ 21,065.00 to start,...two draws of ~ 25,000.00 balance of ~ 13,196.00 ou completiou of above bid. Authorized Signature: C & V Construction. L,~,~'~' L_, t.~ ~ Date of acceptance: Signatures: X NOTE: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days. CITY of MOUND February 24, 1993 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Mr. Chuck Ranney Claim Department AMCO INSURANCE CO. 10700 Prairie Lakes Drive P.O. Box 1420 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1420 Monica J. Brubakken 4379 Wilshire Blvd. #C211 Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: 6615 Bartlett Blvd., Mound, MN Claim #22B 10241, Policy #HA 3317956 Dear Mr. Ranney and Ms. Brubakken: I have received your letter dated February 18, 1993 regarding the Brubakken property at 6615 Bartlett Blvd. To-date there has been no application for any type of permit to the City. I have determined that a building permit and a variance application must be submitted in order to process any request for construction on the property. If you wish to proceed, and time is of the essence, you may include a request to the City Manager that your case be forwarded to the City Council as soon as possible. Required application forms with instructions are enclosed, and any applications should be submitted by the owner of the property. Building Official JS:pj Enclosures cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager prlnted on recycled paper I1 "'" I '1 I':' CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of April 26, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official Variance Request APPLICANT: Ken Meyer CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 93-013 2196 Fairview Lane, Lots 29 & 30, block 1, Creviers Subd. of Lot 36 Lafayette Park, PID #13-117-24 43 0068 R-2 Two Family Residential BACKG_ ROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to the maximum lot coverage provisions of the zoning Ordinance in order to reconstruct a garage destroyed by fire to an extent greater than 50 percent of its value. A building permit was issued to construct the garage in 1984 and it appears to be conforming to setbacks. Lot area and hardcover calculations are based on information submitted by the applicant and cannot be confirmed without an updated survey. The applicant has stated he works construction, has gone through a slow period, and cannot at this time afford the added expense of a new survey. He also explained that the original garage was permitted, is conforming, and he is in dire need of storage space. COMMENTS According to the applicant's calculations, the total hardcover is 401 square feet over the maximum allowed. There is additional green space in the front and the south side of the property that does give the impression that this site in not over-built. prinled on recycled paper PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR 2196 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOTS 29 & 30~ BLOCK 1, L.P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 43 0068 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-013 WHEREAS, the applicant, Ken Meyer, has applied for a lot coverage variance to allow reconstruction of a detached garage which was destroyed by fire, and; WHEREAS, a building permit was issued to construct the garage in 1984 and it appears to be conforming to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, according to the applicant,s calculations, the total hardcover is 401 square feet over the maximum allowed, or 34% hardcover. Zoning Ordinance Section 350:645, Subd. 1 restricts impervious surface coverage of residential lots not exceed 30 percent. WHEREAS, there is additional green space in the front and the south side of the property that does give the impression that this site is not over-built. WHEREAS, rebuilding of the garage does not intensify the minor hardcover encroachment on the property. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings 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 Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval of the variance request as the rebuilding of the garage does not intensify the minor hardcover encroachment on the property. In addition, the Planning Commission recognized the following Finding of Facts: This property abuts undevelopable open space which gives the impression that the site is not over-built, and the existing slab formerly accommodated a garage structure prior to the fire. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a lot coverage variance of 4 percent to allow re-construction of a detached garage at 2196 Fairview Lane. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE #93-013 PAGE 2 The City Council authorizes the alterat' pursuant ~_~cti~n 23.404, Subdivision ~%~ forth below, with the ~r an~ ex~r .......... as a lawful, = ,,~u une use remains nonconforming use, sub 3=uu ~o all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24' X 24' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 29 and 30, Block X, L. p. Crevier,s SUbdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1) This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. · The property owner shall have the responsibility this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all of filing 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· MINLrrEs OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 26, 1993 ~ ~__2196 Fairview Lane Lots 4 4~ nn,~ Mark Koegler reviewed the Building Officials report for this variance request. The applicant is seeking a variance to the maximum lot coverage provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct a garage destroyed by fire. A building permit was issued to construct the garage in 1984 and it appears to be conforming to setbacks. According to the applicant,s calculations, the total hardcover is 401 square feet over the maximum allowed. There is additional green space in the front and the south side of the property that does give the impression that this site is not over-built. Staff recommended approval of the request as the rebuilding of the garage does not intensify the minor hardcover encroachment on the property. The Commission discussed the fact that the slab is already there, but questioned the hardship. It was suggested that practical difficulty exists. It was noted that 34% of the lot is hardcover. Voss stated that the hardcover will not be intensified, therefore it should be approved. Mueller commented that there is room to move the garage forward on the lot which would shorten the driveway and decrease the hardcover, and it was recognized that the house is smaller than the garage and if the amount of hardcover is reduced it would allow for future expansion of the house. MOTION made by Voss! seconded by Clapsaddle to recomm approval of the variance re~,e-- ....... _end · ~ ~ ~ one reDullain of ~arage _ do~s not Intensify the m~- ~_g_=_ the encroacnmen: on the uronert.. ._ _=.~.,----._ -=£uco~er co. ission re=ogni,; =he Flann ng ~ ~nulng o£ Fac=s: Th~s.proper~y abuts undev~lopable open space which the ~mpress~on that the s-~- = ...... ' gives · . -~- ~ ncc over-built, and the ex}st~ng slab ~ormerly ~cconunodated a gara e structu prior to the f~re. Motion carried unanimoUSly, re This case will be heard by the City Council on April 13, 1993. staff Report 2196 Fairview Lane April 26, 1993 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the request as the rebuilding of the garage does not intensify the minor hardcover encroachment on the property. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 11, 1993. JS:pj 13L7 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ' /=~ L// ~ Owner's Name_~f ~/ /y~/V~/~ _ Day Phone ~ ~,~ - ~.~Z ~) Owner's Address ~ . ~ , '. -- Applicant,s Name (if other than owner)~ Address ~ Day Phone ~_~~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ addition rj, Block / Zoning District ~-~ Use of - ~:(f'~ - wroperty: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this yes list date(s) of application, action aKen, resolution number(s) and , ~operty? ( ) yes, ~ no. If provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): · 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. $ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes specify each non-conforming use (describe reason No (). z f ~o~--variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ sq ft /~ ~ sq ft sq ft ~~ sq ft 5. ~ / sq ft ~/~/ sq ft / Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~_~ No ( ). If no, specify 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 (X) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 5 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such relocation of a road? Yes (), No · If yes, explain as the 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required iY law.~ Owner,s S~gnature~~ _ Appllcant,s Signature~ ~ ~_ Pemtt ~0. LEGAL Blk. Addttton DESCRiPTiON Lo~ SITE AREA ..Sq.F:. AREA OF SITE OCCUPZEO BY BUILOZNRS ~q. Ft, INSTRUCTZONS TO APPLICANT This form need not be used ~nen plot plans drawn to scale of not less than 1"-20' are ftled wtth permtt application. (Each butldtng stte must have a separate plot plan.) For new buildings provtde the following Information: Elevation of extsttng & adjoining yard grades, locatton of proposed consturctton and extsttng Improve- ments; sho~ building, stte, and setback dimensions. Sho~ easements, ftnlsh contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and se~er servtce elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical service ltnes. 5how location of survey pins wtth elevations. Spectfy the use of each butldng and major portton thereof. To be completed by a re91stered land surveyor. #103 12/83 INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR 1"-20' I/We certify that the I~OlX~ed construction will conform tO the dimensions and uses shown above and that ~o change~ will be made with.out first obtaining approval. ilGNIATIJIqE OF OWNS'II'IS! Og~ &UTHORIZIrO III~PR~Ss'NTATIV~ ADDRESS ' - ~., , EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: LENGTH SQFTX30% = I ~9"~D.oo _SQFYX15%= ll~q40 WIDTH _x ff X SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE ......... GARAGE: X TOTAL (~ARAGE .......... = DR/VEWAY: ?O?A~ DR~'¥EWAY DECK: - )~ x ~ = TOTAL DECK ........... TO?AL DECK @ 50% ........ OTHER: X TOTAL OTHER TO~kL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. 137;- I · . YES ~NO DATE EP0RT NO. ~ OF CALL g)TOMOUILE ]CMMERCIAL FIRE REPORT' 45 CITY OF MOUND DATE 2/9/93 CITY ~Db~D 2 , TIMEOFCALL I ONSCENE I OUT/SERVICE IAMDULANCE/TIME ! IWIND/WEATUERc, n, TB¥ ~ 2H]:ql{. {O.O,S. .... MILES TO SCENE 5 ..... ~ 27~, S. , . ERICKSOPL CANCELED/SLOWED I TIME: [ DEPT: 2MZRGENCY qRE ALARM ~RASS ~NDUSTRIAL 'BSIDENTIAL CALL DISPATC{IED AS: CAUSE OF FIRE / RE~RKS: ~1, ~TT, ~PACE ~AT~ POSSIBI,E T,~G IGh~l~ ON FIRE. A~BI~ IN ~GE D~O~ - C~. b~IBU -1980 SSf/ l%~9K1K50~71 2/12/93 PVP qTATF. VTP~ N'IA~I{A!. T(3t,,i N~JI~A~. ~()I~ !T q~ BF ACeTI/~AI,- INSURED: S~O ESTIMATED LOSS: g_Dt~O NC!DENT ADRESS: 2196 FATRVI~J LANE ZRSON WHO TURNED IN ALARM & PHONE: 5051 ~?WAT~,.~ DRIVE WNERS NAME/ADDRESS/P~0NE : C~T,A & ~ MR'7~.R ~TIENT'S NAME/ADDRESS/AGE/DOD: TRUCKS EQUIPMENT USED ). MILES HOSE WATER MISC. ). MILES 1 1/2 1000 TRUCK 5 AIR PACKS 2 PIKE POLE 12 1 CYLINDERS MISC. 3. MILES 300 1 3/4 l{~O0 BYD 1 W~. , n 1 AXES t. MILES 2 1/2 iTANKS BROOMS BACKBOARD 22 1 CHAIN SAW BP C~FF D, MILES 200 4 IN ' FANS HEARI'START K-12 SAW 1 HUNS? TOOL 3, MILES LADDERS 02 {)OTTLE I OF ALARMS \ TIME: { MUTUAL AID GIVEN/RELIEVED DEPT: I ' CIVILIAN INJURED/CAUSE: ?IREFIGHTER INJURED/CAUSE: ,ANDERSEN 1~' _.~.,.S, COLLINS ~C, {IEHDERSON ~ G, PALM R, STALLMAII _~L,,G, ANDERSON ~ .... R, ENGELHART P,IiENRY M, PALM ~T.SWENSOm - ~,BABD. ~S, ERICKSON ~ ~B, LANDS~ _ __T,PALM W,SWENSON _~D.DOYD. . ,hFISK · ' R.MARSCnKE G.PEDERSON ~E,VANECEK ~YCE ~J.GARVAIS _ ~J, NAFUS ~T.~SMUSSEN R,WILLIAMS ~TCE ~.GRADY ~J,NELSON ~M.SAVAGE ~ T.WILLIAMS '-- D.CARLSON ~K .G~DY M.~ELSON ~I ,SIPPRELL ~D,~YTCKE__ '-~U-~LDING PERM IT APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND . ~41 Heywood Road, Hound, H|nnesota 472-1155 IHPROVEHENT STREET ADDRESS ADDITION ~ ADDRESS BLDR.-CONT ADDRESS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION I:::iSlngle Family , Sq,Ft. l:::3~ultl-Famlly , Sq. Ft. l'~C°emerclal ' Sq. Ft. CD Ipdustrlal ' Sq. Ft., t-~Deck - Size Sq. FC, ~Potlo ' Size_ _.Sq,.Ft, ~Fence ' Size Ltl. Ft. PERMIT FEE $_ ,/~)~ ,~{:) PLAN CHECK FEE $ SURCHARGE S.A.C. $ VATER CONN. FEE $ TAPPING F£E $~ 6590 EST IP~TED VA'I.U E_~ ZONING DISTRICT' COHPLETION DATE PHONE NO._L/'7 a - PHONE NO. ZIP RD'IODELI#G r'~sub. Level ' Sq. Ft. ~Sldlng ' ~.Ft.. ~Gouncll Resolution SEWER CONN. FEE $ STATIONARY ROD FEE $ TOTAL $1 ~ ~ ' 7 ~ ARE ADDITIONAL PERMITS NEEDED: PERM IT APPROVAL PLUMB I NG HEAT I NG FINAL OCCUPANCY C EI~T I F I CATE DATE EL. ECTR ICAL Vhen permit is granted, I hereby agree Co db the Proposed -ork in accordance vlth description above set forth and accord;rig Co the provisions of all ordinances of the City of ~ound and of all statutes of th~ Stltl OF iJnnesota in Such cases mede and provided. All building perm*ici expire one year after date of i~suance~ ,I I ~L~I~LAL Z.O~L~iG LNFORA~kTIO~ $Ir~:ET Survey on ftle? yea Required Lot Width: Existing Lot Width OETBACKn RBQUZREOs FRO~ t N S B W ~ · lOBs N S I ~ ''~1~/ / SIDE~ N S I ~ ~ ~SHO~z 50' {MaouEed fr~ ~,~,W,} FRONT ·IDEm REARt LA~SHOP. E ACCESSORY IVILDII~ No ? rRolrrz # i I # FRONT~ S10E: SIDEz ACCESSORY BU XLDI~G WILL THE PROPOSEDi ~J~]ROV~S CONFORM? YlJ~ NO ,$ 1 J r\ ~ WOODR_rOGE PLAN OF ACTION 1 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 4/20/93 55364 CITY of XlOUND MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: ,FROM: SUBJECT: April 20, 1993 Committee of the Whole Jim Fackler, Parks Director Jon Sutherland, Building official Plan of Action: Renewing Public Land Permits The updated Plan of Action to renew all expired permits encroachments on public shoreland is outlined below. for Invent_~_q~y. public shoreland is complete· A. A file has been created for each abutting public shoreland. B. Photographs have been taken of most public shoreland. A preliminary assessment of the encroachments on property address improvements on C. A "Public Land Status Sheet" has been completed for each property address abutting public shoreland. city Code Amendments. The City Attorney is in the process of preparing amendments to the City Code which will give staff the authority to deny a dock license if a correction order is pending for a stairway or other structure which is used to access a dock and is on public lands. Update Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The city Planner will be submitting an estimated cost to update the Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan. It is our intent to have the City Planner verify/clean-up any inconsistencies between the Use Plan, Shoreland Management Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable regulations, and also to amend the Comprehensive Plan to more accurately reflect a plan for the public shorelands. printed on recycled paper Committee of the Whole Plan of Action - Public Land Permits April 20, 1993 Page 2 Se 6o Flow Chart. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Decision Flow Chart as amended. Procedure Manual. The first draft of the Procedure Manual for Processing Public Land Permit Applications is complete and is attached for your review and approval. Permit Renewal - utilizing Notification to the Public. Persons encroachments located on public lands must be notified that the permit has expired to allow that encroachment, and the permit must be renewed. The following permit renewal process is proposed: A. Informational packets will be mailed to all property owners who abut public shorelands and to all dock site holders who have a stairway to access their dock. Informational packets shall include: - Letter of explanation. Public Land Permit Application form. Copy of survey or plat map of subject property. Stairway handout specifying building code requirements, if applicable. City Code Section 320. - Excerpts from Shoreland Management Ordinance. permit Application Process. Processing Public Land Permits for the purpose of updating the program. A. ~eceivinq the Application~. Applications received as a result of the mailing will be placed in the pertinent address file for that site. Bo Se u~. Applications will be processed in order by Dock Site Number, beginning with Dock Site #00010. Applications received out of sequence will be processed upon request. Committee of the Whole Plan of Action - Public Land Permits April 20, 1993 Page 3 Do Ee Fe Ge Delinquent Applications. When an application has not been received from the dock site holder or abutting property owner, the site will be reviewed by staff regardless, and processed accordingly. Proper notifications will be mailed to the site holder. Other Aqencies. If approval is required from another agency, such as the DNR or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, an agreement must be signed by both the city Manager and the owner of the abutting property to which improvements are proposed to be made. If permits are approved by applicable agencies, the Public Land Permit may be processed according. Staff Reports. Reports for each site will be prepared jointly by the Building Official and Parks Director, utilizing the following documents and criteria: 1. City Code Section 320, applications: four types of permit a) b) c) d) Construction on Public Land Permit Public Land Maintenance Permit Continuation of Structure Land Alteration 2. Decision Flow Chart, adopted by resolution. 3. Revised Use Plan for Public Lands. 4. Zoning Ordinance - Shoreland Regulations. Management 5. Comprehensive Plan. 6. Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports. Applications, when possible, will be processed in batches (this will eliminate the need for all applicants to appear at the meeting). The Park and Open Space Commission will review the applications and make a recommendation to the City Council. Committee of the Whole Plan of Action - Public Land Permits April 20, 1993 Page 4 He The City Council will review the applications and the recommendation from the Park and Open Space, and approve or deny the permits by Resolution, and when applicable, in batches. Maintaininq Permit Renewals. Staff will keep track of all permits and their expiration dates and will notify the dock site holder or abutting property owner prior to permit expiration that they need to renew their permit. In summary, staff recommends the City Council approve the following: Revised Decision Flow Chart, by resolution· Plan of Action for Renewing Public Land Permits· Procedure Manual for Special Permits for Structures on Public Lands. PROPOSED "LETTER OF EXPLANATION" TO BE MAILED WITH PACKETS TO DOCK SITE HOLDERS. CITY of IOUND June 1, 1993 Mr./Ms. Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands Dear : The city of Mound is currently updating its records on encroachments of privately installed structures on public lands. The objective is to maintain current permits on each encroaching structure to provide a history to future site holders and the city. This process is to allow for protection of public lands while providing a reasonable and safe use by the abutting property owner and the non- abutting dock site holder. The up-dating procedure begins with the completion of an Application for Public Land Permit. Note the attached list of structures recognized during an on-site inspection that need to be addressed. These structures need to be evaluated by you and the city for their integrity pertaining to their condition, safety and use to the public. Upon return of your application, the procedure will be to address them in sequence by dock site number. This process will allow the applicant to renew a permit for an existlng structure, or if needed, to replace a structure. Other applications may be processed as they are received. The intent of the City is to bring the structures into compliance with the current Building Code, Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the Use Plan for Public Lands in a manner that is simplest for the applicant. At this time your cooperation in returning the enclosed form by ??June 30, 1993 is needed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Respectfully, Jim Fackler Parks Director DJ Enclosures: Jon Sutherland Building official Public Land Application, Survey/Plat, Stairway Handout, City Code Section 320, .~Ex~ .~ts from the Shoreland Management Ordinance. DECISION FLOW CHART 2 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 4/20/93 55364 i I ~ i I L RF~OLUTION ~ RESOLUTION TO ADOPT ~ AME~ED "DECISION FLOW CHART" IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PERM1TS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIF. S ON PUBLIC LANDS W~EREAS, The Public Lands were dedicated for the public and the City is a trustee whose duty is to devote those lands for the public purposes intended by the dedicator; and, ~W~F~EAS,A The City of Moun3~in 197f~formulated th9 Dec~ioR WHEREAS, On March 15, 1977 the City Council of the City of Mound adopted Resolution No. 77-130 entitled as follows: "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULES FOR IMPLEMENTING MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS RENEWABLE UP TO THREE YEARS CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY'S USE PLAN, NEW OWNERS MAY MAKE APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE PERMITS - 16A", attached as Exhibit C; and, W~{EREAS, On March 15, 1977 the City Council of the City of Mound adopted Resolution No. 77-131 entitled as follows: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FLOW CHART IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OFMAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMONS", attached as Exhibit D; and, W~EREAS, On March 15, 1977 the City Council of the City of Mound adopted Resolution No. 77-132 entitled as follows: "RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FLOW CHART IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OFMAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMONS", attached as Exhibit E; and, W-~EREAS, The original Decision Flow Chart adopted by Resolutions 77-130, 77-131, and 77-132 is attached as Exhibit B; and, W~EREAS, Staff recommended the following amendments to the "Decision Flow Chart": Re-phrase some of the language to be more user friendly; put in question ~format. 2. Completely re-number all steps (squares). Add square #3.5 "DOES PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM ANOTHER AGENCY? IF YES, RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM AGENCY, THEN PROCEED." 138 Proposed Resolution Decision Flow Chart Page 2 Se Add within squares #4 and #5 the types of permits (i.e. Construction on Public Lands, Land Alteration, Public Land Maintenance, and Continuation of Structure) to help clarify where to go next. Combine circles from old flow chart, #6 and #14, into square #11. e Combine squares from old flow chart, #7 and #16, into square #14. and, W~EREAS, City Code Section 320 regulates "Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To adopt the amended "Decision Flow Chart" as shown on the attached Exhibit A. PROPOSED DECISION FLOW CHART Exhibit A IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS (REGULATED BY CITY CODE SECTION 320) NOTE: Structures like boathouses, ~atio~; is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the structure must meet State Building Code. DEI~ REQUEST. DENY REQUEST. (6) YES ~) NO RECEIVE "PUBLIC LAND PEP, MIT APPLICATION" DENY REQUEST. DEVELOP PLAN ACCORDING TO PglORITIES. (1) I DOES REQUEST INVOLVE[(2) A StRDC~RE OR I BUILDING THAT IS ATTACHED TO AN I SXISTING ~SIDENCE? l DOES PROPOSED II~ROI~MENT REQUIRE ~PRO~ ~O~ ~OTHER AGENt? IF YES, ~CEI~ ~PROV~ ~OM AGEN~ T~ PROCEED. - CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC ~S (new) - ~ ~TE~TION (grading, retaining walls, trees, etc.) BOHSE OR OTHER BUILDING? l E~CE ~D ENCO~GE THE USE OF THE PUBLIC ~S BY THE GENE~L PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY THE USE P~? YES I ~(l~) SHOULD THE CI~ BUILD OR ~INTAIN? (13) I NEW ~ EXISTING SEPARATE 1 (3) LEGAL ~EVIEW IS REQUI~ED. (3.5) - PUBLIC LAND MAINTE- NANCE (repair exist- ing structure) - CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE (to remain "as is") (5) YES ENHANCE AND ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY THE USE PLAN? NO WILL THE REQUEST { [(12) RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE USE PLAN? NO ~ YES I (is) ] (:6) YEARS ARD RENEWABLE, [ YEA~S, NOT RENEWABLE. CONTINGENT UPON USE ~ TO BE CHECKED PLAN. NEW OWNERS MAY ANNUALLY. MAKE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. . ~ECEI~D C~L~TED l (2) or attached Portio= ? H~tef Ail per, ti grLut4d are for a lixtte4 ~ c~e. _Le~Parat4 ~1 (2A) NO oz' ot, heF O) or Structuree No No & the use as defined' by it t, be use &s deflnod bItt PI~ tq' tho (6) ~boUld tho C~ty build ~ainta~a (~ ~hould the C~tr Zqpact Yes on Use Phn Deny devel~ P~am accordin~ to prioritiee -2- rer. ew&blo but ter~Luate~ ' ' ~th property noa-rene~ble transfer ~ee. 97-130 ch~el 1 ene~ble up to 3 ~s j Ee~bltsh~g ma con.gent u~u ~e ] ten.ce per~s Cl~'.. uae p~, new Ifor "~e. m )~era may m~e ap; Jp~1ic l~ ~ ~ce per.ti IGA Inew-lo pe~l . ~ bi c~.cked . ~y 16B ~°pted b: :o~cU. 3-~5.77 Re. 77. l ,Z I ,I ~, I I I, Exhibit ~ 3-15-77 RESOLUTION NO. 77- 130 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULS FOR IMPLEMENTING MA/NTENANCE PERM/TS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS RENEWABLE UP TO THREE YEARS CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY'S.USE PLAN NEW OWNERS MAY MAKE APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE PERMITS - 16A BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, SOTA: That a resolution establishing rul~for ~mj~leme. nt~ng maintenance permits for structures on PuBlic I~nds and renewable up to three years c~ntingent upon tJ~e ~y's Use-Plan. MINNE- New owners may make application for maintenance permits - under 16A Adopted by Councr~ this 15th d~y of March, 1977 77-131 3-15-77 RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 131 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AM. END]~] FLOW CHART IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF MAINTENANCE PER.TS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE-COMMONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND. MINNE- SOTA: That adoption of the amended Flow Chart, implementing tree process/nB of Maintenance Permits for construction on the Commons be authorized. Adopted by Council ttfls 15th day of March, 1977. ~ibit F. 7 ? - 13~ $- 15-77 I{ESOLUTION NO. 77- 13Z RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FLOW CHAleT ]3VfPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOI~ CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, representative from the Park Cornrnission presented F~ow Chart fo~. Council approval, and WHEREAS, Council amended 16A and 16B of said Flow C~axt NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIl, OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That~ the amended Flow C~art~ implementing t~e processing of Maintenance Permits for construction on t~e Commons be adopted. Said amended changes refer to 16A Res. 77-150 and 16BRes. 77-131. Adopted by Council this 15th day of March, 1977. Proposed PROCEDURE MANUAL 3 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 4/20/93 55364 13'/o RESOLUTION g93- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A PUBLIC LANDS PROCEDURE MANUAL FOR ~ PROCESSING OF PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIFS ON PUBLIC LANDS WHEREAS, certain public lands were dedicated for the public and the City is a trustee whose duty is to devote those lands for the public purposes intended by the dedicator; and, WHEREAS, the C/~ound~in 1976~sion Flow Chart for the granting~~~%~n~'~e~its for structures on public WHEREAS, On March 15, 1977 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 77-130, 77-131, and 77-132, establishing rules for implementing maintenance permits for structures on public lands contingent upon the City's Use Plan, and WHEREAS, on April 13, 1993 the City Council adopted Ordinance #62-1993 amending Mound City Code Section 320 by adding Subd. 6. authorizing the City Manager and staff to promulgate a Public Lands Procedure Manual to be approved by the City Council by Resolution, and WHEREAS, staff has formulated a procedure manual to facilitate a consistent and orderly review process for public land permits, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to adopt the Public Lands Procedure Manual as presented, dated April 20, 1993. II t, ! [ Table of Contents PROPOSED PROCEDURE MANUAL PUBLIC LAND PERMITS page 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. · 1 Receiving Public Land Permit Applications ..... Distribution of Public Lands Permit Applications ..... 1 1 Other Agencies ...................... 1 Staff Reports ...................... Park and Open Space Commission Meeting Preparations . . . 2 2 Proposed Resolutions ................... 2 Permit Approval Process ................. 3 Permit Expirations and Renewals ............ Exhibits: · . 4 - 5 A. city Code Section 320 .......... ~ B. Public Land Permit Application Form & Chec list 6 - 7 8 C. Flow Chart .................... · 9 - 26 D. Use Plan .......... ' ' ' ' 27 - 32 E. Dedicati°ns ' 6 ' 'i ...... i F. Section 437 ock L cense Regulat ons .... 33 - 43 G Shoreland Management Ordinance .... see city Code 44 · Section 350:1200 H. Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan ....... 45 - 50 · . 51 I. Sample Staff Report Format ........ j. Guidelines for Writing Staff R~ports ..... 52 - 53 K. Letter of Agreement - Other Agencies ...... 54 L Other Agency Information (DNR, LMCD, MCWD) · 55 - 58 · 59 - 63 M. Sample Resolutions .............. N. Sample Letter - Notification .......... 64 of Resolution Approval Handouts (stairs, silt fence, ......... suggested plantings, etc.) 65 - 66 PROCEDURE MANUAL PUBLIC LAND PERMITS City Code Section 320 (Exhibit A) "Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands,, Receivin Public Land Permit A lications (Exhibit B): A. Determine that correct "type of application,, has been checked: Construction on Public Land Permit Public Land Maintenance Permit Continuation of Encroachment Land Alteration Verify all information complete on application and that all items indicated on checklist are included with application. C. Review meeting dates with applicant. Distribution of Public Land Permit A lications: A. Pull address file for property abutting subject public land and attached application. Distribute original application and file to Building Official and copy application to Parks Director. ' Qther Aqencies. The Building Official or Parks Director will determine if approval is required from another agency, such as the DNR or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Exhibit L). If yes, a Letter of Agreement (Exhibit K) must be signed by both the City Manager and the applicant. If permits are approved by applicable agencies, the Public Land Permit may be processed accordingly. Staff Reports: ae The Building Official or Parks Director will write the Staff Report. A uniform format will be followed (Exhibit I). 1 ,I ,I 1, I ! Procedure Manual Public Land permits Se Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances and regulations, including: - city Code Section 320 (Exhibit A) - Decision Flow Chart (Exhibit C) - Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports (Exhibit J) - Use Plan (Exhibit D) - Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit H) - Shoreland Management Ordinance (city Code Section 350:1200) - Type of Dedication (Exhibit E) - City Code Section 437 - Dock License Regulations (Exhibit F) D. All encroachments associated with each dock site or abutting property will be evaluated by staff, and when possible expirations dates shall be made concurrent. Park and Open Space Commission Meetinq Preparation: A. Mail copy of Staff Report and copy of Agenda to the applicant. B. Application materials are prepared for packet and arranged in chronological order. C. A copy of the agenda is mailed to the abutting property owners to notify them of the request, as a courtesy. D. Ensure file contains proper overheads for staff report. Proposed Resolutions (Exhibit M): A. The Secretary will draft the proposed resolution according to the Park Commission Recommendation. B. The Building official/Parks Director shall review and approve the drafted resolution. C. The proposed resolution and other packet material is arranged in chronological order and submitted to the City Manager for the City Council packet. 2 Procedure Manual Publ£c Land Permits e Permit Approval Process: A. City Council acts on request. Bo Co The City Clerk will deliver a signed copy of the Resolution approving a permit to the Secretary. The City Clerk will also deliver a signed copy of the Resolution approving a permit to the.4%~~Department for filing in the property jacket. De The Secretary will draft a letter (Exhibit N) to inform the applicant of the City Council's decision and outlining the conditions of approval. A copy of the Resolution shall be enclosed with the letter, along with any other pertinent documents. Eo Distribute a copy of the letter and resolution to the Parks Director for recording the expiration date in the database. Permit Expirations & Renewals: Am Three (3) months prior to permit expiration, the Parks Director or Building Official will notify the dock site holder, by letter, that they must renew their Public Lands Permit. Documents to be included with the letter shall include: - Public Land Permit Application form. Copy of survey or plat map of subject property. City Code Section 320. - Excerpts the Shoreland Management. Stairway handout specifying requirements, if applicable. building code Delinquent Applications. When an application is not returned prior to permit expiration, the site will be reviewed by staff regardless, and the application processed accordingly. Proper notifications will be mailed to the site holder. 3 Mound City Code Section 320:00 Section 320 - Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lan4- Section 320:00. Land. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. TFoes of Construction Requirinq a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. All stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permit~. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. All applications for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. All structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976. 4/19/93 139' Mound City Code Section 320~00, Subd. 4 S~bd. 4. Land Alteratio,. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. #54-1991, 12-23-91) Subd. 5. Street Excavation Permit RequireW. Any permit issued unde~ the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 6. .Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. #62-1993 - 4/19/92) 4/19/93 Revised 4/19/93 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Ma~wood Road. Mound. MN 55364 Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 CHECKLIST / APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OR ALTERATION OF PUBLIC LANDS: 1. Certificate of Survey showing: Existing and proposed encroachments. Ordinary High Water Elevation (Lake Minnetonka = 929.5) Floodplain Elevation (Lake Minnetonka = 931.0) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Scaled drawings and specifications of proposed improvement. Proposed cost of project. Photographs of the existing structure or affected area. Statement of purpose for proposed change. Erosion Control Plan. Signature of Applicant. About the Park Commission Meetinq~ On the Monday just prior to the Thursday Park Commission meeting, you will be mailed a copy of staff's recommendation and a copy of the agenda for that meeting. Abutting property owners of the subject property will also be notified of your application. THE APPLICANT OR A DULY-AUTHORIZED AGENT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO PRESENT THE REQUEST. The Park Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. Council makes all final decisions. The City 1993 Meetinq Dates To give staff ample time to review your request, please submit your application by the due date stated below. Your request will then be reviewed by the Park Commission and City Council on the subsequent dates. Application Due Park Commission Meeting city Council Meeting JAN 28 FEB 11 FEB 23 FEB 25 MAR 11 MAR 23 MAR 25 APR 8 APR 27 APR 22 MAY 13 MAY 25 MAY 27 JUN 10 JUN 22 JUN 24 JUL 8 JUL 27 JUL 29 AUG 12 AUG 24 AUG 26 SEP 9 SEP 28 SEP 30 OCT 14 OCT 26 OCT 21 NOV 4 NOV 23 NOV 25 DEC 9 DEC 28 Revised 4/19/93 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road~ Mound, MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: Building Official MCWD DNR LMCD TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one)~ 55364 Date Received Park Meeting Date City Council Date ,..' ,' CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construotion. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). ,__,' ' PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PEPd~IT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ,__,' ' CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ' ' LAND ALTERATION change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). ;~ ~;~%iJ~ ~'Joi~'~ ~ '7,~iXi~' i~ i~'~c'~i~l;~ %1' ~'li~i~ 'J~'~1~2 ~' ~l~J~ti%~2 like boathouses, patio sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMINO USES. It is the intent of the City 2o brin9 all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits 9ranted are for a limited time, are non-transferable, and the structure must meet State Building Code. ADDRESSOFABUTTINGPROPERTY OWNER'S NAME LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: LOT (S) BLOCK ADDITION PID # NAMEOFPUBLICLAND DOCK SITE # SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) OWNER'S DAY PHONE CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR, S LICENSE # PHONE # VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR &MATERIALS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: Signature of Applicant Date J,, j II, DECISION FLOW CHART S~U~S ~D PRIVATE CO~STRU~ION A~IVITIES O~ PUBLIC (REG~TED BY CI~ ~DE SE~ION 320) Le tho intent of the City to br£flg r) D~Y (I) KEQU~ST. HO YES DENY REQUEST. DEVELOP PLAN ACCORDING TO PRIORITIES. (13) I J R. ECEIVE "Pt.~LI¢ LA~ (1) PERMIT .~PLICATION# A ST~UC~ OJ J J S~ BUI~ING T~T 15 ~ ~ ~VX~ ~ES PROPOS~ ~RO~ (3.5) ~QUI~ ~P~V~ ~OT~ ACEN~ IF ~CEI~ ~P~V~ ~ AGEN~ T~N P~OCE~. NEW - CONSTRUCTION ON J (4) PUBLIC LA~I)S (ney) - LAND ALTERATION (grading, retaining vails, crees, eec.) IS RE{~UEST FOR A BOAT HOUSE OR O~ER HUILDING? (7) i ~,rlLL l'dE REQUEST (10) EItRANCE ~ ENCOW, AGE THE USE OF T~ PUBLIC ~S BY ~ GENE~ P~LIC ~ DEFIN~ BY ~ USE P~? _YES ~ SHOU~ T~E clrr --(il) BUILD OR HAINTAIN? ~ P£RMIT UP TO 5 YEARS AND RENEWABLE. EXISTING PUBLIC LAND HAINTE- NANCE (repair exiato lng structure) COHTII~UATIOH DP STRUCTURE (to renain "ae iS") ia) (S) ~ILL TH~ REQUEST ~8) [~ USE OF T~ P~LIC J P~LIC ~ DEFIN~ BY J~ USE P~? ~ILL TIlE REQUEST'[(12) RESULT IN A NEGATIVE I~AeT ON THE USE PLAN? NO I (15) GRANT PEP, HIT UP TO 3 ~ONT INCF. J~Y UPON P~. N~ ~ ~y ~ ~PLI~TION PE~IT. I (16) JGIIANT PEJ~IIT UP TO 3 YEARS, NOT RENEWABLE. USE PLAN for PUBLIC LANDS City of Mound 4/19/93 I I USE PLAN FOR PUBLIC LANDS City of Mound SHOREI,1NE NUMBE~G SYSTEM For the purpose of the Mound Park Plan, public shoreline has been numbered by dividing the city into 9 general areas. The first number of the five digit number system indicates the general area of that location. The remaining four (4) digits represents the actual distance of that location, from the starting point of the general area (i.e. ~21080 means area 2; 1,080 feet from the beginning of area 2 - Harrison Beach in Harrison's Bay). PARK AREA CLASSIFICATIONS For the purpose of the Mound Park Use Plan, public lands have been divided into the following classification: CLASS 0 - No proposed usage. CLASS 1 - Playqround: Designed primarily for young children under 12 years of age, serve an area 3/8 mile. May include swings, slides, jungle gyms, sand boxes and small ball field with backstop. CLASS 2 - Neiqhborhood Park: Facility for all age groups which provides space for passive and active recreation. It could include such things as picnic sites, play areas, hiking paths and beaches. It is designed to serve the residential neighborhood rather than the community at large and would include the small beach areas with a limited amount of shoreline. CLASS 3 - Playinq Field: Adults and youth over 12 years. Ten to twenty acres optimum and serves an area one to one and one-half miles. It would include such things as tennis courts, football fields, ice rinks, baseball and softball fields, etc. This type of facility would incorporate the facilities currently available. CLASS 4 - Resident Fishinq Area: Areas of shoreline along the lakeshore to provide space for bank fishing. This will provide fishing opportunity for our youngsters through our senior citizens. CLASS 5 - Nature Area: Areas maintained in a natural or nearly natural state but open to the public for such outdoor recreation purposes as nature study, conservation education, trails, etc. I l Use Plan for Public Lands City of Nound CLASS 6 - Community Park: A large community park to provide a wide range of activities and serve the City at large. Activities could include such things as swimming beaches, golf course, archery range, camp sites, nature trails, as well as the common playground equipment. ~LASS 7 - Resident Boat Launchinq Sito: These will include small permanent boat launching site~ scattered throughout the City. Limited parking or no parking can be expected. Other sites are incorporated into the beach areas and will only be opened when the beaches are not opened. All sites will be open for winter fishing access. ~LASS $ - ~esident Permit Docking: Areas of shoreline used to provide docking facilities and in some areas, limited launching facilities for the adjacent and nearby residents. CLASS 9 - Swimminq Beach: Areas of shoreline designated for swimming associated recreation. These areas may or may not have swimming docks and/or life guards on duty. SHORELINE TYPES ~YPE A: TYPE B: TYPE C: ~YPE D:_ TYPE E: For the purpose of the Mound Park Use Plan, public shoreline has been classified into five general types: Shoreline that is traversable only on top, with a bank sloping directly into the water. Shoreline that slopes from the abutting property down to a traversable space along the water's edge. Shoreline that slopes from the abutting property down directly into the water with no traversable space. Shoreline that is traversable on the top, and traversable along the water's edge. Shoreline such as marsh and swamp, and is not considered traversable. (4/19/93) Use Plan for Publ£c Lands City of Mound SUMMARY OF CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC SHORELANDS 00000 - 00395 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 00425 - 01140 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 01140 - 02560 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: CLASS 5,8 TYPE D,E AVOCET I_~4E. On the southwest edge of Woodland Point, this natural cove is approximately 400 x 800 feet in size. Mostly heavy bulrush swamp. Docking sites are located at the road access on the southern side of the cove, and along Dove Lane on the eastern side. The cove is unimproved and shallow. No change in usage planned. CLASS 4,6,8 TYPE A,D WAWONASSA COMMONS. Located on the west edge of Woodland Point, abutting Waurika Commons on the north and extending to the water's edge on the south. The terrain varies from a very steep hill dropping sharply to the water at the north edge, to a low flat at the lake's edge at its southern end. This area is approximately 2 acres with 1,000 feet of lake front. It is partially developed and maintained by adjacent local residents. It has heavy usage as a resident dockage area and fishing area. Its proposed usage is the continuance as a neighborhood marina and fishing/nature area. CLASS 4,6,8,9 TYPE A,D WAURIKA COMMONS. Located on the north edge of Woodland Point extending from Wawonassa Commons to Gull Lane. This is a long, narrow strip of land. The terrain varies from a very steep hill dropping sharply to the water at the north edge to a low, flat at lake's edge at its eastern end. Its total area is approximately 2 acres with 1,220 feet of lake front. It is presently heavily used as a resident permit docking area and fishing area as well as a public walkway. Canary Beach is located approximately at its center, at the end of Canary Lane. Continuance of its present usage. (4/19/93) Use Plan for Public Lands c~O~of~ ~ound 01710 - 01850 CLASS 9 TYPE D Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 02560 - 02800 Location: CANARY BEACH. Located on the north edge of Woodland Point, approximately in the center of Waurika Commons, at the northern end of Canary Lane. Its area is approximately 1/2 acre with approximately 140 feet of shoreline. It is essentially a fully developed swimming beach. Continuance of its present usage. CLASS 2,4,6 TYPE A,D PEBBLE BEACH. Located on the shoreline between Heron and Paradise Lane. Current Use: Proposed Use: Its area is .2 acres with 240 feet of lake front. It is presently undeveloped with a sharp drop from the inland level to the water's edge. it is being used as a resident docking area. Continue current use. 02800 - 04000 Location: Current Use: Proposed use: 04000 - 04040 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: CLASS 4,5,8, TYPE D WILLOW POINT. Located at the end of Three Points Blvd. A rocky graveled ridge formed originally as an ice ridge at lower lake level and now eroding at its tip. It is solid, rocky, gravel bottom on all sides. It is ~pproximately 3 acres with 1,200 feet of lakeshore. It Ks presently being used as a nature area and fishing area. The first 75 feet on the westerly edge (02800 - 02875) is being used as a limited docking area. Continuance of its present usage. CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D SUNRISE LANDING. Located on the shore of West Arm and abutting Shorewood Lane. Approximately 100 feet deep with 40 feet of lakeshore. It is a low area with a high, firm lake front. Resident permit docking area, a park and fishing area. (4/19/93) I ,I ~ I Use Plan for Public Lands xhi i+ b City of Hound 04040 - 04060 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 04060 - 04120 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 10000 - 10040 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 10040 - 10100 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: CLASS 0 TYPE D BREEZY BEACH PATH. Located on the shore of West Arm and abutting Shorewood Lane. Is 100 feet deep with 20 feet of lakeshore, and is presently a well kept lawn area maintained by the adjacent property owners. No proposed usage. CLASS 1,2,4,9 TYPE D NORTH BEACHSIDE. Located on the shore of West Arm and abutting Shorewood Lane. Its area is .2 acre and is 152 feet deep with 60 feet of shoreline. It is a low partially filled area of land with a high, firm lake front and has a lift station. Its proposed use is for neighborhood park and swimming area. Presently used for 2 dock sites. CLASS 8 TYPE D SHOREWOOD ACCESS. Located at the tip of Shadywood Point as an extension of Shorewood Lane. It has 40 feet of lakeshore. It is presently being used as a permit dock area. Continuance of its present usage. CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D SOUTH BEACHSIDE ACCESS. Located near the end of Shadywood Point on the north shore of Harrison's Bay and adjacent to Lakeside Lane. Its area is .2 acres and is 185 feet deep and has 60 feet of lake front. It has been filled in to an acceptable level, but otherwise is unimproved. It is presently being used as a resident docking and boat launch area. Neighborhood park, permit dock area and resident fishing area. (4/19/93) Ose Plan for Public Lands -x bi-F D City of Mound 10100 - 10160 CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE E Locat ion: ~EW POPLAR LANDING. Located on the north shore of Harrison's Bay and adjacent to Shorewood Lane. Current Use: Its area is .2 acres and is 240 feet deep and has 60 feet of lake front. It is presently low and swampy in much of its length and is essentially unused. Proposed Use: It has potential as a neighborhood park, permit dock area and use for resident fishing. 10160 - 10220 CLASS 7 TYPE D Location: .SUNSET ACCESS. Park. Located at the eastern edge of Crescent Current Use: Is approximately 180 feet deep and has 60 feet of lake front. This road access has been upgraded and is used as a boat launch site. Proposed Use: It has potential as a neighborhood park, permit docking area and use for resident fishing. 10220 - 10780 CLASS 1,2,4t5,8 TYPE D Location: CRESCENT PARK (EAST). Located on the North shore of Harrisons Bay and adjacent to Sunset Landing on the east and Sumach Lane (extended) on the west. Current Use: This is a narrow strip of land approximately 560 feet long. The western edge is ill-defined as it becomes part of the wild life area of (west) Crescent Park. It has heavy usage as a resident dockage area and fishing area. Proposed Use: Its proposed usage is the continuance as a neighborhood permit dock and fishing nature area. 10780 - 12410 CLASS 2t4,5,9 TYPE D,E Location: CRESCENT PARK (WEST). Located adjacent to (east) Crescent Park on the east, and platted Crescent Road on the west. Current Use: This area is classified as a wildlife area. It was originally and essentially a fully developed park 20 - 30 years ago, but presently should be considered unimproved. Proposed Use: Its potential is as a neighborhood park, swimming beach, and nature area. (4/19/93) Use Plan for Publ£c Lands City of Mound 12410 - 12450 Location: CLASS 2,4;5 TYPE D THREE POINTS ACCESS. This is an extension of the Three Points Park located immediately north of the lake front. Current Use: Proposed Use: 12450 - 13830 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 20000 - 20740 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 20740 - 20780 Location: Current use: Proposed Use: It is 150 feet by 40 feet wide. It is presently a cleared, but undeveloped access strip from the park to the lake. It has the potential of a possible picnic area, fishing area, and nature area. Presently has 1 dock. CLASS 4,6,8 TYPE D WIOTA COMMONS. Located on the north side of Harrisons Bay adjacent to Avocet, Bluebird, Canary, Dove, Eagle, Finch and Gull Lanes. Total area is 1.5 acres with approximately 1,400 feet of lake front. It is a high narrow strip mostly cleared and has good solid sand bottom overlaid with a shallow silt layer. It is presently used for resident docking and fishing. Its proposed usage is as a resident permit docking area and fishing area and because of the contour of the land will adapt itself well as a nature area. CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D WATERSIDE COMMONS. Located on the east end of Harrison Bay between Breezy Road and Tonkawood Road. It is approximately 740 feet long and 60 to 180 feet wide. It is partially developed and maintained by local residents who use it as a permit dock area and resident fishing. It is proposed to be continued for this use. CLASS 4,8 TYPE B VILLA LANE ACCESS. Located at the end of Villa Lane. This area is approximately 40 x 180 feet and is used as a permit dock area. Unimproved. (4/19/93) 8 Use Plan for Public Lands City of Mound 20780 - 20820 CLASS 4,8 TYPE B Location: OVERLAND LANE ACCESS. Located at the end of Overland Lane. Current Use: Permit dock area. Proposed Use: 20820 - 22030 CLASS 4,8 TYPE D Location: ACCESS - CENTERVIEW BEACH AREA. Located along the western edge of Centerview Lane as it extends out to Centerview Beach. Current Use: This area is primarily used for resident fishing and has permit docking area. Proposed Use: 22030 - 21280 CLASS 6,9 TYPE D,E Location: CENTERVIEW BEACH. Located in Harrisons Bay at the end of Centerview Lane. Current Use: Essentially fully developed with parking and picnic area. It is bounded on the east by a wildlife area. Proposed Use: 21280 - 22180 WILDLIFE AREA, CLASS 5 TYPE E Location: ~ILDLIFE AREA AT CENTERVIEW BEACH. Current Use: This is a natural cove and is used exclusively as a wildlife area, nesting area and resident fishing area. Proposed Use: 22180 - 22730 CLASS 4,5,8 TYPE D,E Location: WATERSIDE COMMONS. Located east of Harrison Beach Wildlife area to Morton Channel. Current Use: This is a narrow strip of land presently being used as a permit docking area and fishing area as well as a public walkway. Proposed Use: Its proposed use is as a permit docking area, nature area and resident fishing. (4/19/93) Use Plan for Publ£c Lands 22730 - 22790 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 22790 - 23080 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 23080 - 23255 Location: Current Use: CLASS 5 TYPE DtE MORTON CHANNEL. Morton Channel extends northerly from Lynwood Blvd. into Harrisons Bay. It is a dredge channel and was originally platted as Morton Avenue. About 300 feet long, and is thermally polluted by the cooling system for Tonka Toys machines. The dredge channel has eroded to almost the full width (60 feet) of the originally platted street. The area has become a winter-haven for water fowl. It provides for recreation and close observation/feed of ducks. CLASS 5,8 TYPE D APPLE PARK. Located at the end of Apple Lane. This park has eroded to two small portions of land. The one on the west is inaccessible except by water. The eastern portion has approximately 100 feet of lake front. It is being used as a resident permit dock area. The proposed usage is the same. CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D FAIRVIEW PERMIT DOCKING AREA. Located as an extension of Fairview Lane, and extending to the west approximately 175 feet. The area has 175 feet of lake front and is approximately 80 feet wide. It exists as a well maintained grassy area and is being used for neighborhood dockage and fishing. Proposed Use: 23255 - 23285 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 23285 - 23295 It has the potential of being developed into a neighborhood park/picnic area. CLASS 4t8 TYPE D CHATEAU LANE ACCESS. Located at the end of Chateau Lane. This area is used as a resident dock area. 10 FOOT WIDE FIRE LANES (4/19/93) 10 I% Use Pl&n for Public Lands City of Mound 23295 - 23395 CLASS 8 TYPE D Location: ARBOR LANE ACCESS. Exists on Harrisons Bay at the end of Arbor Lane. Current use: Approximately 100 feet of shoreline. It is essentially undeveloped and is used as a neighborhood dockage area. Proposed Use: 30000 - 30040 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 30040 - 30240 Location: Current use: Proposed Use: 30240 - 30280 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 30280 - 30320 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: (4/19/93) Continuance as a resident permit docking area. CLASS 4s8 TYPE D NORWOOD ACCESS. Located as an access to Seton Lane and an extension of Norwood Lane. It has 40 feet of lake front and is approximately 100 feet long, extending from Bartlett Blvd. Resident permit docking area. CARLSON PARK. Blvd. Located on Seton Lake, abutting Bartlett It has an area of .6 acres with a shoreline of 200 feet. It is partially developed and in use as a resident permit docking area and fishing area. It is proposed for use as a resident permit docking area and neighborhood park. CLASS 4,8 TYPE D INWOOD ACCESS. This is a 40 foot wide platted lane extending from Avon Drive to Emerald Lake. Presently used as a permit docking area. Resident dock area. CLASS 8 TYPE D AVON ACCESS. An extension of Avon Drive, east from Avon Park to the channel. Presently being used as a well kept lawn area maintained by the adjacent property owners. Presently being used as a resident permit docking area. Resident permit docking area. 11 Use Plan for Publ£c Lands City of Mound 30320 - 30420 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 30420 - 30884 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 30884 - 30924 Location: Current Use: 30924 - 30954 Location: Current Use: 30954 - 30994 Location: Current Use: CI~%SS 8 TYPE D EMERALD CHANNEL PERMIT DOCKING. Located adjacent to Emerald Drive. This area abuts the road right of way. It is presently being used as a resident permit docking area. Continue as resident permit docking area. CLASS 8 TYPE C,D,E WICKLOW ACCESS. Located on Seton Lake between Waterford Lane and Devon Lane. This area is presently undeveloped and is being used as a resident permit docking area. Continue as a resident permit docking area. CLASS 5 TYPE E CLARE LANE. Located on the channel connecting Seton Lake and Black Lake. Unimproved road extension. Classified as a wildlife area. CLASS 5 TYPE E KINGS LANE. Located on the channel connecting Seton Lake and Black Lake. Unimproved road extension. Classified as a wildlife area. CLASS 5 TYPE E KERRY LANE. Located on the channel connecting Seton Lake and Black Lake. Unimproved road extension. Classified as a wildlife area. {4/19/93) 12 10 Use Plan for Publ£c Lands City of Mound 30994 - 31670 CLASS 4,5,8 TYPE C,D,E Locat ion: KENMARE COMMONS. Located on the west shore of Black Lake between Longford Road and Carlow Road. Current Use: This terrain is low and swampy. It is unimproved and is being used as a resident docking area and resident fishing area. Proposed Use: Same. 31670 - 32370 CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D,E Location: .EXCELSIOR COMMONS. Located on the west edge of Black Lake between Galway Road and Cavan Road. This access is the platted Excelsior Lane. Current Use: Abuts a dredged channel. Most of Excelsior Commons is swampy. It is unimproved and is being used as a resident dockage. Proposed Use: Same. 32600 - 32670 CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE B,D Location: KELLS ROAD. Located on the above mentioned dredged channel on the west shore of Black Lake, adjacent to Wilshire Blvd. Current Use: This area is unimproved and is used as a resident fishing and docking area. Proposed Use: Develop into a picnic area and fishing area. 32670 - 33540 CLASS 4,5,8 TYPE D,E Location: STRATFORD COMMONS. Located on the above mentioned dredged channel on the south shore of Black Lake. This access is the platted Stratford Road. Current Use: Unimproved and is being used as a resident fishing and docking area. Proposed Use: Extensive work is needed in this area. (4/19/93) 13 Use Plan for Publ£c Lands 40475 - 40625 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 40635 - 40765 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 40765 -44408 40765 - 41110 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 41110 - 41319 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 41377 - 42117 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: City of Mound CLASS 8 TYPE D AVALON PARK. Located as a City easement through Avalon Park (private park to a lift station). Resident permit docking. CLASS 1,6,9 TYPE D PEMBROKE BEACH. Located as a triangular area on the west side of Phelps Bay with 130 feet of lake front. Abuts Devon Common on the west and residential property on the east. Has been filled, leveled, and seeded. Has a parking area off road for approximately 20 cars and playground equipment. Used as summer swimming beach and winter motor vehicle access for ice fishing. Same. DE¥ON COMMONS: CLASS 4,8 TYPE BiD This portion of Devon Commons is accessible from Pembroke Park where off-street parking is provided. Permit docking area. Resident fishing and permit docking area. CLASS 4 TYPE C Devon Commons. Not considered traversable by the general public due to the steep bank and heavy brush growth. Continue as dock sites for abutting property owners. CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE B,D Devon Commons, also known as Speakers Point. This area is not readily accessible until Roanoke Access is developed and encroachments rectified. Resident fishing and permit docking area. (4/19/93) 14 Use Plan for Public Lands City of Mound 42167 - 42691 CLASS 4 TYPE C Locat ion: Devon Commons. Current Use: This portion of Devon Commons is heavily used by private encroachments. Proposed Use: 42791 - 43020 As it is Type C shoreline, its proposed usage is to continue as dock sites for abutting property owners. CLASS 4,89 TYPE B Location: Devon Commons. Current Use: Proposed Use: 43080 - 43235 Permit docking area with the exception of the westerly 40 feet. This 40 foot area is blocked from use by an encroaching boat house. Improve this area and continue as a resident fishing and permit docking area. CLASS 4 TYPE C Location: Devon Commons. Current Use: Proposed Use: 43265 - 43420 This portion of Devon Commons is not considered traversable by the general public. The access is not developed and is not recommended to be developed, in as much as a public stairway would provide access to only one dock. CLASS 4,8 TYPE B Location: Devon Commons. Current Use: Proposed Use: 44408 - 44655 Location: Resident permit docking area. When the access is developed, this area is proposed to be used as a resident permit docking area with 30 foot spacing. Parking will not be available in this area. CLASS 5 TYPE C,D,E Devon Commons. Current Use: Wildlife, wetland and nesting area with a commanding view over a natural cove. Proposed Use: 5000 - 50205 Unused numbering. (4/19/93) 15 ,IL ,I ~ I Use Plan for Public Lands 50205 - 50270 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 50270 - 50285 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 50285 - 50300 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 50300 - 50365 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 50365 - 50375 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 50375 - 50745 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: (4/19/93) City of Mound CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D WATERBURY ACCESS. On the east shore of Cooks Bay at the end of Waterbury Road. Resident docking. Continue as resident permit docking area. FRANKLIN ACCESS. Too narrow for dockage. None. Unimproved. THAMES ACCESS. Too narrow for dockage. None. CLASS 1,6,9 TYPE D CHESTER PARK BEACH. Bay. Sand beach approximately swimming area. Same. Unimproved. Adjacent to Tuxedo Blvd. on Cooks 65 feet wide provides Playground equipment. for PENDLETON ACCESS. Too narrow for usage. None. CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D BRIGHTON COMMONS. Located on Cooks Bay, bounded by Manchester Road and Tuxedo Blvd. with approximately 320 feet of shoreline. Resident docking, limited swimming and fishing. General city park development. 16 Use Plan for Public Lands City of Mound 50745 - 51925 Location: CLASS 4~5,7,8 TYPE D,C WYCHWOOD COMMONS. Located adjacent to Brighton Commons on the north, with Manchester Road being the border line. Wychwood Commons is bordered on the north by Wychwood Beach. Current Use: Proposed Use: With the exception of approximately 150 feet at the southern end, the terrain is an extreme type "C". The area is unimproved and is used for resident docking. Same. 51925 - 52025 CLASS 1,6,9 TYPE D Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: WYCHWOOD BEACH. An area 120 feet long including commons in Wychwood on East shore of Cooks Bay. Has good sand beach, is used as a winter access. Good potential for fairly developed neighborhood recreation area. 60000 - 6010 Location: CLASS 1,3,4,5~6,7,9 TYPE D MOUND BAY PARK. Current Use: Heavy usage by both residents and nonresidents as a general recreation area. Proposed Use: Same. 60610 - 60715 Location: Current Use: CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D IDLEWOOD ACCESS. Located on the west shore of Cooks Bay, just off Highland Blvd. and Idlewood Road. It has a rough access road. It is used at present as a resident permit docking area and fishing area. Proposed Use: Same. 60715 - 60815 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: CLASS 2~4~5~8 TYPE D TWIN PARK. This park has an area of .4 acre. Presently undeveloped, is being used as a boat launching and a boat dockage area by residents. Resident permit docking area and resident boat launching and winter access. (4/19/93) 17 Use Plan for Publ£c Lands City of Mound 60815 -- 60995 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 60995 - 61170 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: CLASS 3,4,6,8 TYPE D HIGHLAND PARK. This park is an extension at the western end of Highland Blvd. and widens to 184 feet of lake front on Priest Bay. It has approximately 1.5 acres. Partially developed and is presently used as a neighborhood playground and for resident dockage. Playground, resident permit docking area, and resident fishing area. CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D RIDGEWOOD PARK. Located on Ridgewood Road just east of Priest Lane. This park has an area of .4 acres. Presently being used as a boat launching and a boat dockage area by residents. Resident permit docking area and resident boat launch and winter access. 61170 - 61270 Location: Current Use: Proposed Use: 70000 - 70050 Location: CLASS 5 TYPE E .LAGOON PARK. Located on Priest Bay just off Sinclair Road. It has an area of approximately 2 acres. Primarily open water to marshy swamp with the exception of the lake front, which as a narrow ridge of high land and the lake front is approximately 100 feet of clean, firm sandy bottom. Resident permit docking area. Neighborhood park and swimming beach. CLASS 5,9 TYPE A,D BLUFFS BEACH. Located in the Bluffs on the north shore of Halstead Bay. It is a hillside with 50 feet of lake front. Current Use: Proposed Use: Undeveloped. Neighborhood beach. (4/19/93) 18 I t17 DEDICATIONS OF PUBLIC LAND (quoted from the original plats) City of Mound ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDN. TO LAKFSIDE PARK: ,, . . . and we hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever, all the streets, avenues and alleys hereon shown . . . this 17th day of June 1909." WATERSIDE LANE / WATERBANK COMMON 1. VILLA LANE 2. OVERLAND LANE 3. CENTERVIEW LANE 4. ASHLAND LANE 5. CARDINAL LANE A~DEN: " . . . and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever, the streets, avenues, and alleys as shown on said plat. In witness whereof the Tuxedo Park Company has caused these presents to be signed and its corporate seal affixed this 13th day of May 1910. BRIGHTON COMMON 0 BRIGHTON COMMON - SOUTH MANCHESTER ROAD AVALON: "... and we hereby dedicate to the owners of the lots as shown on the annexed plat all the streets, avenues and alleys thereon shown.., and seals this 21st day of December 1908." STRATFORD LANE EAST END OF STRATFORD WEST END OF STRATFORD DEVON: ,,... has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "Devon" and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public for the public use forever the roads, lands, streets and common as shown on the annexed plat. In witness whereof said Tuxedo Park Company has caused these presents to be signed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed on this 12th day of September 1911." Dedications of Public Land ¢/19/93 g-..~% G$ DEVON COHMON 10. ABERDEEN ROAD 11. ROANOKE POINT 12. ROANOKE ROAD 13. DEVON LANE 14. AMHURST LANE 15. ROXBURY LANE 16. DEVON COMMON - WEST DREARTWOOD:-... have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "Dreamwood" and we hereby dedicate to the owners of the lots as shown on the annexed plat all the streets or avenues thereon shown. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 28th day of May 1907." WIOTA COMMON - south 17. GULL LANE 18. FINCH LAND 19. EAGLE LANE 20. DOVE LANE 21. CANARY LANE 22. BLUEBIRD LANE 23. AVOCET LANE 24. WIOTA COMMON - WEST END L.P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYE~'EEP~: "... and we hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever all the streets and avenues thereof as shown on the accompanying plat . . . this 29th day of December 1892. LAKE BOULEVARD / PLATTED STREETS 25. FAIRVIEW LANE 26. CHATEAU LANE LAKF~IDE PARK A.L. CROCKER'S FIRST DMSION: ,,. . and we hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever all the roads and avenues and streets hereon shown . . this 26th day of November 1907." WATERSIDE LANE / WATERBANK COMMON 27. BREEZY ROAD 28. TONKAWOOD ROAD Ded£cat£ons of Public Land He LINDEN HF. IGHTS: .. · · and hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the streets, avenues, roads and park as shown on the annexed plat this 30th day of December 1915. ' ' ' CRESCENT PARK 29. CRESCENT PARK EAST CITY PROPERTY RETAINED FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT 30. WREN ROAD ACCESS LOST LAKE: ". · · and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the road, and the drainage and utility easements as shown on this plat. this 24th day of March 1986.,, ' ' DRAINAGE/WALKWAY EASEMENT TO PUBLIC LAND 31. LOST LAKE PARK SOUTH 32. LOST LAKE PARK NORTH _,REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDI ~I1ONTOLAKF~IDEPARK: "· · · and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the avenues, streets and alleys as shown on the annexed plat . . . 26th Day of August 1914." Plat includes North Park (dedicated to public) as shown on plat. NORTH PARK 33. APPLE LANE SETON: ". · . has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "Seton" and hereby does donate and dedicate to the public forever the streets, avenues, roads, lanes and common as shown on the annexed plat. In witness whereof said Tuxedo Park Company has caused those presented to be signed and this corporate seal to be hereunto affixed on this 26th Day of November 1913." KENMORE COMMON / BLACK LAKE LANE 34. LONGFORD ROAD 35. CARLOW ROAD Dedications of Public Land Ms ~/19/93 EXCELSIOR LANE 36. GALWAY ROAD 37. CAVAN ROAD SH~Y~VOOD POI]NT: ". . . have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "Shadywood Point" Hennepin County, Minn., and hereby do donate and dedicate to the public use forever all the streets, avenue, boulevard, roads, lanes, drives, path, place, trial, square, common, landings and parks as shown on the annexed plat. In witness whereof said Lakeside Park Association has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officers and its corporate seal to be herewith affixed this 8th day of July 1921." PEBBLE BEACH COMMON 38. HERON LANE 39. PARADISE LANE PLATTED STREETS AND LANDINGS 40. NORTH END OF THREE POINTS BLVD. 41. SUNRISE LANDING 42. BEACHSIDE - NORTH 43. SHOREWOOD LANE - SOUTH 44. BEACHSIDE - SOUTH 45. SUNSET LANDING ,~HIR~E~II',~~~: ,,. · and we do hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the lanes, avenues, roads, drive, alleys and park as shown on the annexed plat . . . lSth day of August 1924. PLATTED STREETS 46. AVON DRIVE ACCESS 47. INWOOD ROAD ACCESS 48. EMERALD DRIVE SUBD~ION OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD: ". · · and I hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the Avenues and Alley and Park thereon shown . . this 10th day of April A.D. 1910. PLATTED STREETS 49. ARBOR LANE Dedications of Public Land · T~]?'~G~[LA~-~S: ". . . and we hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the Avenues, Streets, Places, Parks, Drives, Parkways, channels, Lagoons, Lanes and Boulevards, as shown on the annexed plat . . this 15th day of December 1910. PLATTED P~KS 50. AT END OF IDLEWOOD ROAD 51. TWIN PARK OFF OF HIGHLAND BLVD. V~{IPPLE~OR]~: ". . · and we hereby dedicate to the owners of the lots as shown on the annexed plat, forever, all the streets or avenues thereon shown. PLATTED STREET 52. WATERBURY ROAD WOODLAND POINT:-... have caused the same to be platted as "Woodland Point" Hennepin County, Minn. and we hereby dedicate to the owners of the lots as shown on the annexed plat, forever, all the streets or avenues thereon shown. Witness our hands and seals this 19th day of June 1906." WAURICA COMMON - north 53. BLUEBIRD LANE 54. CANARY LANE 55. DOVE LANE 56. EAGLE LANE 57. FINCH LANE 58. GULL LANE WAWANOSSA COMMON - west 59. SOUTHERN END 60. WOODLAND ROAD ENTRANCE 61. WOODLAND POINT JENNINGS COVE 62. AVOCET LANE 63. BLUEBIRD LANE 64. CANARY LANE 65. DOVE LANE ,It I ~ I I I,, Ded£cat£ons of Publ£c Land ¢/19/93 ~c~OOD: ". · . and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the county road as shown on the annexed plat; and do also hereby donate and dedicate to the lot owners of said "Wychwood" the use forever of the lanes, raods and commons as shown on the annexed plat. In witness whereof . · · . this 25th day of May 1908." BRIGHTON COMMON 66. BRIGHTON COMMON - NORTH 6 Mound City Code Section 437:00 ~ection 437 - Dock License. Section 437:00. Licenses, Dock~. Subd. 1. Docks Defined. For purposes of this Section 437, the term "dock" means any wharf, pier, boat ramp, boat slip, mooring buoy, or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, or into the water of a lake from publicly owned shoreland. Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall erect, keep, or maintain a dock on or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons without first securing a license therefor from the City in accordance with the provisions of this Section 437. Subd. 3. License Plate Location. One license plate shall be securely fixed to a licensed dock. The license shall be on the shoreland end of the dock. License plates shall be issued by the Dock Inspector after approval of the license application, shall be maintained by the licensee in its original color, and shall remain the property of the City of Mound. Subd. 4. Transfers. Dock licenses are not transferable between licensees. All licenses shall be issued by the City to a new licensee in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Subd. 5. Removal of Dock~. Upon expiration of a dock license, the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenances from public land. Any dock or portion thereof not removed by the licensee will be removed by the City or a designated contractor and all costs of removal will be the responsibility of the last licensee for that dock site. (ORD. #60-1992 - 12-7-92) Section 437:05. ADmlications for and Issuance of Dock Licenseo. Subd. 1. Separate License Require~ for Each Dock. Each dock constructed and abutting a public park, commons, or street shall require a license from the City and a license plate to be issued by the Dock Inspector, who shall be appointed by the City Manager. No person shall be issued more than one license in any one calendar year. Mound City Code tl Section 437:05, Subd. 2 Subd. 2. License Application Required. License applications shall be obtained at the City offices. Such applications shall state completely, the following information and such other information as is deemed necessary by the City Manager or the Dock Inspector; a. Full name of the applicant; Co Address - applicant must present proof of residency showing he or she is a permanent or sununer resident of the City of Mound; Preferred location of dock on the dock location map of the City; Boat license number and copy of watercraft license for each boat to be moored at said dock; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Such other information as may be required on the application form. The applicant for a license shall sign as a part of the application an agreement which shall guarantee that the applicant will remove the dock and all appurtenances at the expiration of the license. The applicant shall agree that if they do not remove the dock, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. The applicant also shall agree that if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. Subd. 3. Two Residents may Share a Dock Subject to th. Conditions Contained Herein. Where dock permits are shared and issued to two residents entitled to permits of the first and second priority, then the following conditions shall apply: ao That duplicate information (including boat licenses) for each of the licensees be included on the license application; bo That each of the licensees retain priority rights to individual dock permits as vacation occurs in the immediate subdivision shoreline; Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 3, c. That the fee for each licensee shall be one-half the fee plus a shared dock fee as set by the Council in Section 510:00. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 4. APPlication Filing. Applications for licenses shall be filed with the Dock Inspector at the City offices and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or authorized until the Dock Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all City ordinances. The application shall contain a reminder and/or warning to the applicant that a dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. (ORD. #62- 1993, 4/19/93) Subd. 5. Dock Location. No license shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector until he or she shall have first determined that the proposed dock is suitable for the specific dock location as identified on the official dock location map. Subd. 6. Denial of Application. If the applicant has not maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing license be revoked, and the applicant,s priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. A dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. (ORD. 62-1993, 4/19/93) Subd. 7. ~icense Prioritle~. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses and other dock locations: aa. Residents owning private 1ak.shore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 7, a. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. Subd. 8. Application Deadlines. Applications for dock shall be made between January 1 and the last day of February of each year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 9. Late Applications. Ail applications received on or after March i shall be subject to additional late fees as set by the Council in Section 510:00 and will be placed in a third priority category. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) (ORD. #53-1991 - 12-23-91) Sub4. 10. New Resident~. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply after the last day of February of the calendar year in which the resident moves to the City. The regular license fee will be charged and no penalty will attach during that year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Mound City Code ll Section 437:10, Subd. I Section 437:~0. Rules and Requlations. Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following information: Lineal footage for purposes of establishing dock locations; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) be Ce Indication of approved dock location scaled to proximity within the property markers; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Shoreline Classifications and any restrictions applicable to said locations; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) de Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown by the dock location numbering system; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) ee Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of licensees and addresses, and the same number shall apply to the same location each year as far as possible; fe Access points, and other relevant information as is necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City ge h® Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the public lands and public waters; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Shoreline areas designated for no winter dock storage. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Repealed (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) ,It I ~, I I I, Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 2 Subd. 2. ~nnual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenanc~. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 5. Suspension of Eligible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. Bubd. 6. One Dock Per Family; ADartment Building. No more that one dock shall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 7 Subd. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tire~. All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. (ORD. #40-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. S. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - Licens~ Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or properly maintained or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by the City Manager, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. Ail notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Mound City Code Soction 437:10, Subd. 10 Bubd. ~0. Winter Do~k.:Storaqa., Winter dock storage by permit holders: Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are met: The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. Docks may be partially removed, provide4 that those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters. Docks must be brought up to the construction standards outlined in this Section 437 within 4 weeks after the ice goes out in the spring of the year (approximately May 15). If the dock does not meet construction standards, the procedures as specified in Subd. 8 of this Section 437 will apply. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be left in the water or on public land if they conflict with the following uses as shown on the dock location map: Slide area Snowmobile crossings Skating rinks Trails Road access Other conditions or circumstances which are determined by the Council to have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. Docks may be stored on commons during the winter months providing the conditions set forth in a.4 above are met along with the following conditions: 1. Repealed. (ORD 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be stored on commons shown on the dock location map as having topographical conditions which are too steep, or have fragile flora or where tree damage may occur due to tree density or where there is unstable ground. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 10, b., 3. ® Docks may be stored only in areas designated for dock permits and as shown on the dock location map. All storage shall be done in an orderly, compact, and unobtrusive manner. 5. Docks and associated hardware must be removed from the commons and/or public lands between June 1st and September 1st of each year. 6. Storage shall be restricted to dock materials, dismantled docks, and dismantled boat lifts. 7. The Park Commission, City Dock Inspector, and City Council shall review the dock location map each year and designate areas not available for winter storage because of the conditions heretofore stated. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Bub4. 11. Removal Deadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later that December 31 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. Bubd. 12. Dockinq of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. The City may check with the State of Minnesota to determine if the boat docked at the licensed dock is owned by the licensee and/or a member of the same household as the licensee. Any boat registered to someone not a member of the licensee's household shall not be docked in excess of 48 hours unless a Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit has been obtained from the City and the fee established by the City Council in Section 510:35 has been paid. No more than one Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit may be issued in any calendar year to an individual dock licensee or visitor· All Temporary Visiting Dockage Permits shall contain the State registration number of the boat and shall be limited to 21 days. Any violation of this Section 437 by the dock licensee shall result in the loss or revocation of the dock license unless the City Council shall determine upon evidence submitted by the licensee that there were mitigating circumstances. The City Council may determine that revocation is too severe a penalty and may then condition said license so that any future violation will result in automatic revocation. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13 8ubd. 13. ~icenses Non-T~ansferable. Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges of receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Desiqn of Dock~. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth of 36" using , Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Mound City Code Section 437:20 Section 437:20. penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license a required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 437. Sub4. 437:25. License Fee. The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in Sectio~ 510:00. Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) Procedure Manual Public Land Permits Exhibit G Shoreland Management Ordinance City Code Section 350:1200 (4/90) In addition to neighborhood and communi~ park facilities, Mound has a number of specialized areas that provide unique recreational opportunities. The specialized areas exist in three primary forms, commons property, permanent preserve lands {wetlands and wooded areas) and special use areas. According to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, permanent preserve land accounts for a total of approximately 68 acres. The Lost Lake area comprises a substantial portion of this total. Other parcels scattered throughout the communi~ account for the remainder of the acreage. Approximately 26 acres of proper~ classified as commons exists in Mound. These publicly owned parcels comprise nearly 10 percent of the total Lake Minnetonka shoreline in the communi~. Substantial diversi~ characterizes the commons areas. Some areas are relatively flat and are easily accessible to the general public while some parcels consist of steep slopes that are virtually unaccessible, even to abutting proper~ owners. Commons areas provide a valuable recreational resource to both residents of Mound and to the general public. In many cases, the sites function as neighborhood access points to Lake Minnetonka. Aside from the Mound Bay Park area, commons properties are generally not capable of providing communi~-wide boat launching or parking facilities. However, depending on the specific site or commons.area, boat launching facilities, limited parking, swimming and fishing are accommodated. A further discussion of commons appears later in this plan. Special use areas' comprise the third category of specialized areas. These areas which are depicted on the map entitled Specialized Areas. They include a mix of several types of facilities including small neighborhood beaches and winter vehicular lake accesses. //~our sites in this category are noteworthy: Veterans Park - Veterans Park is a small parcel of land on the west side of Commerce Boulevard fronting on Lake Langdon. The park which contains only benches serves pedestrians in the downtown ~undee Park - Dundee Park is a .4 acre parcel on the west side of 'Dundee Lane. The City of Mound gained title to the property through tax forfeiture proceedings. The site which is within two blocks of Swenson Park is not needed for active recreation. Since the site sits on a hill overlooking Lake Minnetonka, it has potential as a passive neighborhood park emphasizing the views of ~x,x.t h e lake. 77 Five major characteristics summarize the existing Hound park system, They include: 1. The three major active, non-water oriented recreation facilities are located on the three school sites. These sites are centrally located and afford convenient access to users. Although not under the ownership of the City of Mound, these sites provide an essential contribution to Mound's park system. Future recreation efforts need to continue to recognize the role played by the school district's facilities. The City of Mound should work closely with the Westonka School District to ensure that these facilities are available for use by Mound residents. 2. The City of Mound owns a variety of park properties uniquely suited to a variety of purposes. The larger sites are used for active recreation while a numerous smaller parcels function either as permanent open space or neighborhood lake access points. Supplementing the designated park areas is an extensive system of publicly owned wetlands and open space. 3. The existing park system contains diverse facilities that serve both active and passive needs. 4. Mound's park system places a major emphasis on neighborhood park facilities. Because of the development pattern of the communi~, the ci~ has historically relied on numerous smaller neighborhood parks and pl~grounds rather than stressing the development of more communi~ wide park facilities. This has resulted in a system that provides parks that are convenient to all residents, however, numerous, smaller sites require higher expenditures for maintenance. $. Mound has a historical commitment of making Lake Minnetonka accessible to all residents. The city has acquired an extensive system of shoreland properties which provide docks, fishing access and vehicular access to Lake Minnetonka. GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Neighborhood parks will be the major component of both the 1990 and 2000 park systems. Based on the concept of positioning park facilities within easy access of a one-half mile service radius, adequate park acreage is available. Neighborhood parks provide pl~ opportunities for small children. Th~ should expand youth oriented activities such as playgrounds, basketball courts and ball fields available for casual games. Selective development of other active facilities such as tennis courts is appropriate in neighborhood parks. 2. The Community Center site, Grandview Middle School and Shirley Hills Elementary School will continue to be key components of the Mound park system. In the next 10 years, significant expansion of 84 (4/90) facilities is not expected to occur at any of these sites. Major emphasis will need to be placed on maintenance of the existing facilities. 3. Lake accesses, commons property and permanent wetlands/open space will continue to be major elements of Mound's 2000 park system. Since Mound is approaching full development, major expansion of these sites is not envisioned. 4. Establish and implement a system of uniform signs designating the locations and features of parks and recreation areas. Information such as the facility name, date of establishment and any other pertinent historical data may be included. Signage should be used to identify all lake access points. A system of unified signs will aid users in identifying various areas. 5. The city should develop an overall master plan and planting program for all park facilities. Deciduous and evergreen species as well as mass shrub plantings should be considered in order to provide shade, texture, color and other aesthetic and functional values. Plans for parks should integrate recreational facilities into the natural environment of the site. 6. The city should continue to maintain a balanced recreational system which appeals to a broad base of the population and provides recreational opportunities for both active and passive users. 7. Recreational areas should contain facilities for commercial and industrial users as well 'as residential segments of the population. 8. Mound should expand it's existing ownership of nature areas and open space. Retaining tax forfeited land is a possible source of such properS. Frequently land becomes tax forfeit because it is unbuildable due to topography, soil conditions or the presence of wetland areas. These development constraints are qualities desired in open space or nature area parks. g. The Ci~ should explore seasonal use of wetland areas. During the winter months, wetlands offer interesting opportunities for hiking and cross country skiing activities. EXISTING PARKS - RECOMMENDATIONS This plan offers a series of recommendations for each of the parks within the existing Mound park system. These recommendations are depicted graphically in the appendix section of this chapter. 85 (4/90) 4 SPECIALIZED AREAS RECOMMENDATIONS The inventory section of this plan identified several specialized areas within the Mound park system, Two of the areas cited were the Lost Lake site and the commons system. As Mound continues to grow and the remaining vacant land develops, these two areas will become even more important to the local community. Lost Lake Lost Lake was originally acquired by the City of Hound in 1952. Since that time, the parcel has remained undeveloped and is presently used for materials storage by the public works department. In 1986, the Ci~ of Mound began a serious effort to identify an appropriate use for the parcel and to secure a developer. This effort included a market analysis of the parcel which concluded that one of the likely uses of the proper~ was for park and recreation purposes. This conclusion echoed efforts that were begun in 1974 to develop the site as a nature preserve. In 1974, a three phase development plan for a preserve on the Lost Lake site was formulated. Its first phase would have created a 1,600 foot walking pathway from a trail head and parking area off of Bartlett Boulevard which is now the site of a residential development. Later phases would have involved dredging to create a water trailw~ system which would have provided access into Lost Lake via a small number of pontoon boats. The final phase proposed a 6,000 square foot building which would provide for a museum and auditorium. Because of limited funds, the plan was never implemented. The 1986 market survey identified a country inn or multi-family housing as potential uses for the properS. The Ci~ of Hound attempted to secure a developer for a country inn in 1987. That effort proved to be unsuccessful due to high site improvement costs. At the present time, the ci~ is continuing to pursue development of the proper~ for a commercial purpose. Regardless of the eventual commercial usage of the properS, Lost Lake should also serve as a park for the Mound communi~. The site consists of 3 acres of developable proper~ surrounded by almost 37 acres of wetland. Park and recreation use of the proper~ m~ eventually range from 100% usage of the site to a commercial development with the provision of public access to wetland areas. If it is ultimately determined that soil conditions preclude commercial development of the site, the proper~ should be developed as a new ci~ park. Because of its location along County Road 15, a park on the Lost Lake site would most likely be identified for communi~ usage. The level topography and lack of tree cover on the upland area favors development as an active playfield area. The size of the 86 (4/90) site limits the amount and range of facilities. The dry area is adequate to accommodate a ball diamond, tennis courts, parking and some active uses. Future plans for the facility should also include a trailway system, sections of which could be floated across portions of the wetland. The wetland trail system could also include viewing platforms. Regardless of the final use of the Lost Lake site, the Ci~ of Mound needs to continue to pursue use of at least portions of the proper~ for access to a public trail system. Trail head areas and off street parking should be included as components of any commercial development proposal for the site. Commons Areas Recommendations found within this plan call for the continuation of the commons program which provides resident access to Lake Minnetonka. At the present time, nearly 4.5 miles or roughly ten percent of Mound's shoreline is under public ownership. This system which consists of a varie~ of land parcels is neither suited nor capable of providing communi~-wide boat launching or fishing access capabilities. Commons properties are categorized as one of five general ~pes. Th~ consist of: Type A B Description Traversable on top only with no docks Traversable only along shoreline areas, regular guidelines apply Not traversable, abutting property owners only Traversable top and bottom, regular guidelines apply Wetland/wildlife area, no docks The location of each of these ~pes is depicted on the Commons - Shoreline Classifications map. In some cases, commons properties mu have potential for expanded public use. ~pe A and Type C facilities may be able to support trail systems depending on existing development configurations. Expanded use of commons proper~ needs to consider the potential disruption to residential areas and increased exposure of privately owned boats. Despite these concerns, commons properties should be reviewed to determine if expanded public usage is warranted. 87 ,t I I l, I ~, Ec p (8/9o) (,, Separate and detailed documentation on commons properties is available from the Mound Parks Department. Bikeways The recreation section of the Mound Comprehensive Plan places an emphasis on the provision of convenient neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks are the key to providing accessible park and recreation opportunities to Mound residents. In order to enhance accessibility, bikeways are used as a method of improving access to components of Mound's park system. In addition to improving accessibility, bikeways also serve two additional functions. First, bikeways can be used as a pure recreational experience; a means of obtaining exercise. Secondly, they provide an increasingly important transportation alternative. The increased use of bicycles can help reduce automobile congestion and thereby helping to alleviate air quality problems. Because of the extent of existing residential, commercial and industrial development, most bikeways in Mound are in the form of on-street, designated routes rather than detached trails. At the present time, bikeways are designated along Commerce Boulevard (110), Shoreline Boulevard (15) and Bartlett Boulevard (125). When Commerce Boulevard was reconstructed in 1989, sidewalks were installed to enhance pedestrian safety. Wide shoulders along this route help reduce the potential for conflict between automobiles and bicycles. In the future, Mound has the potential to expand the existing bikeway system through the designation of additional routes. Additionally, two opportunities exist for the possible construction of off-street trails. The Dakota Rail line that bisects the community has been considered for abandonment in recent years. If the line is ever abandoned, it would make an excellent trail connecting to communities both east and west of Mound. The development of such a trail would likely involve the efforts and resources of Mound, other communities along the corridor, Hennepin County and possibly the State of Minnesota. The second opportunity for an off-street trail exists around the Lost Lake site. The land use section of this plan identifies the Lost Lake site as the future location of commercial development and a park. A trail system around the wetland area may be able to accommodate bicycles as well as pedestrians. The inclusion of bicycles as a part of this trail system is dependent on soil conditions and the amount of available land. Bikeways in this area should be considered as part of any future planning effort to establish a Lost Lake park. The map entitled Bikeway System identifies both existing and proposed routes. 88 CITY of ,XlOL'ND STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: , 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director XXXX ABC Lane Block , Lot , Subdivision Name, PID #xx-xxx-xx xx xxxx John Doe Common XXXXX X Public Land Permit Application Type of Permit Type of Improvement Applicant's Request The applicant is seeking permit approval to Backqround and Comments Other Issues Recoqnized by Staff Staff will evaluate all encroachments relating to the applicant's dock site or abutting property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Type of Permit subject to the following condit ions: 1. 2. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Thcabu~ owne~havebeennotified. Thls~que~is~heduled~behea~ by~eCi~ Cou~on ,1993. printed on recycled paper 51 ,I I I I I,, Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports Public Land Permits Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances and regulations, including: Use Plan Comprehensive Plan Shot·land Management 350:1200) Ordinance (City Code Section Recommendations for permissible uses according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as stairways, retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following: If structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to the City Council permit approval for 5 years. If structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend approval an~ the structur~ must com~ly with code ~ii!ii~iiiiiii~iii~ii~~!~ and dock ~:~'~:~':~:::~:i:~:!:~~:~:~:~:!*~:~:~ets code. If structure is not corrected or removed ~:~i~: that dock site · ssuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal channels· Co If structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license. Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable regulations shall be reviewed on a case by case basis. Recommendations will be for termination, amortization, removal, and restoration to natural condition, as applicable in the Use Plan. Buildings or other structure require separate legal review, and the following information should be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft report. This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review, when necessary. Guidelines for Writing Staff Report· Page 2 e 10. Electrical: Ail electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Expiration Date for Permits: Ail permits, for each property, will be made to expire concurrently. Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted existing stairway, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can be repaired without a permit with approval by the Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The Dock Inspector currently writes correction orders for minor items such as loose treads, handrails, or replacement of boards on docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all correction orders regarding building code items. Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8', consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility. Riprap: Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 100 year floodplain elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. Permits are required from these agencies before a Public Lands Permit can be granted by the City of Mound. Seawalls: Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance for more regulations. Veqetation Alterations and Tr~mming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 2 CITY of *IOUND Letter of Agreement This agreement, by and between the City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City", and name of applicant (s) applicant ' s address Mound, MN, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", The City of Mound is aware that the applicant is seeking a permit from the DNR / Watershed, hereinafter referred to as "agency", to make the following improvements: on the public property known as The Applicant is not a representative of the City and is personally requesting the permit from the agency. The Applicant shall apply to the agency as an "applicant" and list the City as the "owner" to ensure that the City is kept apprised of all actions during the permit process. When the agency has completed processing the application, the agency shall convey their recommendation to the City of Mound, and the City of Mound will complete the Public Lands Permit process. Signatures: Applicant City Manager DATE DATE printed on recycled paper DRAFT . · 3/93 AGENCIES REQUIRING PERMITS/APPROVALS FOR PROJECTS IN SHORELAND AND WETLAND.AREAS (note:some egeflcies re~Jire fees) FILLING YES YES YES YES' NO EXCAVATION/DREDGING YES YES YES YES* NO STO~J4 VATER FL4JiAGEMENT NO NO YES YES NO PLANS ~ATER APPROPRIATIONS NO YES~ YES~ NO NO RETAINING UALL$ NO YES YES YES* NO SA~D 8LAHL'~TSI RIP RAP YES* YES* YES YES* NO WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES YES YES YES YES* NO DRAINING: g[TLANDS/LAKES YES* YES YES YES* NO STORMgATER OUTFALLS NO YES YES YES* NO STRUCIURES ABOVE OHW NO NO YES* YES NO STRUCTURES BELCX~OHg NO YES YES YESe YES DO~S/HOORINGS NO YESe #0 YES* YES LAUNCN RAHPS NO YESe NO YES* YES VEGETATION CONTROL NO YES* NO YES* NO AERATORS (DEICING) NO YES NO NO YES BRIDGES/ROADS YESe YES YES YES NO UTILITIES NO YES YES YES NO Starred Items nmy not require a permit In some cities,or provided certain conditior~s ere met. PERSONS ARE IR I)OUBT AS TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS SHOULD CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR MORE INFORHATION. AREAS OF JURISDICTION AND CONTACTS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE): Joe Yanta, 220-0362 Where: Waters of the U.S. (i.e all waterways, lakes and wetlands). Emphasis: Any type of filling, including dredge spoils. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR): Ceil Strauss, 772-7910 Where: Below OHW of wetlands and lakes greater than 2-1/2 acres (10 acres in unincorporated areas) and watercourses; all ground and surface sources for water appropriations. Emphasis: Changes to course, current or cross-section, including: filling, excavation, water level changes, structures, crossings and vegetation control. Minnehaha Creek Watershed D/strict (WSD): Ellen Klanderman, 939-8320 Where: Everywhere within the watershed (drainage area) of Minnehaha Creek. (See map on page 3) Emphasis: Alterations in floodplains and wetlands. Stormwater management. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD]: Rachel Thibault, 473-7033 Where: Lake Minnetonka Emphasis: Structures below OHW. Water surface use (docks, marinas, special events,deicing). CJEes: Contact Cities Planning or Zoning Department Where: Within city limits. Emphasis: Zoning. Grading and filling changes. Structures (decks, walls, shed, stairways, etc.) Shoreland development (setbacks, lot sizes, alteration of vegetation, floodplain development, etc.) -1- L_ ,,,55 DEFINITIONS Ordinary High Water (OHW) Level: The OHW is the statutory definition of the boundary/e~ge of lakes, wetlands and rivers/creeks. DNR has jurisdiction over activities below the OHw (v~ithln the lake, wetland or river/creek). The OHW is the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The OHW is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predom[natelv aquatic to predominately terrestrial. For rivers/creeks, the OHW is the top of the bank of the channel. NOTE: The OHW does NOT indicate ownership boundaries, only jurisdictional boundaries. The OHW of Lake Minnetonka is 929.4' (feet above mean sea level). Floodplain: The land inundated by the 100-year flood (the flood that has a one-percent chance of occurring in a single year. The 100-year floodplain elevation of Lake Minnetonka (for regulatory purposes} is 931.5'. NOTE: The Watershed District and cities both have floodplain regulations. Shore/and District: Shoreland Districts include all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and within 300 feet of a river/creek or the landward extent of a designated floodplain (where the floodplain is wider than 300 feet). Special standards guide the use and development of shoreland property, including: sanitary codes, building setbacks and heights, lot sizes, vegetation clearing, etc. These shoreland management regulations affect lakes greater than 10 acres (25 acres in unincorporated areas) and rivers/creeks with a drainage area greater than 2 square miles. NOTE: Cities administer the shoreland management regulations. Water Appropr/ab'on: Removing water from either surface water or ground water (i.e. well) sources. Typical purposes for water appropriations are: crop/lawn irrigation, municipal water supply, commercial/industrial uses,construction dewatering, etc. The DNR requires permits for water appropriations in excess of 10,000 gallons/day or 1 million gallons/year. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires permits for non-essential uses of Hennepin County surface water (lakes larger than 500 acres, including Lake Minnetonka, are exempt). Wetlands: Wetlands are defined in two ways: (1) according to the Federal Wetland Delineation Manual for regulations administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Watershed District and cities ('wetlands'), and (2) according to state law for those wetlands under the jurisdiction of the DNR ('DNR wetlands'). Wetlands (based on the federal manual) include a wide range of wetland types and characteristics. Three main components are checked to determine whether an area is a wetland and the wetland boundaries: types of vegetation, soils, and hydrology (has water or saturated soils for certain length of time each year). DNR Wetlands are defined by state law and include certain types of wetlands (called types 3, 4, and 5 by one method of classifying wetlands) 2-1/2 acres or larger (10 acres or larger in unincorporated areas). DNR wetlands, lakes and watercourses (rivers/creeks) were inventoried in the late 1970's and are shown on maps, entitled 'Protected Waters and We~Jands'. -2- -3- Jt ,I ~ I I I,, INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM AGENCIES DNR - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 Fisheries Section 772-7950 Aquatic Plant Management (Informational Packet and Permit Application Forms) Fishing Permit/Regulations Information Aerator Permit Information Division of Waters 772-7910 Beach Sand Blanket (Information Sheet) Best Management Practices For Water Quality (Brochure) Boat Launch Ramps (Information Sheet) Design Guidelines For Stairways,Landings,and Seasonal Docks in Designated Wild, Scenic and Recreational Areas (Information Sheet) Guide For Buying and Managing Shoreland (Booklet) Lakeshore Improvement Projects (Information Sheet) Minnesota's Water Appropriation Program (Brochure) Protected Water and Water Appropriation Application Forms Purple Loosestrife (Brochure) Rip Rap Shore Protection (Information Sheet) Stream Bank Erosion (Booklet) Water Permits in Minnesota (Brochure) Water-related Land Use Programs Ilnformation Sheet) Work That Can Be Done Without A Permit (Information Sheet) Wetland Types And Definitions (Brochure) _Minnehaha Creek WSD - 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55343 District Coordinator 939-8320 WSD Engineers (Wenck Assoc.) 479-4200 District Rules Permit Application Forms .I-MCD - 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160, Wayzata, MN 55391 Administrative Technician 473-7033 Summer Rules (Booklet) Winter Rules (Brochure) Permit Application Forms Eurasian Water Milfoil (Brochure) USCOE -SI.Paul Distri;~-180 E.Kelloq.q Blvd.,Rm.1421. St. PauI,MN 55101-147~ Hennepin County 220-0375 General 220-0362 Recognizing Wetlands (Brochure) What You Need to Know About Permits From the Army Corps of Engineers (Brochure) Regulatory Program Applicant Information (Booklet) -4- PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR~YEARSTo ALLowRENEWABLE COM](ONS, DOCK SITE # WHEREAS, has applied for a C Permit to allow on abutting property and; on Public Lands WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requi Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Cot of kind on any public way, park or commons, or the of the natural contour of any public way, park, or WHEREAS, WHEREAS, J REAS, EREAS, ~ P~~k and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval by a 6-1-1 vote. NOW, THEREFORE,/BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minn~ota, as follows: 1. To approve aw/Construction on Public Lands Permit to upon the follow~g conditions: a~_~permit is approved for~~ years from the date of Clt~'~ ' -"y Council approval, at which time an application may be made to renew the permit. The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan for City records. de Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City. ) So RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR LAND ALTERATIONS TO ALLOW A BOULDER RETAINING WALL, FILLING AND LEVELING OF THE GRADE, AND PLANTING OF GRASS AND WILD PLOWERS ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOTS 12 & 13, DEVON, DOCK SITE #43??0 WHEREAS, Mike and Martha Mac'residents of 4909 Island View Drive, Mound, MN have applied fq~ a Public Lands Permit for Land Alterations to allow a boulder r~ainin~ wall, filling and leveling o_f the grade, and planting off,rase/and wild flowers on Devon commons abutting 4909 Island View~r~ve, B~ck 14, Lots 12 & 13, Devon, Dock Site #43770; and ..... WH~ERE. AS, Ci_ty Cod~e Section20, Sub,~. 4. requires City Council approval Dy a tour-fifths vot~ for a\ Land Alteration Special Permit; and %i~- WHEREAS, there is an Iting~m~ectric light pole with an outlet on this subject are~ yon Commons; and WHEREAS, the Park; Space Commission reviewed this request and unanimousl~ ~ed approval as recommended by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, {BE ~ RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, MinneL~ta' ~ follows: 1. The City of ~n~oes hereby approve a Public Lands Permit f.o~Land Al_~era~o~ to allow a boulder retaining wall less t~an..4 feet .i_~ h~.t~ .m,.inor filling and grading, and planting ff,wil, d flowe~6n ~illside on Devon Commons abutting 4909 ~..sland View_.D.~ve, Block 14, Lots 12 & 13, Devon, Dock Site ~4377_0 for M~i. ke~nd Martha Mason, subject to the following ~a. _~~g~ electric 1 ..... \-' _~= =~9 lgn~ pole and outlet may remain, ~,~,b_.ut the. installation shall be reviewed by a qualified _.licens.ed_ma~ter electrician, and the work be properly ~i_n~sp~e~c_t~ed a~d approved by the State Electrical Inspector ~?~d that ~opy of that approval be filed with the City. b. _Ne.w owg~r of property may make application for . Maint/nce Permit. c. '~t. expires 5 years from date of City Council approval ~on which time renewal is required. d. Application for renewal must be made with change in home ownership. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L~DB PE~IT FOR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON D~ON CO~ONS ABUTTING 4853 ISLED VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 4, DEVON, DOCK SITE #43450, ~EREAS, Mark and Stacey GoldJg haye applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit t~allow ~-construction of a stairway on Devon Co~ons abutting 4~ Islaq~ View Drive, Block 14, Lot 4, Devon, Dock Site #43450; a~d~ / ~EREAS, City Code Section 320, Subd. ~ red,Wes City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for~t Const~ on Public Land Pe~it; and ~EREAS, the Park and Open~ce~o~i~!ion' reviewed this re~est and unanimously reco~end,~$ppr~rith conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE]~y the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as f¢~:~ 1. The City of Mound does hero,by ap~ov~ a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow r~stru~ion of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting the PrS%p~ .~ at 4853 Island View Drive, Block 14, Lot 4, Devon, S~e #43450 for Mark and Stacey Goldberg, subject to ell%wing conditions: ir~i 11 a. The permit w ~ in five (5) years, at which time the applicat ~ made to renew the permit. b. The~airway comfy with current building code. c. Th~ applicant/.~tting property owner is responsible for al~ costs i~rred, including installation and malnte.~..nce',~ d. New~w~wn property may make application for Mainte~yit. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A_~CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR~YEARS RENEWABLE TO ALLOW A LIGHT POLE WITH TWO SPOT LIGHTS, AN ELECTRICAL OUTLETv AND STEREO SPEAKERS ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #42077, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr BLOCK 7, LOT 1, DEVON WHEREAS, Greg Knutson has applietfor a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow an existing l~ht pole with two spot lights, an electrical outlet, and stereo~speakgrs to remain on Devon Commons, Dock Site #42077, abut~ng property 4701 Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 1, Devon, an~ WHEREAS, City Code Section 320',.~iresC~ty Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Constructi.~of an~ kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteratio~e natural contour of any public way, park, or s, and; WHEREAS, the subject lic owner without Council a permit, and; ' erected by a previous ~t the proper electrical WHEREAS, the subject for the general public trave the adjacent public access !erves security and safety purposes ~g this portion of the commons and ~ lane. WHEREAS, the light~ the shoreland and out into the lake, only on WHEREAS, no cc stereo speakers and commons area, s have been received relating to the is used for a weed whip to trim the WHEREAS request Open Space Commission reviewed this approval by a 6-1-1 vote. NOW, City of I, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the , as follows: To approve a ~Construction on Public Lands Permit to continue the use of subject light pole with two spot lights, an electrical ~tlet and two stereo speakers, upon the following condit a. permit is approved for ~) years from the date City Council approval, at which time an application may be made to renew the permit. be The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan for City records. c. The lights be shielded. d. Proof of an electric City. 1 inspection be submitted to the ,t I I ,I I,, CITY of ,MOUND 6!2 z-£ :Ax{ {6'2 Date Mr. John Doe xxxx ABC Lane Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Resolution #93- Type of Permit for Type of Improvement Dear Mr. Doe: Please find enclosed your Resolution #93- approving your Type of Permit to allow construction of Type of Imprvoemnet on name of common/public land. Please pay special attention to the conditions listed. When the permitted work is complete, please call me to schedule a final inspection. Sincerely, Jim Fackler Parks Director JF:pj printed on recycied paper STAIRWAYS 1988 UBC Section 3306 6'8" MINIMUM HANDRAIL ~{ Sec. 330~ ' d~ 34"'['~ -[ I~.;J MINIMUM RUN 4" MIN. RISE ~~ ...... ~" ~,~u~ ?S~l,~ OCCUPANT LOAD LESS THAN 10 (Private Stairway) MAXIMUM TREAD RUN VARIATION OF 3/8 INCH. MAXIMUM RISER VARIATION OF 3/8". HANDRAIL MEASURED TO THE TOP OF RAIL. THERE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 12 FEET VERTICALLY BETWEEN LANDINGS. I I L FIGURE NO. 52 ~'~ Of)en Handrail Q: I request a code inlerpretation of Se:lion 3306 (i), spe- cifically that pc, lion which Stales, 'The handgrip pod;- lion of handrails shall nol be less Ihan 1 I/2 inches o~ more Ihan 2 inches in cross-sectional dimension... ' The delail in Figure No. 53 represenls a handrail typically used in this area where a 2 by 4 is faslened Io Ihe wall and runs conlinuously Ihe lenglh of the stain. A 2 by 6 is Ihen properly p~epared (corners rounded and surfaces smoothed) and fastened !o Ihe 2 by 4 with 2 inches of the 2 by 6 prolrudin8 above Ihe 2 by 4. Does Ihe 1 I/2- by 2-inch IXolruding portion of the 2 by 6 provide a conforming handraiH' I I I FIGURE NO. 53 A n Figure NO. 53 does not indicate a conformin8 handrail. · The examples in Figure NO. 54 shown below are details deemed to be acceptable. The intenl of Ihe wording in Section 3306 (i) is Io establish hand. rail geometry which will satisfy the inlended function of a handrail as a 8ripping surface. The handrairs 8raspability should be a major consideration when evaluating the acceplabilily of equivalent shapes. OTHER SHAPES MAY BE ACCEPTABLE IF THEY PROVIOE AN EQUIVALENT GRIPPING SERVICE. SEE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 3306 (il. xhibi - 0 ACCEPTABLE FIGURE NO. 54--ACCEPTABLE HANDRAIL DETAILS [Section 3306 (I)] Q:Is a stairway serving o~ly a single.family dwellin8 re- quired to have a handrail that extends 12 inches be. yond the top and bottom risers~ Am A stairway serving only a single-family dwelling would · be exempt from the ! 2-inch extension fo~ the handrail. This is based on the definition of a private stairway in Section 3301 (b) lhat states a private stairway 'is a stairway serving one lenant only.' A single-tenant occupancy would certainly include a single-family dwelling. Q· · Does the handrail detail shown in Figure No. 55 com- ply with the 'continuous' terminology used in the code? ' i STAIRS FIGURE NO. 55 Aa The code is quite specific in the second senlence of the · second paragraph of Section 3306 (i), where it states. in part, 'They shall be continuous Ihe full length o~the stairs... ' The rationale is that any individual ascending o~ descendin8 a flight of stairs should be able Io place one hand on the rail and be prepared lo 8rip it in case of' an emergency. In o~def to ensure such a situation, the handrail must be physically continuous. Thus, the condition indicated on Figure No. 55 is noncomplying. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. City of Mound Preliminary Feasibility Analysis Use of Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment of Community Services Building Introduction This report provides a preliminary financial feasibility analysis of the use of tax increment financing to redevelop property located in the downtown area of Mound. As with most redevelopment projects, this one will not occur without financial assistance from the City of Mound. The most viable form of such assistance is tax increment financing (TIF). The proposed redevelopment would occur on the site of the Westonka Community Services Center (Parcel No. 14-117-24 41-0010). The Community Services Center would be removed and replaced with one or more commercial uses. Potential uses include a grocery store, a retail liquor store and a bank. The objectives of this report are to: O) Provide the City of Mound and other effected parties as assessment of the ability to create a tax increment financing district. (2) Analyze the capacity of tax increment financing to provide public participation in redevelopment. (3) Identify other issues relating to the use of tax increment financing. (4) Identify other steps to be taken in creating a plan of finance. This analysis is preliminary in nature. Its purpose is to provide an initial assessment of the feasibility of using tax increment financing. Additional steps will be needed to prepare a final finance plan and agreements for public participation. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Ability to Create TIF District To use tax increment financing, the City must make the findings necessary to create a tax increment financing district. State Law allows several different forms of TIF districts. The type of district best suited to this project is a "redevelopment district." A preliminary investigation indicates reasonable evidence to support the findings that the site meets the statutory criteria for the establishment of a redevelopment TIF district. If the project continues to progress, we recommend that the City take additional steps to gather data needed to support the findings. Statutory Criteria Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10, contains the criteria for a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The statute sets forth two primary tests: (1) "Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements..." The proposed TIF district passes this test. The district would consist of one parcel. This parcel is occupied by the Community Services Center and related improvements. (2) "More than 50 percent of the buildings...are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance." There is one building on the site. To create the TIF district, this building must meet the criteria for structurally substandard. For the purposes of this test, State Law defines structurally substandard as "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects and deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." The presence of these conditions not withstanding, a building does not qualify as structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be brought into compliance at a cost of less than 15% of constructing a comparable new building on the same site. The City may rely on reasonable evidence to determine if a building qualifies on this basis. Our review of available information suggests that there is reasonable evidence to support the finding that the building is structurally Page 2 substandard for the purposes of a redevelopment district. Information supporting this finding include: Original building was constructed in 1938. A portion of building was destroyed by fire. These section were replaced by "pods" in 1964. Approximately +/- 1,500 SF remains from the original construction. The building was recently inspected by the State Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall found a variety of fire code problems with this facility3 Architects for the School District have inspected the building. A report on building improvements should be released this month. Discussions with the architects indicated that this report will provide information supporting the findings. The architect's report may provide sufficient reasonable evidence for the finding of structurally substandard. If not, the City should consider having its building official examine the building and incorporate this information into the findings. Limitations on Redevelopment District A redevelopment TIF district is subject to several limitations. Duration: A redevelopment TIF District may remain in existence for a period not exceeding 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Use of Tax Increment: At least 90% of the tax increment revenues must be used to correct the conditions that allow the site to qualify as a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include land acquisition, demolition, clearance, site improvements and city administrative expense. Agreements: Acquisition of this parcel by the City requires an agreement for the development of the property with provisions providing the City with recourse in case the development is not completed. 1 See March 15, 1993 letter from Richard P. Larson, Deputy State Fire Marshall to Victor Niska, District Director of Facilities, Westonka School District. Calculation of Tax Increment Adjustment of Original Tax Capacity A critical element of the feasibility of this project is the establishment of the original tax capacity of the TIF district. The original tax capacity (OTC) equals the tax capacity of the property in the district at the time the district is certified. Any value in excess of the OTC is captured by the City and produces tax increment revenue. It is anticipated that the OTC of the proposed TIF district will be zero ($0) ~ lwhen initially certified. The property in the proposed TIF district is owned by the School District, making the property tax-exempt. The OTC would remain at zero until it is sold to a party that pays property taxes. State Law outlines a process for adjusting the OTC upon sale and conversion to taxable (M.S. 469.177, Subd. l(d). When a previously tax-exempt parcel becomes taxable, the County Auditor is required to adjust the OTC to equal the most recently assessed value of the parcel. The statute also allows the County Assessor to set this value at the time of transfer. Counties periodically set "shadow" values for tax-exempt parcels. These values are only illustrative of possible taxable valuation. We believe this value for the Community Services Center site to be approximately $2,450,000. If this value were used to set the OTC, then the new construction would not produce enough new value to generate tax increment revenue. The following steps remove this problem. The City of Mound acquires the property from the School District. The property remains tax-exempt. The City removes and clears the building. The vacant land is sold to the developer and the parcel becomes taxable. The County sets the OTC based on the value of the vacant parcel at the time of transfer. Discussions with the County have indicated a willingness to adjust the OTC as described above. The City has attempted to obtain written confirmation of this understanding.2 The response received from the County supports this process, but falls short of making a commitment. "In order for this department (Department of Property Tax and Public Records) to use the Estimated Market Value of the property determined by the Assessor on the date of sale, the City tax 2 See March 24, 1993 letter from City Manager to Mr. James Ingemunson of the County Assessor's Office. Page 4 increment financing administrator must notify us in writing of the date of sale of the parcel and the Assessor's value determination for that date.''3 The County Assessor's Office recently examined the site to evaluate the potential value of the site. The City received a verbal estimate of $3.00 per square foot as a basis for calculating the estimated market value after clearance of the site. This site consists of approximately 180,000 square feet. Using these figures, the estimated market value of the parcel at time of sale would be $540,000. The analysis uses this figure as the basis for projecting the Original Tax Capacity. Another variable factor is the formula for calculating the taxable value of commercial property. This formula is set by the State. The Legislature has changed this formula in recent years. It is reasonable to assume that future changes will occur. Under current State Law, the tax capacity of commercial property is calculated with the following formula: First $100,000 of Estimated Market Value - 3.00% Over $100,000 - 4.70% Based on these factors, the Original Tax Capacity of the TIF district after conversion to taxable is estimated to be $23,680. The calculation of this figure appears in Table 1. Table 1 Estimated Original Tax Capacity (After Conversion To Taxable) Property within TIF District (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Total Projected EMV 180,000 $3.O0 $540,000 Tax Capaci~ Formula $100,000 3.00% 3,000 Over 4.70% 20,680 Pr~ected OriginalTaxCapacity 23,680 Estimated Tax Increment Development Scenario 1: Grocery Store Only This report analyzes two potential development scenarios. The first scenario assumes that the site would be redeveloped with a 38,000 SF grocery store and related site improvements. Our discussions with the County Assessor's 3 See March 29,1993 letter from Hennepin County Department of Property Tax and Public Records. Page 5 Office indicate that Estimated Market Value (EMV) of this type of retail development would be approximately $34.00/SF. In addition, this analysis assumes that the value of the land would increase to $5.00/SF after site improvements occur.4 Under current tax law and using the current total tax rate for Mound, the scenario produces $94,726 in annual tax increment revenue (see Table 2). Table 2 Estimated Tax Increment Scenario I - Grocery Store Only Size of Building (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Total Projected EMV - Building Size of Parcel (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Total Projected EMV - Land Total Projected EMV Tax Capacity Forumla $100,000 Over Projected Total Tax Capacity Projected Original Tax Capacity Projected Captured Tax Capacity Current Tax Rate Estimated Annual Tax Increment 3.00% 4.70% 38,000 $34.00 $1,292,000 180,000 $5.00 $900,000 $2,192,000 3,000 98,324 101,324 23,680 77,644 122.00% $94,726 Development Scenario 2: With Bank and Liquor Store. The second scenario analyzes additional development on the site. In addition to the grocery store, the site would include a 3,500 SF bank office with drive-in facility and a 5,000 SF retail liquor store. This development could be accommodated on the site using future expansion space for the grocery store. Our discussions with the County Assessor's Office indicate that Estimated Market Value (EMV) of these types of retail development would be approximately $85.00/SF for a bank and $55.00/SF for general retail. This scenario produces $156,442 in annual tax increment revenue (see Table 3). 4. According to information obtained from Hennepin County, the value of land and site unprovements at Commerce Place is approximately $6.94/SF. We believe that this figure is relatively high and have used a more conservative figure for the purposes of this analysis. Page6 ; J~p,.~ Table 3 Estimated Tax Increment Scenario 2 - Grocery Store With Bank and Liquor Store Size of Building - Bank (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Projected EMV Size of Building - Liquor Store (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Projected EMV Projected EMV - Grocery Store Total Projected EMV 3,500 $85.OO $297,5OO 5,000 $55.OO $275,000 $2,192,000 $2,764,5OO Tax Capacity Forumla $100,000 Over Projected Total Tax Capacity Projected Original Tax Capacity Projected Captured Tax Capacity Current Tax Rate 3.00% 3,000 4.70% 125,232 128,232 23,680 104,552 122.00% Estimated Annual Tax Increment Financial Feasibility Analysis Project Costs The City would use the tax increment revenue to pay for the costs of public participation. The actual form and costs of participation by the City of Mound cannot be determined at this time. Preliminary discussions indicate that the City can expect to acquire the property from the School District, demolish and clear the building, and sell the site to the developer. Estimated project costs appear in Table 4. Table 4 Estimated Project Costs Building demolition Site demolition and grading New 8" water service Subtotal Contingencies Total Estimated Costs $360,000 48,000 4.000 422,000 42,000 $464,000 Source: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. The other component of project costs is land acquisition. The City has conducted preliminary discussions with the School District about this site. Page 7 For the sake of this analysis, land acquisition is estimated in a range of $800,000 to $1,000,000. This figure plays an important role in the financial feasibility analysis. A better cost estimate will be needed as the project proceeds. With land acquisition added to the costs shown in Table 4, the range of potential project costs runs from $1,264,000 to $1,464,000. Sale of Land Tax increment financing is not the only source of revenue available to this project. The City should anticipate the receipt of funds from the sale of the cleared site to a developer. These funds could be used to defray a portion of the project costs. In preliminary discussions, an amount of $1.50 per square foot has been suggested by a potential developer. This price would produce an additional $270,000 in revenue for the project. Although this figure is used in the analysis, it must be treated as preliminary and for illustration purposes. Revenue from the sale of land is a key variable that can be used to fill gaps in the finance plan. Debt Capacity This analysis assumes that the City would issue bonds to finance the project costs. In determining the amount of supportable debt, it has been assumed that tax increment is the only revenue available to pay debt service. The sizing of the issues is based on estimated tax increment revenues and certain assumptions about the bonds. Given the use of bond proceeds and anticipated development agreements, the analysis assumes that the bonds would be taxable, carrying a higher rate of interest.5 This analysis uses an average interest rate of 8.00%.6 To illustrate the maximum funding potential, the analysis assumes that the bonds would be retired over a 20-year period. Shortening the term of the bonds would reduce the size of the issue and the amount of funding available for the project. 5 The factors governing the tax-exempt status of bonds issued for this project should be discussed with the City's bond counsel and financial advisor prior to financing. However, the requirements for a development agreement to protect the City and to meet statutory criteria will likely fail the tests to create a tax-exempt issue. 6 The interest rates used in this report are based on current market conditions. These rates may change prior to the issuance of bonds. Changes in interest rates alter the results of this analysis. Page 8 The sizing of the bond issues assumes that interest would be capitalized for a period of 24 months. It is likely that the City would issue the bonds at the outset of the project to finance land acquisition. This amount of capitalized interest may be needed due to the lag between financing, development and receipt of initial tax increment revenue. Costs of issuing bonds and underwriter's discount are estimated to be 4% of the total bond issue. This amount is for planning purposes only. Scenario 1 - Grocery Store Only: Based on the assumptions used in this report, the redevelopment of this site with a grocery store as the sole use would not produce enough revenue to cover all project costs. The estimated total funds available falls ~250,000 short of the range of project costs (see Table 5). This gap could be reduced with a'c~mbination of lower project costs and additional revenue from the sale of land. Table 5 Estimated Supportable Project Costs Scenario I Estimated Annual Tax Increment $94,726 Supportable Debt Interest Rate Term (years) Total Debt Capitalized Interest (months) Costs of Issuance/Discount Net Proceeds for Project Sale of Land Total Funds Available 8.00% 20 930,000 24 148,800 4.00% 37,2O0 744,000 270,000 1,014,000 Scenario 2 - Grocery. Store with Bank and Liquor Store: Increasing the intensity of the redevelopment activities, improves the financial feasibility of the project. The estimated tax increment revenue from the construction of a grocery store, bank and liquor store would cover the costs of the project, under the parameters used in this analysis (see Table 6). Estimated Table 6 Supportable Project Costs Scenario 2 Estimated Annual Tax Increment Supportable Debt Interest Rate Term (years) Total Debt Capitalized Interest (months) Costs of Issuance/Discount Net Proceeds for Project Sale of Land Total Funds Available 8.00% 2O 24 4.00% 6-1-;4ee 270,000 These figures do not automatically suggest that the City can afford the upper end of the land acquisition cost. Scenario 6 indicates flexibility to deal with a variety of issues. Some changes in basic parameters can be absorbed. The term of the bond issue could be shortened, allowing for the TIF district to be terminated sooner. Some of these resources could also be directed to offset the loss of Local Government Aid (A discussion of this issue follows). Loss of Local Government Aid All tax increment financing districts created after the 1990 Amendments provide for the potential loss of Local Government Aid for the authority that establishes the district. The LGA loss is governed by a statutory formula based on captured tax capacity and school finance factors. Fortunately for this project, redevelopment TIF districts received the most favorable treatment. No penalty occurs in the first six years of the life of the TIF district. The amount of the penalty rises after that over the remaining duration. The actual LGA penalty is calculated each year based on the factors applicable to that year. For this reason, all we can do at this stage is estimate the potential losses. To estimate the LGA penalty, it is assumed that the City would establish the TIF district in 1995. The first tax increment revenues would be received in 1997. Tax increment would be collected through 2017. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the TIF district would not result in a loss of LGA. Due to the School District's current tax base, the creation of a tax increment financing district causes no change in state aid payment. This situation means no loss of LGA to the City. It is important to bear in mind that this estimate represents current conditions. This calculation will be made annually over the life of the TIF Page 10 7 district. There are no guarantees that the City will avoid Aid loss in the future. If the project proceeds, the City should explore options for protecting itself from changes that would result in lost LGA. The City has several options for incorporating this factor into the finance plan. The development agreement could require the developer to make annual payments to offset the loss. This approach has several pitfalls. It creates a long-term relationship between the City and the developer. The party that builds the project may not own it in 20 years. Many attorneys do not favor this tactic. This flow of funds demonstrates an intent to circumvent the statutory requirements. (2) An alternative to the annual payment from the developer is an up- front payment. The developer pays the estimated present value of the stream of LGA penalties. Both the City and the developer assume the risk that the payment will not accurately reflect the actual losses. This approach appears to be most common. However, since no losses are projected for this project, the up-front payment approach would be difficult to apply. (3) The City could absorb the LGA loss as its contribution towards the project. (4) The City could seek relief from the LGA provisions through either special or general legislative action. Page 11 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. City of Mound Preliminary Feasibility Analysis Use of Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment of Community Services Building April 27, 1993 Introduction This report provides a preliminary financial feasibility analysis of the use of tax increment financing to redevelop property located in the downtown area of Mound. As with most redevelopment projects, this one will not occur without financial assistance from the City of Mound. The most viable form of such assistance is tax increment financing (TIF). The proposed redevelopment would occur on the site of the Westonka Community Services Center (Parcel No. 14-117-24 41-0010). The Community Services Center would be removed and replaced with one or more commercial uses. Potential uses include a grocery store, a retail liquor store and a bank. The objectives of this report are to: (1) Provide the City of Mound and other effected parties as assessment of the ability to create a tax increment financing district. (2) Analyze the capacity of tax increment financing to provide public participation in redevelopment. (3) Identify other issues relating to the use of tax increment financing. (4) Identify other steps to be taken in creating a plan of finance. This analysis is preliminary in nature. Its purpose is to provide an initial assessment of the feasibility of using tax increment financing. Additional steps will be needed to prepare a final finance plan and agreements for public participation. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Ability to Create TIF District To use tax increment financing, the City must make the findings necessary to create a tax increment financing district. State Law allows several different forms of TIF districts. The type of district best suited to this project is a "redevelopment district." A preliminary investigation indicates reasonable evidence to support the findings that the site meets the statutory criteria for the establishment of a redevelopment TIF district. If the project continues to progress, we recommend that the City take additional steps to gather data needed to support the findings. Statutory Criteria Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10, contains the criteria for a redevelopment tax increment financing district. The statute sets forth two primary tests: (1) "Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements..." The proposed TIF district passes this test. The district would consist of one parcel. This parcel is occupied by the Community Services Center and related improvements. (2) "More than 50 percent of the buildings...are structurally substandard to a degree requiting substantial renovation or clearance." There is one building on the site. To create the TIF district, this building must meet the criteria for structurally substandard. For the purposes of this test, State Law defines structurally substandard as "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects and deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." The presence of these conditions not withstanding, a building does not qualify as structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be brought into compliance at a cost of less than 15% of constructing a comparable new building on the same site. The City may rely on reasonable evidence to determine if a building qualifies on this basis. Our review of available information suggests that there is reasonable evidence to support the finding that the building is structurally Page 2 substandard for the purposes of a redevelopment district. Information supporting this finding include: Original building was constructed in 1938. A portion of building was destroyed by fire. These section were replaced by "pods" in 1964. Approximately +/- 1,500 SF remains from the original construction. The building was recently inspected by the State Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall found a variety of fire code problems with this facility.1 Architects for the School District have inspected the building. A report on building improvements should be released this month. Discussions with the architects indicated that this report will provide information supporting the findings. The architect's report may provide sufficient reasonable evidence for the finding of structurally substandard. If not, the City should consider having its building official examine the building and incorporate this information into the findings. Limitations on Redevelopment District A redevelopment TIF district is subject to several limitations. Duration: A redevelopment TIF District may remain in existence for a period not exceeding 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Use of Tax Increment: At least 90% of the tax increment revenues must be used to correct the conditions that allow the site to qualify as a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include land acquisition, demolition, clearance, site improvements and city administrative expense. Agreements: Acquisition of this parcel by the City requires an agreement for the development of the property with provisions providing the City with recourse in case the development is not completed. 1 See March 15, 1993 letter from Richard P. Larson, Deputy State Fire Marshall to Victor Niska, District Director of Facilities, Westonka School District. Page 3 Calculation of Tax Increment Adjustment of Original Tax Capacity A critical element of the feasibility of this project is the establishment of the original tax capacity of the TIF district. The original tax capacity (OTC) equals the tax capacity of the property in the district at the time the district is certified. Any value in excess of the OTC is captured by the City and produces tax increment revenue. It is anticipated that the OTC of the proposed TIF district will be zero ($0) when initially certified. The property in the proposed TIF district is owned by the School District, making the property tax-exempt. The OTC would remain at zero until it is sold to a party that pays property taxes. State Law outlines a process for adjusting the OTC upon sale and conversion to taxable (M.S. 469.177, Subd. l(d). When a previously tax-exempt parcel becomes taxable, the County Auditor is required to adjust the OTC to equal the most recently assessed value of the parcel. The statute also allows the County Assessor to set this value at the time of transfer. Counties periodically set "shadow" values for tax-exempt parcels. These values are only illustrative of possible taxable valuation. We believe this value for the Community Services Center site to be approximately $2,450,000. If this value were used to set the OTC, then the new construction would not produce enough new value to generate tax increment revenue. The following steps remove this problem. The City of Mound acquires the property from the School District. The property remains tax-exempt. The City removes and clears the building. The vacant land is sold to the developer and the parcel becomes taxable. The County sets the OTC based on the value of the vacant parcel at the time of transfer. Discussions with the County have indicated a willingness to adjust the OTC as described above. The City has attempted to obtain written confirmation of this understanding.2 The response received from the County supports this process, but falls short of making a commitment. "In order for this department (Department of Property Tax and Public Records) to use the Estimated Market Value of the property determined by the Assessor on the date of sale, the City tax 2 See March 24, 1993 letter from City Manager to Mr. James Ingemunson of the County Assessor's Office. Page 4 ,It ,I ~ I I I,, increment financing administrator must notify us in writing of the date of sale of the parcel and the Assessor's value determination for that date.''3 The County Assessor's Office recently examined the site to evaluate the potential value of the site. The City received a verbal estimate of $3.00 per square foot as a basis for calculating the estimated market value after clearance of the site. This site consists of approximately 180,000 square feet. Using these figures, the estimated market value of the parcel at time of sale would be $540,000. The analysis uses this figure as the basis for projecting the Original Tax Capacity. Another variable factor is the formula for calculating the taxable value of commercial property. This formula is set by the State. The Legislature has changed this formula in recent years. It is reasonable to assume that future changes will occur. Under current State Law, the tax capacity of commercial property is calculated with the following formula: First $100,000 of Estimated Market Value - 3.00% Over $100,000 - 4.70% Based on these factors, the Original Tax Capacity of the TIF district after conversion to taxable is estimated to be $23,680. The calculation of this figure appears in Table 1. Table 1 Estimated Original Tax Capacity (After Conversion To Taxable) Property within TIF District (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Total Projected EMV 180,000 $3.00 $540,000 Tax Capaci~ Formula $100,000 3.00% 3,000 Over 4.70% 20,680 Pmjected OriginalTax Capaci~ 23,680 Estimated Tax Increment Development Scenario 1: Grocery Store Only This report analyzes two potential development scenarios. The first scenario assumes that the site would be redeveloped with a 38,000 SF grocery store and related site improvements. Our discussions with the County Assessor's 3 See March 29,1993 letter from Hennepin County Department of Property Tax and Public Records. Page 5 ,It ,I ~ I ,I l, Office indicate that Estimated Market Value (EMV) of this type of retail development would be approximately $34.00/SF. In addition, this analysis assumes that the value of the land would increase to $5.00/SF after site improvements occur.4 Under current tax law and using the current total tax rate for Mound, the scenario produces $94,726 in annual tax increment revenue (see Table 2). Table 2 Estimated Tax Increment Scenario I - Grocery Store Only Size of Building (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Total Projected EMV - Building Size of Parcel (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Total Projected EMV - Land Total Projected EMV 38,000 $34.00 $1,292,000 180,000 $5.00 $900,000 $2,192,000 Tax Capacity Forumla $100,000 Over Projected Total Tax Capacity Projected Original Tax Capacity Projected Captured Tax Capacity 3.00% 3,000 4.70% 98,324 101,324 23,680 77,644 Current Tax Rate 122.00% Estimated Annual Tax Increment $94,726 Development Scenario 2: With Bank and Liquor Store. The second scenarios analyzes additional development on the site. In addition to the grocery store, the site would include a 3,500 SF bank office with drive-in facility and a 5,000 SF retail liquor store. This development could be accommodated on the site using future expansion space for the grocery store. Our discussions with the County Assessor's Office indicate that Estimated Market Value (EMV) of these types of retail development would be approximately $85.00/SF for a bank and $55.00/SF for general retail. This scenario produces $156,442 in annual tax increment revenue (see Table 3). 4 According to information obtained from Hennepin County, the value of land and site improvements at Commerce Place is approximately $6.94/SF. We believe that this figure is relatively high and have used a more conservative figure for the purposes of this analysis. Page 6 Scenario 2 Table 3 Estimated Tax Increment - Grocery Store With Bank and Liquor Store Size of Building - Bank (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Projected EMV Size of Building - Liquor Store (square feet) Projected Estimated Market Value (per SF) Projected EMV Projected EMV - Grocery Store Total Projected EMV Tax Capacity Forumla $100,000 Over Projected Total Tax Capacity Projected Original Tax Capacity Projected Captured Tax Capacity Current Tax Rate Estimated Annual Tax Increment Financial Feasibility Analysis 3.00% 4.70% 3,500 $85.00 $297,500 5,000 $55.00 $275,000 $2,192,000 $2,764,500 3,000 125,232 128,232 23,680 104,552 122.00% $127,553 Project Costs The City would use the tax increment revenue to pay for the costs of public participation. The actual form and costs of participation by the City of Mound cannot be determined at this time. Preliminary discussions indicate that the City can expect to acquire the property from the School District, demolish and clear the building, and sell the site to the developer. Estimated project costs appear in Table 4. Table 4 Estimated Project Costs Building demolition Site demolition and grading New 8" water service Subtotal Contingencies Total Estimated Costs $360,000 48,000 4.000 422,000 42.000 $464.000 Source: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. The other component of project costs is land acquisition. The City has conducted preliminary discussions with the School District about this site. For the sake of this analysis, land acquisition is estimated in a range of Page 7 $800,000 to $1,000,000. This figure plays an important role in the financial feasibility analysis. A better cost estimate will be needed as the project proceeds. With land acquisition added to the costs shown in Table 4, the range of potential project costs runs from $1,264,000 to $1,464,000. Sale of Land Tax increment financing is not the only source of revenue available to this project. The City should anticipate the receipt of funds from the sale of the cleared site to a developer. These funds could be used to defray a portion of the project costs. In preliminary discussions, an amount of $1.50 per square foot has been suggested by a potential developer. This price would produce an additional $270,000 in revenue for the project. Although this figure is used in the analysis, it must be treated as preliminary and for illustration purposes. Revenue from the sale of land is a key variable that can be used to fill gaps in the finance plan. Debt Capacity This analysis assumes that the City would issue bonds to finance the project costs. In determining the amount of supportable debt, it has been assumed that tax increment is the only revenue available to pay debt service. The sizing of the issues is based on estimated tax increment revenues and certain assumptions about the bonds. Given the use of bond proceeds and anticipated development agreements, the analysis assumes that the bonds would be taxable, carrying a higher rate of interest.5 This analysis uses an average interest rate of 8.00%.6 To illustrate the maximum funding potential, the analysis assumes that the bonds would be retired over a 20-year period. Shortening the term of the bonds would reduce the size of the issue and the amount of funding available for the project. 5 The factors governing the tax-exempt status of bonds issued for this project should be discussed with the City's bond counsel and financial advisor prior to financing. However, the requirements for a development agreement to protect the City and to meet statutory criteria will likely fail the tests to create a tax-exempt i~sue. 6 The interest rates used in this report are based on current market conditions. These rates may change prior to the issuance of bonds. Changes in interest rates alter the results of this analysis. Page 8 The sizing of the bond issues assumes that interest would be capitalized for a period of 24 months. It is likely that the City would issue the bonds at the outset of the project to finance land acquisition. This amount of capitalized interest may be needed due to the lag between financing, development and receipt of initial tax increment revenue. Costs of issuing bonds and underwriter's discount are estimated to be 4% of the total bond issue. This amount is for planning purposes only. Scenario 1 - Grocery, Store Only: Based on the assumptions used in this report, the redevelopment of this site with a grocery store as the sole use would not produce enough revenue to cover all project costs. The estimated total funds available falls $250,000 short of the range of project costs (see Table 5). This gap could be reduced with a combination of lower project costs and additional revenue from the sale of land. Table 5 Estimated Supportable Project Costs Scenario I Estimated Annual Tax Increment $94,726 Supportable Debt Interest Rate Term (years) Total Debt Capitalized Interest (months) Costs of Issuance/Discount Net Proceeds for Project Sale of Land Total Funds Available 8.00% 20 930,000 24 148,800 4.00% 37,200 744,000 270,000 1,014,000 Scenario 2 - Grocery Store with Bank and Liquor Store: Increasing the intensity of the redevelopment activities, improves the financial feasibility of the project. The estimated tax increment revenue from the construction of a grocery store, bank and liquor store could cover the costs of the project, under the parameters used in this analysis (see Table 6). Page 9 ,It I ~ I ,I i,~ Table 6 Estimated Supportable Project Costs Scenario 2 Estimated Annual Tax Increment $127,553 Supportable Debt Interest Rate Term (years) Total Debt Capitalized Interest (months) Costs of Issuance/Discount Net Proceeds for Project Sale of Land Total Funds Available 8.00% 2O 1,250,000 24 200,000 4.00% 50,000 1,000,000 27O,000 1,27O,OO0 Under this scenario, the estimated funds available for the project would cover the lower end of the land acquisition range and all of the site preparation costs. This scenario illustrates two important points. Scenario 2 shows the elements of a financially feasible project. Changes in these elements will have implications for the feasibility of the project. Loss of Local Government Aid All tax increment financing districts created after the 1990 Amendments provide for the potential loss of Local Government Aid for the authority that establishes the district. The LGA loss is governed by a statutory formula based on captured tax capacity and school finance factors. Fortunately for this project, redevelopment TIF districts received the most favorable treatment. No penalty occurs in the first six years of the life of the TIF district. The amount of the penalty rises after that over the remaining duration. The actual LGA penalty is calculated each year based on the factors applicable to that year. For this reason, all we can do at this stage is estimate the potential losses. To estimate the LGA penalty, it is assumed that the City would establish the TIF district in 1995. The first tax increment revenues would be received in 1997. Tax increment would be collected through 2017. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the TIF district would not result in a loss of LGA. Due to the School District's current tax base, the creation of a tax increment financing district causes no change in state aid payment. This situation means no loss of LGA to the City. It is important to bear in mind that this estimate represents current conditions. This calculation will be made annually over the life of the TIF Page 10 district. There are no guarantees that the City will avoid Aid loss in the future. If the project proceeds, the City should explore options for protecting itself from changes that would result in lost LGA. The City has several options for incorporating this factor into the finance plan. (1) (2) (3) (4) The development agreement could require the developer to make annual payments to offset the loss. This approach has several pitfalls. It creates a long-term relationship between the City and the developer. The party that builds the project may not own it in 20 years. Many attorneys do not favor this tactic. This flow of funds demonstrates an intent to circumvent the statutory requirements. An alternative to the annual payment from the developer is an up- front payment. The developer pays the estimated present value of the stream of LGA penalties. Both the City and the developer assume the risk that the payment will not accurately reflect the actual losses. This approach appears to be most common. However, since no losses are projected for this project, the up-front payment approach would be difficult to apply. The City could absorb the LGA loss as its contribution towards the project. The City could seek relief from the LGA provisions through either special or general legislative action. Page 11 · ,B Findings and Recommendation,~ In concept, the City of Mound can use tax increment financing to facilitate the redevelopment of the Community Service Site. This report illustrates the elements of a successful project. The most difficult aspect of taking the project from concept to reality is timing. Many factors need to come together at the same time. The findings of this report should allow the City to express interest in the project to the School District. The District can use this information to plan for a bond referendum anticipated for later this year. Before the School District makes any decision on a dollar figure for a referendum, the City and the District should set a preliminary cost of acquisition. This figure is important to the financial planning of both parties. The City should also continue discussions with potential developers. It is unlikely that serious development negotiations can proceed until the results of the referendum are known. In anticipation of a project, the parties should discuss the timing aspects. Redevelopment cannot begin until the District provides alternative facilities. After creating a TIF district, the City will acquire and prepare the site for development. The City cannot, and should not, use tax increment financing for land acquisition without an acceptable development agreement. The potential developer will not proceed with the project until the leases of retailers involved with the project expire in 1995 and additional market research has been conducted. All parties need to have a clear understanding of these time constraints. In planning for the project, the City should also take the following steps: · Gather additional information needed to support the findings to create a redevelopment TIF district. · Continue to seek formal clarification from the County on the establishment of the Original Tax Capacity after sale to the developer. · Monitor potential changes in the 1994 legislative session in case the TIF district needs to be create in advance of adverse legislative action. Page 12 Findinqs and Recommendations In concept, the City of Mound can use tax increment financing to facilitate the redevelopment of the Community Service Site. This report illustrates the elements of a successful project. The most difficult aspect of taking the project from concept to reality is timing. Many factors need to come together at the same time. l'The findings of this report should allow the City to express interest in the project to the School District. The District can use this information to plan for a bond referendum anticipated for later this year. Before the School District makes any decision on a dollar figure for a referendum, the City and the District should set a preliminary cost of acquisition. This figure is important to the financial planning of both parties. The City should also continue discussions with potential developers. It is unlikely that serious development negotiations can proceed until the results of the referendum are known. In anticipation of a project, the parties should discuss the timing aspects. Redevelopment cannot begin until the District provides alternative facilities. After creating a TIF district, the City will acquire and prepare the site for development. The City cannot, and should not, use tax increment financing for land acquisition without an acceptable development agreement. The potential developer will not proceed with the project until the leases of retailers involved with the project expire in 1995 and additional market research has been conducted. All parties need to have a clear understanding of these time constraints. In planning for the project, the City should also take the following steps: · Gather additional information needed to support the findings to create a redevelopment TIF district. · Continue to seek formal clarification from the County on the establishment of the Original Tax Capacity after sale to the developer. · Monitor potential changes in the 1994 legislative session in case the TIF district needs to be create in advance of adverse legislative action. Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 9~ - RESOLUTION ~PPROVING PART T~HE POSIT~ON COI~UNITY SERVICE OFFICER ~TH~N THE POLICE ~ PL~I~N~N~D INSPECTIONS DEP~RTHENTS WHEREAS, in the last several years the demand for code enforcement in the areas of derelict automobiles, nuisances, exterior storage and trash complaints has risen; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council wishes to begin a more aggressive program to deal with these problems; and WHEREAS, in order to meet the increased demand and the wishes of the Mayor and city Council regarding code enforcement, the police and planning and inspections departments have developed a proposal to add a part time community service officer in 1993; and WHEREAS, the position cost would be shared between the two departments and would be supervised and scheduled within the police department in conjunction with the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, currently there is one part time community service officer that works approximately 1500 hours per year ($13,5000) and has primary responsibility for animal control issues (approximately 1100 calls per year) and; WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Police and Planning and Inspections Departments to add this part time position to meet the demand for additional code enforcement; and WHEREAS, Police and Planning and Inspections Department, along with the City Manager recommend to add this position at a starting salary of $7.50 per hour for approximately 25 hours per week. ~0~~E~ IT ~ RESOLVED, that the City Manager in conjunction with the Police Chief and Building official will monitor this additional position in terms of identifying progress towards resolution of code enforcement problems. ,J, ,I ~ I I I,t I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council agree that the cost for this additional position will be divided between the Police and Planning and Inspection Departments within the current 1993 budget under part time personnel. The following Counc~lmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY of MOUND 52,:" MAY~,~.OCD ROAr- z,a,X .612 -'-2-0.620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 20, 1993 Ed Shukle, City Manager Len Harrell, Police Chief Jon Sutherland, Building Official CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER JOINT PROPOSAL In the last several years, the demand for code enforcement in the areas of derelict automobiles, nuisances, exterior storage, and trash complaints has risen. In order to meet the increased demand the Police and Planning & Inspections Departments are proposing an additional part- time Code Enforcement Officer to be added in 1993. The position cost would be shared between the two departments and would be supervised and scheduled within the Police Department in conjunction with the Planning Department. Currently, there is one part-time Code Enforcement Officer that works approximately 1,500 hours per year ($13,500) and has primary responsibility for animal control issues (approximately 1,100 calls per year). This position would be scheduled out of the Police Department as is currently done with the existing code enforcement officer. Our proposal would allow for the additional code enforcement time to meet the demand within the city. We propose a starting salary of $7.50 per hour and the addition of 25 hours per week. The estimated cost of this CEO would be under $10,000 and each department would budget an equal share of $4,875. There may be current police reserve personnel who would be interested and well suited for the job. The only additional costs would be for uniform purchase ($250) and additional fuel consumption ($500). Note the attached job description. ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ printed on recycled paper ,It ,I t I I I,~ ] i, MOU~D POLICE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: SECTION: DEPARTMENT MANUAL TITLE: CODE ENFORCEMENT April , 1993 322. DISTRIBUTION: ALL PERSONNEL RESCINDS: 322.10 322.15 322.20 GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY A non-sworn uniformed person who, under direction of the Chief of Police or his designee, performs varied supportive services to the Police/Planning & Inspections Department within their assigned jurisdiction. Enforce relevant city ordinances that do not require a sworn officer. Assist Police and Planning & Inspections Department with non-criminal duties as assigned, including, but not limited to, receiving and investigating complaints, nuisance abatement, land use inspections, performance standards, exterior storage, parking, signs, waste disposal, etc. Maintains and keeps records, perform administrative tasks as required, performs animal control functions, takes incoming calls, performs specified non-criminal police duties as assigned, performs related work as required and shall be designated animal warden officer. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION Ability to operate a motor vehicle. Ability to lift and transport cages, animals, and bicycles (40 pound minimum). Ability to pursue animals physically; to include running. Ability to read, write, and orally communicate with the public. Ability to traverse varied slope and site conditions while conducting inspections. EXAMPLES OF WORK PERFORMED Issue citations for violations of ordinances. Receive messages and information in writing, by telephone, and radio, give such information as may be required. Maintain vehicle logs. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT MANUAL TITLE: CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: SECTION: April , 1993 322. DISTRIBUTION: ALL PERSONNEL RESCINDS: / / 322.20 322.25 322.30 EXAMPLES OF WORK PERFORMED, continued Handle animal control problems. Perform other paraprofessional law enforcement tasks as assigned. Assist patrol officers in their performance of various non- criminal police tasks, such as responding to accidents and medicals. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Graduation from high school or GED. Minimum one year related work experience in the public sector. Perform non-criminal functions for code enforcement as assigned through the Planning and Inspections Department. DESIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES Ability to follow oral and written instructions. Ability to express oneself clearly and concisely, orally as well as in writing. Ability to maintain composure under pressure. Ability to type. Valid Drivers License, good driving record, no felony convictions. Ability to produce computer generated letters, notices and reports. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationship with general public and other employees. Willingness to work various shifts. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APRIL 20, 1993 JOB DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY: Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager Date Len Harrell Police Chief Date Jon Sutherland Building Official Date A. THOMAS WURST. P.A CUIRTI$ A. PEARSON. P.A ~..)AMIrS C). LAI~SON, P.A. THOMAS F'. UNDERWOOD. P.A. CRAIG M. MERTZ I~OGER ~1. ~-E:LL~WS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD ~t ME:RTZ ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE IIOO I;='O SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,, MINNESOTA 55402-1803 March 24, 1993 MAR 2. 5 1993 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: Moy Crosswalk Dear Ed: I did not get back my sheet on which I wrote the suggested motion regarding the Moy crosswalk. The reason I gave Liz this suggested motion was to try to resolve a dilemma on the part of the Council. I have listed below my recollections of what was said and how you might want to approach this in any staff reports. 1. The three crosswalks other than the Moy crosswalk will apparently be removed without any opposition. 2. The Moy crosswalk will be left for the moment and further study will be made as to whether it is in the best interests of the public safety to leave the crosswalk where it is or to move it in an easterly direction or to take some other action. 3. The Council wanted to consider and look at the parking area southerly of Auditor's Road. Does this parking area need to be improved? Should the City be working with Mrs. Moy to encourage her to construct a rear entry to the restaurant from that parking lot? Would this be safer for the public? 4. The Council questioned why the speed limit had to be 35 mph. There was concern that if they asked the County to reduce the speed limit, it might be increased. I personally would think that our engineer, police chief, and you could try to reason with the County to assist us in getting the Commissioner of Highways to reduce the speed limit in all the downtown area to 30 mph. It is certainly understandable that County Roads such as 15 and 110 in areas where they are trying to convey large amounts of traffic may warrant a bit higher speed limit. In the downtown area, I believe that speed limit is unusual and is something that we could ask the County and the State Commissioner to resolve to try to slow down drivers at this T intersection. A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. ,JAMES D. LARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG H. HERTZ ROGER ,J. I~£LLOWS LAW OFF'ICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE I100 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1803 April 26, 1993 IEL"D APR :2 ? 1993 TIE LE I~HON IE ( ~1~. ) 338 '4~00 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: Traffic Markings and Traffic Safety Dear Ed: I am enclosing herewith a recently decided case by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In this case, they held the City of Spring Lake Park responsible to a motorist on the basis that they had failed to adequately maintain an intersection. I have gone through the case and have marked out certain sections so that you can read it and hopefully understand better my concerns about the crosswalks. Please give me a call if you have any questions after you have had an opportunity to review the case. CAP:ih Enclosure Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson · ,I denx)mtra.tes that the kgi~lature valued the goal of accident victin~ compensation at least a~ highly as the goal of speedy claims resolu. tion. While we undersumd Taylor'a conocm that ~triet application o~..the cleat !.angua~ of the atatute could unduly delay notification ot msure~, tne respomibility for balancing competing policy goals lies with the legislature. Applying this consln~ion of "final dcmminatiofl' to the present case, w~ hold that Stoele was n~ negligent as a matter of law Because AID could have been notified long after Steele's repre. sentation of Ta~lor ended, Steele did.pot have the requisite duty to _notify AID durraA his mpre~cntnt_ion.-- ' L,-_,.,~,_m_ .mane ma ..unq mc comsc oi ms or act rclxcscntatien when ,~ ...... ~q,.,q--- . .-; ~omcy ma.y oe round Io have . _ fl~amscm uen, of limitations expires eec ~_.y..,.et~.~a..~_l~m~/,_ ~ .rr~ore$?la..~on .~d a ..aew attorney could not ~----.-,,,Z__,~_ aa,es um pmmom tn _mc umc .,,owed. See Frnzler v, oS~Cle raises several other issues: that Ruth Cole's receipt. notice of the accident comtitu~! appropriate notice as a ~?er or ia, ~ Mi.nn. Sta!. 1 65B~'(19S2), t~st the ~m coufl miscalculsted p~ejuogment inlerest, and that the ~.al c?ufl l_mp~'opedy refused to add Kosleradzki as a oetendant lk~cause of our resolution on the issue of the [essr constn~on of Minn. Stat § 65B.66, we do not ~hese issues The trial coufl's denial ofiudem t Reversed. SHORT, Judge (dis~nting) ' I respectfully dissent. The trial court's 1986 decision that Taylor was ineligible for no-fault benefits under lhe Guaranty National ~nstnnce ...C~..i:~n. y ][olicy was a conclusive determination of the mailer. While ~ ~tat. § 65B.66 (IS~2) preserves timely claims for ecooomic loss benefits made a~ninst the wrong insurer, the lmured must make a claim against thc proper obligor within ninety days of the determinat~ of its error. See Sullivan v. Grain Dealers Mut Ins. Co., 361 N.W.2d 495, 497 (Minn. App. 1985) (__,ce,Jori 65B.66 allows ninety days after the correct insure~ has been |dentii~d ~n which 10 file a claim against that imurer, provided a .m~ w~cnn~ ~. ~teen$on, Mlaaesota No-Fault Automobile la~runce 157-$8, ]61 (2d ed. D(Y2) (statute allows ninety days re%er the correct l,~urer has been identified in which lo make a claim aSnimt th,t insure0. Taylor failed to notify all potential sources of verage. Tayior's sttomey knew of the possibility of coverase th AB:) Imurame Company within days after the 1982 accident. To Jpe.~. t Taylor to wait years before notifying the appropriate no-fault insurer would circumvent the statute's purpose nnd deprive the appropriate insurer of the 6pportunity to conduct a prompt fnvesiigagon of the claim of benefits. Steenson, supra, at 159-60 (section 65B.~'s notJoe provision is an explicit limitation on ..... · WqAflO Mlirlll tl~ [?Jsl CoHrt $ OeClSJofl. ·. 'lltb opinion will be unpublished and may not be dted except as prodded by . Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992) Anob Connty maphake, jedge : iYaeiet Coufl Fde No. C2-86-11574 Paul F.. Rclder, Kay Nord Hunt Mark N. Stage. berg '. " Respondenk - Sheni D. Ulland Lommen, Nelson, C°le & Stageberg, PA. ' $1 Fm/,~cx,4ma) Co},~zacx Anmt~ Cot, a.r$ ]~)moN 4 City of Sprin$ Lake Padt, Appellant, Resurrection Episcopal C~urch, et al., DefendantS, 1800 ID~ Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Plaintiff, nnd Group Health, Ina., intervenor, Respondent, Paul E. Raider, Respondent' City of Spring Lake Park, Appellant, Janet Stellpflug Adam S. Wotkoff Gilmore, Aafedt, Forde, AnderS°n and Gray, P.A. Suite 3100 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN $5402 Kay Nord Hunt' Katherine L. MacKJnnon et al., Defendants. Filed A~di' 13, 1993 Omce of Apl~llate Coum Comidered and decided by Anderson, Chief Judge, JudRe~ nnd Stone~ Judj~. -. C°ufl' Rc~rcd Judge of ~ district coufl, scrvi~ u jud~ of ~ ~' ,App~.al~ by appointment pursn~nt_ to l~im, C6nst. art. VI, § UNPUBLISHED OPINION Kt,AP~ JUDGE (Hon. ~yllla Jones, Dis~ict Court Trial Judge) Appellant City of Spring Lal~e P~u-k chllenges the trial court's denial of its morion for~udgn~nt notwithstanding the verdict. We oanoemu.q mndi6on :-..~=; a -.~!~'- testt----- _., _ _ --_ ,-,,u? was nee,~d ~ the ~t_-_-_,minntioq of DECISION While driving his motorcycle at night in Spring Lake Park, Minnesota, Reidor stopped at the 'T' in~rseetion where Wyldwood Lnne ends at University Service Drive; A street sign at the intersec- either ri ..... ' .?u..~ tt ..a=~ to, .R?der that he could turn ~ or ~ext onto Umvemty Service Drive, the public roadway : ~r ~ . .,,~,-,y · ~+. ~ ocyom the Intersection, the roadway turned ~n. ~emer ~sseo the turn, struck an unmari~.~! dirt berm ~ nnd be ~tnd his passeng~ we~ injured. · . nc~l~tY nr .t't~?.. it had no dutv to warn Rclder of, rnnd ha.,.· nn .mm.r~ ~.~-?,rtv. We dJ~ar-,=e...The mu~qqon Re, der estabhshed a to · ' ~ Warn involutes a'determination of law to which thla court need not defer. Jndwln v, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 367 N.W.2d 476. 483 ~Jnn_ 1~3'); W. Page Kee~on et al., Pro. er and Keeton on the Luw of Tom § 37, at 236-37 (Sth .,~_~,a wmcn ate neat eno._oh to the ri"bile a ~mter to motorists~JHlx v. C~y ot~innenpolls, 219 Minn. ~,, 'daF.,g~' t~ wh~h t{~ ~,t~ refer f~h~ m~i(i~ ~hich to m Tomhi~ ~fNew ~v~ ~ ~ ~7, 45~ 165 N.W.2d 543, ~(1~ ~i~ at ~ ~taNis~ t~ of ~v~m~ ~i~ ~ ~tin~ ~~ ~t ~ int~tion ~~ ~ public s~ en~. J~t ~y~d ~e e~ amy to warn ~rls~ of ~ hn?nr~ * % ~-~u. to~ ~n v. ~~ ~5 ~ ~ 21~ 145 N.W~ ~~ 1~ pi ' ' ' · _ ~ ~ide~ p~eut · J~ ~d ~lude ~e ci~. ~d fai{~ ~ ~t~{ a si~ ~d had ~h~ i~ du~ ~ ~ent. ' We ~ t~ ~ ~,{ ~ni~ of m ~tion for ju~ent ~it~t~di~ ~ verdi~ ~id~ ~ fa~ in ~e {i~t ~, In~ 430 N.W.~ 1~, 182 ~i~ 19~). Unl~ ~ ~ide~ is ~ti~ly ~ncl~ive agai~t ~ ~rdi~ or u~ ~able ~n~ ~{d ~ but o~ ~ncl~lon a i~t ·. · ~au~ ~ ~5 ~. ~ ~ ~2 N.W.~ ~ ~9 This opinion will be unpublished and nnOt_be cited except as prevfded by n. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992) Ramsey County KaHtowski, Judge Disu'ict Court File No. C8919973 Mic~! Soucheray and Paula Joseph H. Rivard ~ouche .~_ '~ually, and Joseph K Rivard, P.A. as _parents and nat~,~ardiana 1000 Canh,s r, . Emilio IL~iuliasd ;{3 Tenth Ave,fi,~ ~,.~, I. M~(i,4,.,,~ ..., ..__,., .. ..~rffl.ce ofAppellate Coum S2 was iucousisteut negligence on We din Vo rev. dcmkd, court abused defendant's i $ch. Dist. for rev. d~ A party 'a clear and correct Farm Fire &~ App. granted Willmar Poulb-y Under the d~scretion i In Jam, trial court's ~ to apply. decisiou not be gel for denied for rev. A ~al shou that LaVal{e ~ award will, have returned a 492, 493 circumstances of a ty, 295 N.W.2d, there was evidence ~ ing satisfaaoril clearly abuse its ~ ; and q part of respoudents DECISION ' C in the trial court's absent 378 of 13 N;W.2d Wu as a whole must of the law W.2d 111 and for rev. denied (Minn. case, the ~al court ,I bus driver; bus, 1993 ;of no jury for II. 'l I in whether based on inadequate and the absent clear discretion. 571, 6741 1985), ]u,y :~ ,98s). the award, we must cons in to the verdict.' Feb. 14~61' 165, ~ contend the the~ We disagree. of {he am imply to consider all the, or acted from some motive, bi~ because{ ,have or because be law. 836 Feb. buse its lam. common can'ter it k in light of the ~damagea was Iow, {$ no before them trial court did uot in denying a new trial. 0 HI n review of thejury verdi,'.t ~ mt"-. tho ' ---, ,.,mA~ mm[ oe (X:~alCl~Od in light n~.t favorable to tl~ Fevallfn~. nan,, and ,k sustained unless ~t is man' .... ., .... ~e~tly_andpal bly contrary to the wei t , ,,~ v~m,c~ wm omy ue overturned if there is no evide~:~ ~'ua'~' Jaw. ~7 : uial ,ng PAIGE ,L DONHELLY* ~ P. STEWART ! ~ L. CALL,AHAH' ~C£ R. PETER.SON B~N F. GALLAGHER* MICHAEL R HF.L~ESE~ MAJ~ A. [LIND Mr. Roger Fellows One Financial Plaza Suite 1100 120 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 My Client: Date of Accident: Dear Mr. Fellows: Please be advised that and legal guardian of he sustained as the re I ,I L ~ PfllGE J. DONNELLY, LTD. ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS .aT LAW L .~ MORn'Z INVESTI~RS: PATRICK (SKIP) MORITZ CHUN(:; YANG minor, persona: !uires tomobile collision on December 30, 1992, at the intersection of Sunset Road and Meadow Lane, Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Upon investigaton of this matter, it has come to our attention that the responsible party for the placement of warning signs and stop signs; the responsible party for road maintenance and maintaining a clear line of sight for motorvehicles approaching the intersection of Sunset Road and Meadow Lane, have acted in a negligent and careless manner which was the direct causation of my client's injuries. It is the responsible party's failure to properly maintain the area in a safe and obstruction free manner, which also contributed to the causation of my client's injuries. It is also the failure of the responsible party for failing to appropriately place warning signs and or stop signs and or other traffic control devices to control the traffic on and at the intersection of Sunset Road and Meadow Lane which is in the City of Brooklyn Park, which contributed to the causation of my client's injuries. At this time, pleae forward this letter and all available information you have in your possession to your legal representative and have them contact the undersigned. PJD/amj Sincerely, Paige J. Donnelly 506 MINNESOTA BUILDING · 4~ EAST 41'1-1 STREET ST. PAUL MINNESOTA ,55101-1162 OFFICE: (612) 222-2797 FAX: (612) 223-5474 :-T--t:E;m ,t ,I ~ I I I,[ WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD ~ ~V~ERTZ 5. The Council also discussed and thought about additional signing and other methods or repainting of this crosswalk and doing something else to call to the attention of the motorists the fact that pedestrians might be in this area. 6. There was no staff appraisal as to what it would cost to tear out the existing half curbs and to replace the curbs and gutters, nor what it might cost if the crosswalk were relocated in an easterly direction to construct new handicapped access. It would appear that those are legitimate questions where the Council needs additional information. Ed, my own assessment is that there is a large public concern that some form of protection be given to pedestrians crossing from the City parking lot to the House of Moy. I have not been involved to the point where I could give you a very detailed opinion on whether the removal could create a liability factor for the City. It is always dangerous for municipalities to argue with the professional design engineers on these questions of safety. Any accident that happens after the removal of the crosswalks or at the crosswalks may result in the parties suing the City and/or County on the basis that the area is inadequately signed or that proper precautions have not been taken for the public's safety. It appears at this point that if the crosswalk is removed, we will all know that there will be heavy jaywalking between the municipal parking lot and the restaurant. Could someone allege this in a lawsuit if they are injured? I believe they would raise it, and whether they would prevail or not might depend on anumber of factors. In conclusion, I suggest that the City have written documentation and advice from the County and/or other safety experts so that whatever action we take is based on the best professional judgment available. The only other thing I can say is that I will include you in my prayers as you go about trying to resolve this problem. Sincerely, City Attorney CAP:ih CITY of MOUND 534' MAYWOOD RC~'2 MOUN~ MINNESOTA 5525z-'~:'- B12~ ~72-0600 ~X ~6' 2~ 472-062~ March 31, 1993 Mr. Patrick Murphy Director of Public Works Hennepin County Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343-8468 RE: City of Mound - Mid-Block Crosswalks Dear Mr. Murphy: I have been in contact with Tom Johnson, Transportation Planning Engineer for Hennepin County as it relates to the above subject. He has probably discussed this matter with you and has shared information that we have submitted for your consideration. The discussion on crosswalks whether they be mid-block or otherwise, has been a topic of conversation for many years in the City of Mound. Over the past three to four months, City staff has been intensely involved in discussions with the City Council, Mr. Johnson, business owners and other citizens on this very important public safety issue. Apparently, the history of Mound indicates that when on-street parking was removed from County Roads 110 and 15, a compromise was to locate crosswalks in mid-block areas as well as at intersections for the purposes of getting pedestrians from off-street parking lots to local businesses. Presently, the City of Mound has nine crosswalks at uncontrolled areas along County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and County Road 110 (Commerce Boulevard) in less than a one square mile area. Prior to a fatality that occurred on December 15, 1992 at the mid-block crosswalk on County Road 15 in front of the House of Moy restaurant, there had been one traffic fatality at 2020 Commerce Boulevard, a mid-block crosswalk in 1984. A study of police department reports and statistics reveals that there have been 17 crosswalk related accidents since January, 1989. Twelve of those accidents involved rear end-accidents when one driver was already stopped for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Five accidents involved pedestrians being struck; three of these involved semaphore controlled crosswalks. Fourteen of the accidents took ~i 2r.;nre~ On recycled paper Mr. Patrick Murphy March 31, 1993 Page 2 place during the daylight hours and only three at night. The police department wrote 155 crosswalk violations during the period from 1989 through 1992. Following the pedestrian fatality on December 15, 1992, the City Council met in a special session with the Len Harrell, Police Chief, Tom Johnson and myself regarding what the City could do to react to this tragedy. The Council was concerned about the safety of the mid-block crosswalks particularly the crosswalk in front of the House of Moy. The Council discussed the following issues at the special meeting: 2. 3. 4. 5. Improving the lighting of the area of the crosswalks. Installing flashing lights activated by pedestrians at the crosswalks. Working with the County on consolidating crosswalks and moving crosswalks from mid-block areas. Finding reflective materials that would make the crosswalks show up better at night. Looking at warrants from the County to see what would be allowed and where. In addition, the City Council asked that the police and the city manager work with Hennepin County to see what options are available and what could be done with the crosswalks in downtown Mound. Staff was to check with the House of Moy to see if they would be willing to put a light on their building to illuminate that crosswalk better. City staff and Mr. Johnson then spent the next 2-3 weeks reviewing these issues. Chief Harrell drafted a report which contains some of the information that I have stated above with regard to the mid-block crosswalks. Chief Harrell appeared at the City Council meeting of January 12, 1993. Tom Johnson of your office was also present at that meeting. Chief Harrell stated that the lighting was not the issue in the December fatality. He reviewed the accident information that I stated above and said that all of this has to be looked at from a public safety standpoint. Chief Harrell's recommendation was to remove all mid-block crosswalks in the immediate downtown area, including the crosswalk at the House of Moy and at the Post Office and make one crosswalk at Belmont Lane. If the Council did not feel that this would be palatable, then they could look at having one crosswalk from the parking lot to the bus shelter as a compromise. He further stated that two of the criteria in a recent study on crosswalks were: 1) Mid-block crosswalks - block length +/- 600 feet, 2) Minimal conflicting attention demands. Mr. Johnson stated that he agreed with Chief Harrell and his recommendation. The Council agreed with the recommendations. I suggested that before the City Council adopted these recommendations that staff meet with the Westonka Mr. Patrick Murphy March 31, 1993 Page 3 Business and Professional Council to get their input on the crosswalk issue; City Council agreed. A meeting was held with the Westonka Business and Professional Council on February 3, 1993. Chief Harrell presented his recommendations. Three of the five City Council members were present and endorsed the recommendations made by Chief Harrell. After much discussion, a vote was taken of the Westonka Business and Professional Council and a majority said that all of the mid- block crosswalks in the downtown area should be removed. Three members of the City Council then took this information back to a regular council meeting held on February 9, 1993. At that meeting I reported that discussions had been held on the mid-block crosswalks at the both the staff and City Council level as well as with business owners within the community. I reviewed the Police Chief's report of December 29, 1992 which included much of the information already stated in this letter. In my report to the City Council, I emphasized that people perceived crosswalks as an "alley of safety", they have a false sense of security when using a crosswalk and feel that they are protected from all forms of traffic. I reviewed the recommendations of the Police Chief and that from a public safety perspective he was recommending the removal of the following four mid-block crosswalks: 1) South on County Road 110 between the Our Lady of the Lake Pennywise Shop and Mound Opticians; 2) North on County Road 110 by the Hennepin County Library; 3) Shoreline Drive between the House of Moy Restaurant and the City parking lot; 4) Shoreline Drive by the Post Office. I further stated that if the above recommendations were not acceptable to the Council, they could consider, as Chief Harrell suggested, combining the crosswalks on County Road 15 by removing the one at the House of Moy and the one at the Post Office and installing one east of the House of Moy near the bus shelter area. I further stated that another suggestion would be to move the crosswalk by the Post Office further to the east at Belmont Lane. There were people in the audience who testified that they were concerned about removing the crosswalk at the House of Moy for a variety of reasons. A number of suggestions were made as they pertain to signalization, signage, etc. Also discussed were the problems of inattentive drivers as well as inattentive pedestrians. After a great deal of discussion, the City Council, on a unanimous vote, accepted the recommendations of the Police Chief to remove the four mid-block crosswalks in the immediate downtown area stated above. ,11, i ~ I I I,,i Mr. Patrick Murphy March 31, 1993 Page 4 Following that meeting I submitted a letter to Tom Johnson of your staff indicating the Council's decision. Included with that letter was a suggestion that had been made at the council meeting as it pertained to the intersection of County Road 110 and County Road 15 northbound asking for consideration to locate a "No Turn on Red". The reason for the request was to attempt to slow the traffic down that would be potentially turning right and going eastbound on County Road 15. Following the February 9, 1993 city council meeting, a representative of the House of Moy initiated a petition to be signed which was located at the House of Moy restaurant. Persons that went into the restaurant were given the opportunity to sign a petition objecting to the City Council's February 9th decision. The petition stated the following: "We the people of Mound and the surrounding communities request that the pedestrian crosswalk, located at 5555 Shoreline Blvd., extending from the city parking lot, across County Road 15 to the entrance of the House of Moy, be maintained for the safety and the well being of both pedestrian and motorist traffic in this sensitive downtown area of Mound." The petition then went on to detail the rationale behind objecting to the Council's decision. After approximately one month, I was contacted by Mr. Michael Durrell, 1317 Southeast 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55414, who represents the House of Moy and initiated the petition. He indicated to me that he had over 2000 signatures from Mound residents and others on the petition. He asked to be placed on a City Council agenda to request from the City Council that the mid-block crosswalk decision of February 9, 1993 be reconsidered. I agreed to place him on the March 23, 1993 city council meeting agenda. At that meeting the petition was reviewed and considered by the City Council. I reported that Mr. Durrell had presented this petition. I reviewed my letter of March 19, 1993 to Tom Johnson that we had requested a "No Turn on Red" sign to be placed at the south intersection of County Road 110 and County Road 15 for traffic turning east from northbound County Road 110. Mr. Johnson stated in his reply that the addition of this sign " ..... could lessen the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians for those pedestrians crossing CSAH 110 at the south approach. At the same time it would probably increase the conflicts for pedestrians crossing CSAH 15 because all of the CSAH 110 right turners would then be turning at the same time as the pedestrians across CSAH 15." Mr. Johnson further stated: "A check of pedestrian accidents at the intersection from 1987 to June 30, 1992 showed one pedestrian accident in 1990 and one in 1992. Both involved southbound left turn vehicles striking north bound pedestrians. No accidents were identified that would have been prevented had a 'No Right Turn on Red' sign been in place. It doesn't appear that this sign would provide any substantial pedestrian benefits." Mr. Johnson went on to say: "A maximum Mr. Patrick Murphy March 31, 1993 Page 5 'cue' for right turning vehicles would probably be seven to eight vehicles or approximately 175 -200 feet. Auditor's Road is only about 200 feet south of this intersection. It appears that there is some risk of blockage of the Auditor's Road intersection with the placement of this sign." Mr. Johnson concluded: "As you are aware, a 'No Right Turn on Red' sign reduces the operating efficiency of a traffic signal. It is our policy not to install these signs unless there is a sight distance problem or some other identifiable problem the sign could correct." Mr. Johnson then stated: "Based on the above, it is our recommendation that the 'No Right Turn on Red' not be installed." The City Council then discussed the petition and the original decision to remove the crosswalk. A number of ideas were shared by the Council: 1. Eliminate the crosswalks at the House of Moy and the Post Office and install one east toward the bus shelter. 2. Paint the crosswalk area differently so it is more visible. 3. Have the House of Moy patrons use the parking lot behind the House of Moy and encourage Mrs. Moy to install a rear entrance to the restaurant. 4. Try to slow down the traffic on County Road 15. 5. Appeal the "No Turn on Red" sign on 15 and 110. 6. Consider better signage for upcoming pedestrian crosswalks. 7. The fact that the removal of the mid-block crosswalks was done as a matter of public safety. 8. Continue to monitor after the mid-block crosswalks are removed before taking further action. 9. Consider a barrier in front of the curb at the House of Moy to discourage people from just walking out the door and crossing. 10. Put in flashing lights at the crosswalk area. Other suggestions were made by persons wishing to speak. A motion was then approved by the City Council to refer the question of location of the House of Moy crosswalk back to the staff for further consideration and additional staff and Hennepin County input to respond to questions and suggestions made by the citizens and by councilmembers regarding pedestrian safety. A second motion was approved to defer action on the removal of the House of Moy crosswalk until a decision is made on the location of an alternative crosswalk. Also mentioned, was that the staff try to figure out an alternative for an additional sign or flashing light at the current House of Moy crosswalk until a final decision is made. I realize that I have given you a great deal of information on this matter. My purpose in doing so was to bring you "up to speed" Mr. Patrick Murphy March 31, 1993 Page 6 as to where we have been with this matter and to request your assistance in working with the City of Mound to resolve a very serious public safety problem. The City Council essentially is focusing on the mid-block crosswalk at County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) in front of the House of Moy restaurant. At the present time they are continuing to move forward to have the other three mid-block crosswalks removed. They are deferring action on the House of Moy crosswalk until city staff, with the assistance of Hennepin County, can make recommendations on a solution to the problem. I have informed Mr. Johnson of this and he will inform Mr. Jerry Smrcka of your staff to hold off in removing the House of Moy crosswalk until city council direction is given. I would like to have you and your staff consider the following issues as they relate to the mid-block crosswalk problem in Mound: Reconsideration of the "No Turn previously made to Mr. Johnson. on Red" request Relocation of the House of Moy crosswalk easterly to the MTC bus shelter, thereby only having one crosswalk in this area. Review types of crosswalk striping. In other words, can the typical crosswalk with diagonal lines be changed to some other form of marking to make it more visible to the pedestrian and motorist? Can speed limits be looked at for possible reduction to make drivers more aware that pedestrians are crossing a city street and county road to get them to slow down for these pedestrians? I realize that speed limits are dictated by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. However, I think a good case could be made for reducing the speed limit to 30 miles per hour. Could additional signing be placed in the area of the crosswalks to better warn motorists of pedestrians crossing within a crosswalk? Could some form of temporary signalization be placed on the signage at the House of Moy crosswalk? Have stronger laws been proposed to deal with pedestrian safety? If so, what are they? If not, would you have any suggestions to stiffen the penalties for crosswalk violations? Mr. Patrick Murphy March 31, 1993 Page 7 Driver education and pedestrian education programs need to be provided to further prevent these types of accidents. e The city of Mound will analyze the possibility of improving the parking lot south of Auditor's Road so that the House of Moy restaurant could place a rear entry on that side of the building to accommodate pedestrian traffic from that particular parking lot. 10. If the House of Moy crosswalk was retained, could a barrier of some kind be placed in front of the restaurant, at the curb, to discourage people from walking directly out onto County Road 15 and into the crosswalk? 11. To prevent accidents in the pedestrian crossings at County Road 110 and 15, could the "Walk" "Don't Walk" signs be looked at in terms of their timing to allow more time for pedestrians to cross at that location? I have tried to frame some issues for us to talk about. I realize that a few of the above items don't specifically pertain to the House of Moy crosswalk or to its possible relocation, but these issues were talked about in some form by the City Council and city staff and I thought they should be discussed as well. I would appreciate it if you would review and consider the information contained within this letter with your staff and then be willing to sit down with city staff to analyze these issues to try to resolve this very serious public safety problem. Following our meeting or meetings I would request that you put in writing to us your recommendations as they pertain to the above and the matter in general. I will then be able to share this written documentation and advice from you with the City Council so that whatever action the City Council takes that it is a decision that is based upon the best professional judgment available. If you have any questions with regard to the information contained within this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you. ~-/EBward J%. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer, Hennepin County Jerry Smrcka, Traffic Operations and Permits Len Harrell, Police Chief Curt Pearson, City Attorney ES:ls HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 PHONE: [612] 930-2500 FAX [612] 930-2513 TDD: [6~2] 930-2696 April 15, 1993 REC'O APR 1 9 1993 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 RE: City of Mound - Mid-Block Crosswalk Dear Mr. Shukle: Your March 31, 1993 letter regarding the City of Mound Mid-Block Crosswalks has been received and reviewed. In your letter you presented a short history of events and raised many specific and general issues the City would like us to consider that relates to crosswalks. Mr. Jerry Smrcka and Tom Johnson of my staff met with you and Ken Harrell on April 6, 1993 to further discuss and clarify items contained in your letter. Prior to responding to questions contained in your letter, I think it would be helpful to restate some items which influence our response. As you know, accommodations of pedestrians on County Roads fall in an area of shared responsibility between the County and the City, with the primary responsibility being with the City. Our cost participation policy and maintenance agreements place the major burden for providing and maintaining sidewalks with the City. Crosswalks are generally provided upon request by the City and a review of need and safety by the County. If a location is approved by the County, we do the initial installation while requiring the City to do future striping. Also there is substantial controversy over the safety benefit provided to pedestrians by crosswalks. There is concern that crosswalks may provide the pedestrian with a false sense of security and there is particular concern regarding mid-block crosswalks on four lane roadways. With the above discussion in mind, it was the County's position to support the City in their request to remove the four mid-block pedestrian crossings in Mound. You indicated that the City Council, due to substantial public concern, would like to defer any action on the House of May crosswalk while the City staff again reviews various aspects of the House of May crosswalk. HENNEPIN COUNTY I L~ ~ ~ an equal opportunity employer Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. April 15, 1993 Page 2 The following are responses to questions raised in your letter that maybe helpful in your arriving at a recommendation for the City Council regarding the House of Moy crossing. The City's request for reconsideration of the "No Right Turn on Red" sign at CSAH 15 and CSAH 110 is based on a desire to slow the traffic down turning right to go eastbound on CSAH 15. This reason is inconsistent with our policies for placing these signs and I do not consider the reason sufficient to change our previous response not to install the "No Right Turn on Red" sign. We reviewed the acceptability of a crosswalk location at the MTC bus shelter east of the House of Moy crosswalk. This had been discussed as a new location for a "combined" House of Moy/Post Office crosswalk. This location presented two significant problems. The first problem is the number of trucks maneuvering to make deliveries to the boat and auto repair business just west of the proposed crosswalk location. These vehicles are often stopped in the eastbound right hand lane and would screen both the pedestrian warning signs and the pedestrians themselves crossing at this location. The other problem is that there are several driveways in this area with vehicles slowing or stopping to turn into the driveway. These vehicles are routinely passed in the other available lane. If a crosswalk was placed in this area, I believe there would be significant driver confusion as to whether stopped vehicles were turning or stopped for pedestPians. This creates the potential for pedestrians to be picked off by a passing vehicle as the pedestrian emerges from behind a stopped vehicle. This would not make a good location to provide a crosswalk. You requested that we review the types of crosswalk striping that could be used if the House of Moy crosswalk was to remain. The new standard of striping bei~g used by the County, longitudinal blocks 2'x6', would add visibility of the crosswalk. We would also be willing to use Stamark preformed durable marking material which would provide an added benefit. This material lasts longer than paint and has improved reflectivity. It is beyond what is normally provided in crosswalks due to the materials expense. You asked if the speed limit could be looked at for possible reduction to 30 miles per hour. As you are aware, the speed limit is established by the Commissioner of Transportation and in their review the speed limit could be raised or lowered. This area was reviewed in lg8g when the current speed limit of 35 mph was set. If the Council makes a request for a review of the speed limit, the County is willing to forward the request to Mn/DOT. If such a request is made, we suggest that the limits for review be confined to the immediate downtown area on CSAH 15. Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. April 15, 1993 Page 3 You asked if there could be additional signing to better warn motorists of pedestrians if the House of Moy crosswalk remained. With the elimination of the Post Office crosswalk, we would now be able to provide advance warning signs in addition to the existing crosswalk warning signs at the House of Moy crosswalk. To improve the nighttime visibility of these signs they could be made of Hi-Intensity sheeting. We could also provide Day-glo plaques on top of the advance warning signs to call these signs to the attention of the drivers during the daylight hours. Once again the Hi-Intensity sheeting and Day-glo plaques are beyond our normal practice. You stated that the City is analyzing their options regarding providing parking on the same side of the road as the House of Moy restaurant. I strongly encourage you to continue this effort since it eliminates pedestrian/vehicle conflicts on CSAH 15 and provides the accompanying safety benefits. You also mentioned the problem where people walk directly out of the House of Moy into the crosswalk on CSAH 15. Our right-of-way appears limited and the best solution to this problem appears to be either the reworking of the House of Moy's front steps, or the moving of the crosswalk slightly to the east or west. You asked whether more time could be allowed for pedestrians crossing at the signal at CSAH 110 and CSAH 15. This is possible. Our Operations Engineer will be adjusting the timing of the Walk/Don't Walk phases in the near future. We will also place a decal on the signal to better inform the pedestrians as to what the "Walk/Don't Walk" indications mean. I hope the above discussions are helpful in the Cities review of the House of Moy crosswalk. If I or my staff can be of further assistance please call. Sincerely, Patrick B. Murphy, P.E. Director PBM/TDJ:gk cc: Vern T. Genzlinger Thomas D. Johnson Jerry Smrcka HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC, · 5600 LYNWOOO BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-0347 APR 2 0 April 15, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The month of May has been designated by the govern- ment to be Older Americans Month. The Westonka Senior Citizens Center will celebrate the week of May 3rd through 7th as Senior Citizens Week. We are offering a week-long series of events to mark the occasion, hoping our friends in our four communities will come and share the festivities with us. You will be receiv- ing a special invitation to our Business Friends Breakfast during that week. We would appreciate having the mayors of our four cities proclaim the week of May 3rd through 7th as Westonka Senior Citizens Week. Sincerely, Doris LeGault, President A Non-profit Organizat/on Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetri~ta HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS. INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-0347 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK MAY 3- 7 WIIEREAS, we need to realize now, more than ever, what a resource our older Americans are, and that the abilities of older Americans to invest our country with their knowledge, creativity and experience cannot be denied; and WHEREAS, senior centers offer valuable service to the community in providing our senior citizens the benefits of good fellowship, encouragement and support, the opportunity to help themselves and each other, and offering service of access to community services as needed; and WHEREAS, the month of May has been proclaimed Older Americans Month, and conmtunities across the country are giving special recognition to the role of senior centers; THEREFORE, I hereby proclaim May 3rd through May 7th as Westonka Senior Citizens 27th Anniversary Week in celebration of past accomplishments and encourage- ment for continuation of involvement and contribution to our Westonka Community. Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetrista BILLS. April 27, 1993 BATCH 3042 TOTAL BILLS $123,743.27 $123,743.27 Zz d~ Z ,I ,I I ,I ii ] ~ Z JtJ. J .} GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL Area Fire Service Fund Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT MARCH 1993 25.00% MARCH 1993 YTD PER CENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 57,500 2,907 22,025 2,000 0 83 1,380 60 176 170,380 14,015 36,797 2,140 18 1,724 46,550 4 234 145,900 10,825 28,039 24,000 2,772 13,762 79,000 11,401 18,470 779,200 60,512 176,628 4,000 261 487 138,440 12,677 27,653 406,750 37,623 105,466 17,100 370 769 97,160 5,766 1 6,038 1 74,340 6,711 19,787 33,100 0 0 10,000 420 696 136,840 10,243 30,729 2,325,780 176,585 499,563 35,475 1,917 1,204 133,583 416 46,316 117,861 10,238 60 530 6O2 572 3 513 110 787 301 284 16 331 81 122 154 553 33.1 00 9 304 106 111 1,826,21 7 38.30% 4.15% 12.75% 21.60% 80.56% 0.50% 19.22% 57.34% 23.38% 22.67% 12.18% 19.97% 25.93% 4.5O% 16.51% 11.35% 0.00% 6.96% 22.46% 244,200 13,738 60,771 183,429 24.89% 99,350 8,570 27,607 71,743 27.79% 194,620 16,030 48,116 146,504 24.72% 358,190 47,116 89,829 268,361 25.08% 761,350 78,750 199,002 562,348 26.14% 4,790 0 855 3,935 17.85% 55,440 7,420 11,897 43,543 21.46% exp - 93 04/19/93 CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT MARCH 1993 25.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue MARCH 1993 YTD PER CENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED $1,217,590 $0 $0 ($1,217,590) 0.00% 860,500 0 29,047 (831,453) 3.38% 3,260 3,494 4,164 904 127.73% 69,500 5,418 11,533 (57,967) 16.59% 48,750 1,21 6 2,619 (46,131) 5.37% 65,000 4,744 9,519 (55,481) 14.64% 12,390 1,551 4,030 (8,360) 32.53% 58,500 5,696 6t089 ¢52,411} 10.41% TOTAL REVENUE ~2,335,490 :~22,119 ~67,001 (~2,268,489) 2.87% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND $244,200 $37,446 $99,262 ($144,938) 40.65% $113,550 $3,234 $9,910 ($103,640) 8.73% $1,200,000 $90,001 $255,981 ($944,019) 21.33% $350,000 $22,464 $76,172 ($273,828) 21.76% $650,000 $55,833 $162,157 ($487,843) 24.95% $4,200 $1,050 $1,250 ($2,950) 29.76% $73,280 $22,365 $64,242 ($9,038) 87.67% 04/19/93 rev- 93 G.B. Tuesday Thursday Saturday Tuesday Wednesday Friday Saturday Monday Tuesday Friday Wedne s day 4/20/93 APR 2, 1 ' 993 LAKE MINI~ETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata, 473-7033 AMENDED APRIL 1993 MEETING SCHEDULE LATF Siting Subcommittee 6:30 pm, LMCD Office LATF Steering Subcommittee 8:00 pm, LMCD Office 8 Administrative Committee 4:00 pm, LMCD Office 10 13 Public Hearing/Gideon's Point HOA 7:30 am, 135 Norwest Bank Bldg. Water Structures Committee 8:00 am, 135 Norwest Bank Bldg. Environment Committee 8:00 am, LMCD Office Fee Study Subcommittee 4:30 pm, LMCD Office 14 16 17 LATF Siting Subcommittee 7:00 pm, 135 Norwest Bank Bldg. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, 135 Norwest Bank Bldg. Lakewatch Program 10:00 am, Tonka Bay Marina Club House 19 20 23 Lake Use & Recreation Comm. 4:30 pm, 135 Norwest Bank Bldg. Technical Review Committee 8:00 am, 135 Norwest Bank Bldg. Boating Study-S~,~,~ry of Findings* 8:00 am, LMCD Office 28 Administrative Committee Meeting* 5:30 pm Tonka Bay City Hall Public Hearing for Paradise Lady Charter Boat - Wine & Beer License 7:00 pm Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting, 7:30 pm Tonka Bay City Hall *added to schedule APR :1 5 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR Saturday, 24th Sunday, 2nd Saturday, 8th Saturday, 8th Sunday, 9th Saturday, 15th Sunday, 16th Tuesday, 18th Thursday, 20th Saturday, 22nd Sunday, 23rd Tuesday, 25th Thursday, 27th Friday, 28th Saturday, 29th Sunday, 30th Sunday, 30th Monday, 31st APRIL 1993 Holiday Johnson Crappie Tournament MAY 1993 Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC) Sailboat Race Minnetonka Yacht Club (MYC) Sailboat Race *Silverado Pro Am Classic Crappie Tournament WYC & MYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Races WYC & MYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Race WYC Sailboat Race MYC Sailboat Race MYC & WYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Race WYC Sailboat Race Sailboat Races MYC & WYC Sailboat Race *Dennis Green Bass Classic MYC, WYC & Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Races Wednesday, 2nd Wednesday, 2nd Thursday, 3rd Friday, 4th Saturday, 5th Saturday, 5th Saturday, 5th Sunday, 6th Sunday, 6th Monday, 7th Tuesday, 8th Wednesday, 9th Wednesday, 9th Saturday, 12th Sunday, 13th Sunday, 13th Monday, 14th Tuesday, 15th Wednesday, 16th Wednesday, 16th Thursday, 17th Friday-Sunday 18th-20th Saturday, 19th ~UNE 2993 Wednesday Evening Bassin' MYC Sailboat Race WYC Sailboat Race MYC Sailboat Race Minnetonka Crossing Windsurfing Minnetonka Bass Classic MYC & WYC Sailboat Races IN Bass Tournament MYC, WYC & SYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Race Wednesday Evening Bassin' MYC Sailboat Race MYC & WYC Sailboat Race Wednesday Evening Bassin' MYC, WYC & SYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Race MYC Sailboat Race 'Wednesday Evening Bassin' MYC Sailboat Race WYC Sailboat Race MYC' C Scow Nationals Regatta MYC & WYC Sailboat Races Sunday, 20th Sunday, 20th Monday, 21st Tuesday, 22nd Wednesday, 23rd Wednesday, 23rd Thursday, 24th Friday, 25th JUNE 1993 continued Mound Fireworks & Water Ski Show MYC, WYC & SYC Sailboat Races MYC Sailboat Race MYC Sailboat Race Wednesday Evening Bassin' MYC Sailboat Race WYC Sailboat Race MYC Sailboat Race Mv~ ~ wv~ ~(lh~at Race April 22, 1993 APR 2 3 1993 CITY of ORONO Munldpa] P~Box 66 Crystal Bay, .Minnesota 55323-O066 Mayor Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Johnson: You are cordially invited to a meeting of the lake area mayors hosted by the City of Orono. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues of common interest to the cities. The meeting will be held from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 4 at the Lafayette Club in Minnetonka Beach. Please R.S.V.P. to Lin Vee at 473-7357 by Friday, April 30. I am hopeful that we will have a large turnout to make the meeting as beneficial as possible. Sincerely, Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Mayor FJC/lsv TELEPHONE- 473-7357. FAX- 473-0510 II i APR LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, April 28, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Paradise Lady Charter Boat Wine and Beer License Applications 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran a. Boating Study on Lake Minnetonka, 1992 Survey Presentation READING OF MINUTES - 3/24/93 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda COMMITTEE REPORTS .WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 4/10/93 Be Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Assn., Upper Lake, Shorewood, Public hearing report and findings for new dock license application to reconfigure docks, moving 6 slips from lagoon to dock on main lake, recommending denial. Applicant requests reconfiguration plan be referred back to Water Structures Committee to consider alternate plans; staff further recommends multiple dock license renewal without chanqe. Ce Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay, Public hearing report and findings for new dock license and variance applications; recommending tabling new dock license application for reconfiguration of dock on Outlot A, and denial of variance application De Multiple Dock License Applications: 1) Renewal without Change applications per 4/10/93 minutes; recommending approval subject to Village Certificate being approved or time expiring 2) Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; recommending approval with conditions in 3/26/93 letter, subject to Village Certificate being approved or time expiring, allowing 30 days from 4/1/93 date of notice service for applicant appeal it I I I I L ,[ LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 4/28/93, P. 2 3) Loring Acres Beach Assn., W Upper Lake, Minnetrista; recommending approval of new dock license with minor changes per 3/29/93 site plan Chapman Place Marina, Cooks Bay, Mound; recommending approval of new dock license with minor change per 3/17/~ site plan 5) Dennis Boats, Lower Lake S, Tonka Bay; new dock license application to reconfigure docks from six "stick" docks to two main docks with 16 slips each, reducing slip sizes and WSU, per 4/16/93 site plan, recommending application be referred to the Board with notice having been sent to neighboring property owners and the City of Tonka Bay 6) Forest Arms Improvement Assn., Forest Lake, Orono; recommending denial of new dock license for reconfiguration due to increase in slip sizes, recommending approval of renewal with no change E. Corrections to 3/13/93 meeting minutes; recommending approval of corrections as stated in the 4/10/93 minutes F. Additional business recommended by the committee LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 4/19/93 Meeting time, recommend changing monthly Lake Use/Recreation Committee meeting to the Tuesday no less than eight days before the Board meeting, at 7 PM, effective May, 1993 Ce Special Events 1) Deposit Refun4s of $100, recommending approval for: a. Ice Fishing Excursions b. Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Winter Fest, 1/14-24/93 2) Fee Refund, recommending approval of $280 refund to the Ice Fishing Excursions operators for the 28 days they did not. have any activity D. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report E. Additional business recommended by committee ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurr (no meeting) Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Approval of minutes, meeting of 4/16/93 I I I I I LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 4/28/93, P. 3 2) Budget presentation for 1993 operations program, including fuel tank modification and Program Priority introduction e 3) Additional business LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol A. Agreements progress report B. Access siting prospective site progress report C. Additional business ADMINISTR]%TIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 4/8/93 B. Board member representation at LMCD city/agency/community organization meetings, discuss procedure for representation C. Statement on LMCD budgeting consistent with LMCD's historical experience for budgeting within presumed levy limits D. Procedure for handling public comments not on board agenda E® Fee Study Subcommittee, Chair Carlson: 1) Approval of report, meeting of 4/13/93 F. Additional business FINAi~CIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. March Statement of Cash Transactions (hand-out at meeting) B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (hand-out at meeting) C. Audit summary, recommending acceptance as presented EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Administrative secretary/bookkeeper hiring, recommending approval of Jo Ann Tyk, Maple Grove, per budget and personnel terms UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 4/23/93 · APR 2 § 1,gg3 CALL TO ORDER at 7:30 PM. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, March 24, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Penn ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephavenl James Grathwol, Excelsior; Mike Bloom, Minne- tonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel, Sgt..Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibaul~, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Wm. John- stone, Minnetonka; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; George C. Owen, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS: Vice Chair Penn had no announcements. READING OF MINUTES A. Minutes of 2/24/93 MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the Board minutes of 2/24/93 with the following correction: Page 10 Paragraph 7, last sentence to read: "The LMCD should be an observer of the efforts of others and not the driver." VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ' B. Minutes of 1/27/93 MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to amend the approval of the minutes of the 1/27/93 Board meeting with the following correction: Page 5 Paragraph 6 First sentence to read: "After viewing the drawings and maps presented by the applicant, Babcock said his concern is that with a 15' bottom width, there is not enough navigational width for a two way channel plus boat storage on one side. He would recommend a bottom width of somewhere between 15' and 34'." VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE ON SUBJECTS NOT ON AGENDA Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, addressed the Board on an issue of importance to him. He said for the past four or five years the LMCD has been the subject of scrutiny focused on its activities. For the past year or so, he and a group of people have been critical of the LMCD because of how it conducts its business, tle believes the communities have heard often enough from his group criticizing the LMCD and that he and his group owe it to the LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, community and the Board to come up with a solution. He wants thu Board to know that a major effort has been initiated by himself and others to urge the Minnesota State Legislature to introduce new legislation to change the enabling act to call for a five member Board elected from five zones plus two members, one pointed by the MN Department of Natural Resources and one al,- pointed by Hennepin County. Jabbour said he and his group believe in the LSICD and thc principles on which it was founded. They would like the LMCD be partners with them in getting the change. He said they are not trying to undermine the organization. He stated he is speak- ing as an individual and not as a member of the Orono City Coun- cil. He said he understood the LMCD's Board members were goin~ to meet with him and Orono city council members but that has not occurred. Babcock asked how far along they are with the legislative process. Jabbour said they have contacted local legislators a~d some from out of the area. There are similar problems with thc. White Bear Lake Conservation District. His contacts with th;~t area indicate they would like to pool resources, lle said there is going to be a change. The question is whether tile change will be initiated locally or will the change be mandated by thc out- side. It may take a year or two. The community expects it to done. Bloom said he understands Sabbour is speaking as a citizen but he feels the record should reflect that there has been some concern with the City of Orono about the LMCD. Its representa- tive has indicated the city council and mayor are critical of the L~CD. He agrees with Jabbour that this (any change) should be a cooperative measure. Bloom said two meetings ago (January Board) he asked the representative from Orono if the City had specific complaints, to bring those complaints to the Board. As of today he has heard nothing from the City of Orono. Bloom believes it is incumbent upon city officials, if they do have criticism, to bring it to the LMCD's attention. The LMCD cannot address issues until it knows what those issues are. Reese said this (Board make up and appointive vs. electivc) is an old topic. This was a well discussed issue at the time the Management Plan was developed. He was in favor of it at that time. That was the time an orderly change could have been made with a Board more representative of the population. There was support from some cities at that time. Jabbour responded that during the time the Management Pl;~n was being done some of the cities, including Orono, were not as active. That is no reason not to try again. It is a responsi- bility to the community. Jabbour said that this has not been initiated by the City of Orono, and the city council has not passed on this issue. Babcock said his city is concerned about losing its individ- ual representation on the Board. Foster said he was opposed to the concept of an elected Board when it was discussed during the preparation of the Manage- ment Plan. I J I I, ! LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1993 Thomas Maple, Jr., MCWD. Board of Managers. said. regarding the water quality, the document which will have the greatest effect on the Lake and the entire watershed is the 509 Plan. That Plan is now complete and has been officially sent to thc DNR. It is principally directed at run-off through court ordered Environmental Protection Agency rules. It will be monitored I)v the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the MCWD and other water management bodies. The final document will be given to the I, blCl) and MCWD cities. The MCWD expects the 509 Plan to be adopted by the cities. Once adopted by the cities it becomes the cities responsibility to monitor runoff and to work toward preventing the degradation of the Lake. Bloom said he would like Jabbour and his associates to put their plan before the LMCD to see if there is a common ground. Jabbour responded that the elected vs. appointed Board is a minor change in their proposal. Participation of the DNR and Hennepin County, the biggest financial contributor to the I,akc, is important. They should be in the partnership, tle believes the Technical Review Committee (a peer review by 11 city reprc- sentatives to adopt state mandated shoreland ordinances ) is a failure. Rascop said that when the Management Plan was prepared the DNR and Hennepin County did not want to be on the Board. In a bill in the legislature to give Hennepin County control of the Lake failed. Jabbour said they are not giving the DNR or Hennepin County the control, they are just asking them to be in partnership. Their intention is to have the five members of tile Board from the area that surrounds the Lake be people who live on the Lake. Babcock said that saying the Technical Review Committee is a failure is wrong. The cities said they wanted their own repre- sentation on the committee and the representatives were not appointed by the LMCD. Carlson urged the Board to have the Administrative Committee meeting be the place to continue this discussion. Acting Chair Penn agreed and closed the discussion. REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 3/13/93 meeting with the following corrections: Page 5 Paragraph 3 - to show the shore line at 2560' Page 6 Paragraph 3 - to show the shoreline at 2560' Page 8 P~ragraph 1, last sentence to read: All members of the Association are to be notified of the change in the docks and acknowledge the notification in writing before the recommendation is forwarded to the Board at its March meeting. VOTE: ~lotion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARI) OF DIRECTORS March 2,1, Iqq3 B. West Point Place llomeowners Assn., Lafayette Bay, Tonka Bay MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Multi- ple Dock License application of the West Point Place Homeowners Association, accepting the Public Hearing report and Findings a~ presented. DISCUSSION: In response to a question from Rascop, the executive director said the bridges were subject to a DNR permit or remov- al. Babcock said the committee had made no recommendation on tile subject of the bridges. What to do with them was left to tile property owners. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Multiple Dock Licenses, Renewals Without Change with Orders and Stipulations MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the follow- lng multiple dock license renewals without change, with Ortler~ and Stipulations, village certificates approved, fees fully paid: Bayshore Manor Condominiums, Excelsior Baycliffe Property Owners Assn., S Upper Lake Clay Cliffe Homeowners Assn., Old Channel Bay Crane Island Association, Inc., S Upper Lake Dennis Boats, Lower Lake South Eagle Bluff Association, Halsteds Bay Grays Landing Homeowners Assn., Grays Bay Harborage Homeowners Assn., Smithtown Bay Maple Crest Estates, Jennings Bay Meadowbrook Boat Club, Grays Bay Navarre Cove Homeowners Assn., Carmans Bay Neslund, Richard, Wayzata Bay RDP Partners, Spring Park Bay Ridgewood Cove Property Owners Assn., Sennings Bay Willow Woods Corp., Gideons Bay Woodend Shores Beach Assn., W Upper Lake DISCUSSION: Reese said he thought RDP Partners was to appear before the Board to review the original license conditions. The Board was referred to the 2/13/93 Water Structures Committee minutes. At that meeting Les Renner spoke for RDP Partners stating that tiley continue working on the funding for the building, lie said thc Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (ULMYC) continues its associa- tion with the project and all provisions of the license will be met when the building is built. At the 2/24/93 Board meeting the RDP Partners license was discussed during the adoption of thc Ordinance Relating to the Effect on Special Density Licenses of Failure to Construct Licensed Docks within a Specified Time. Babcock said RDP is not in violation because they have not built the docks. They have two years, under the new Ordinance. to build the facilities. Reese expressed concern about the litiga- tion between ULMYC and the City of Shorewood involving goard Il J I I · LMCD BOARI) OF DIRECTORS March 24, I')')3 Member Rascop. Rascop said that evolves from Shorcwood dc, nyi~t;_' ULMYC a building permit for a club house. ULMYC Call CoIILilltlt' Ltl operate its marina under a Shorewood Conditional Usc Permit. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Multiple Dock Licenses Renewal Without Change wi Lh Orders and Stipulations, subject to Village Certification, Fees paid MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the follt~w- lng Multiple Dock License Renewals without change with Orders and Stipulations, subject to village certificates being approved or time expiring, fees are paid in full: Big Island, Inc., Lower Lake S Chimo Assn., Carsons Bay Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay Excelsior Bay Associates. Excelsior Bay tterzog Acres Assn., Wayzata Bay Kreslins, Hary, St. Albans Bay Minnetonka Power Squadron, Big Island Passage Rossberg, Art, S Upper Lake Seahorse Condo Assn., Jennings Bay Seton Twinhomes, Emerald Bay Smithtown Bay Assn., Smithtown Bay Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, S Upper Lake Victoria Estates Homeowners Assn., North Arm Walters Port Assn., Carmans Bay VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Multiple Dock Licenses, Renewals Without Change with Orders & Stipulations, balance due on fees MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the followin7 Multiple Dock License renewals without change with Orders and Stipulations. with fees due to be paid by 3/31/93, licenses to be withheld until full payment received, (* subject to vill;tge certificate being approved or time expiring): * A1 & Alma's Supper Club, Cooks Bay * Bean's Greenwood Marina, St. Albans Bay (Survey required) * Cochrane's Boatyard, Inc., Excelsior & St. Albans Bay:-; Gayle's Marina Corp., Maxwell Bay Gray's Bay Resort & Marina, Grays Bay , Harrison Harbor Twinhome Assn., Harrisons Bay Howards Point Marina, S Upper Lake Jennings Cove Dock Owners Assn., Jennings Bay * Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Assn., Lafayette Bay * Loring Acres Beach Association, W Upper Lake Mai Tai Restaurant, Excelsior Bay , Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Sailors World Marina & Yacht Club, Smiths Bay * Schmitt's Marina, Excelsior Bay (Survey required) LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1~03 VOTE: * Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club, Gideons Bay * Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay * Windward Marine, Browns Bay Motion carried unanimously. F. Renewals Without Change, with Special Conditions I) Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior Babcock noted there were two less charter boats than oriei- nally planned in 1992. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Excel- sior Park Tavern Multiple Dock License Renewal Without Change for 1993 with the amenities to be furnished as submitted, subject receipt of the Village Certificate or time expiring. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Rascop asked that in the future EPT list the dates and occasions the public uses its meeting room facilities. 2) Foxhill Homeowners Assoc., Smiths Bay, Orono MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Foxhill Homeowners Association Multiple Dock License renewal without change, with approval of the supplemental site plan showine installation of 8 of 13 slips, with slip #1 relocated and limited to 32' with a 40' canopy. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3) Minnetonka Boat Works, Browns Bay and Tanager l.ake, Orono and Wayzata Bay, Wayzata MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the blinnet(,t~ka Boat Works, Browns Bay, Tanager Lake and Wayzata Bay Multiple Dock License Renewals without change, subject to amenitie~ ;ts stipulated, fees paid in full by 3/31/93 and receipt of village certificate or time expiring. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. New Multiple Dock Licenses with Minor Changes 1) Excel Marina, formerly St. Albans Bay Marina, St. Albans Bay, Excelsior MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve a nc~v Multiple Dock License for the name change and new ownership o[ Excel Marina, the fees to be paid in full by 3/31/93. and subject to receipt of village certificate or time expiring. Staff will obtain a copy of the Excel Marina shoreline lease with the City of Excelsior for the files. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARI) OF DIRECTORS March 24, Iqq3 2) Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay Vern llaug, Tonka Bay, asked for a clarification of thu W;ttcr Structures Committee minutes in which Thomas Wartmaa stated thc run off causing damage to Haug~s property is from thu street:-; Tonka Bay. tlaug said that is incorrect. The development has it ; own storm water management. The run off affecting Haug's prol,cr~ ty is cau°,cd by the terrain and hard cover in the development. Haug invited the Board members to take a look at the property confirm what he is stating. Haug expressed disappointment in the MCWD as he had them in 1985, 1989 and 1990 to correct the situation, ll;lu~2 invited Thomas Maple of the MCWD to come to his house and view his ruined lakeshore. Haug urged the Board to support Director Rascop in thu litigation involving the ULMYC and City of Shorewood. itc the cities have a right to say what happens to its property. Penn said tie has viewed the Haug property and pictures has available for viewing. He urged the Board members to sec, thu property and observe that run off is being caused by construc- t ion. MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to ca 1 I a })t}l) [ i c [Ic,;t ~'- ing, 7:30 AM, 4/10/93, prior to the Water Structures Commit tuc meeting, to consider a new dock license application for tit,_. Gideons Point Homeowners Association, as there is a signifiua:}t change in the dock configuration. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3) Libbs Lake Boat Club, Libbs Lake, Minnetonka MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve a new Multiplu Dock License for the Libbs Lake Boat Club with a minor change name and reduction of one Boat Storage Unit. not recoverablu, subject to fees due being paid by 3/31/93. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4) Sandy Beach Place, West Arm, Orono MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve a new Multiple Dock License with minor change of reduction of one I~,)at Storage Unit, fees due being paid by 3/31/93 and village certiFi- cate being approved or time expiring. VOTE: Motion carried urlanimously. 5) and 6) Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 1, Wayzata Bay, Wayznla The Board received a letter dated 3/15/93, from the City Wayzata advising that the City is currently in dispute with thu Wayzata Yacht Club concerning a driveway that was paved in on the east property which allows storm water runoff to flow directly in the Lake. The City will object to the issuance of the annual dock permit (sic) for the Club until corrective meas- ures meeting city requirements are implemented. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1993 Grathwol said the Board should provide a response to t~c City of Wayzata. LMCD has no ordinance that controls runo['~'. The WYC has met the requirements of LMCD's. dock licensing. Babcock expressed concern about how to proceed. When there is a land related issue the Board should let the MCWD or cities solve it. The MCWD gave the WYC an "after-the-fact" permit for the paving with no conditions. The city has not issued an3' violation or citation. Rascop said the LMCD has the authority to control parkinc. and in this case he believes there is a parking problem. Foster said he does not see it as a parking issue. ^ park- lng issue would be the number of spaces per dock. LeFevere said there appears in the LMCD Ordinances a listing of the criteria for granting a license for a Multiple Dock. One criterium is whether adequate parking and sanitary facilities are available. (2.03 Subd. 3 Page 21 of the Code). In this case the amount of parking has not changed. Another criterium is whether' the facility will affect the quality of the water and the ecolog? of the Lake. One of the things the Board has considered in the past is not whether the city objects but why it objects. If thc city objects as related only to its local land site, the Board has not wanted to be in the position of enforcing the city's ordinances. On the other hand, if the reason the city objects is a reason that the Board wishes to consider, then the Board should consider it under its own ordinances and criteria, but not for the mere fact that the city objects to it. Babcock said in this case he would be hard pressed to tell the ~'C they are in violation of an LMCD ordinance. LeFevere said if the Board declines to grant a license based on a city's objection, the LMCD could be faced with the situatio~ of the licensee operating without a license and the necessity to prosecute. Foster said he is a member of the WYC and of its Board of Directors. Ne intends to abstain from voting because of the appearance of a conflict. Foster then explained the circu,~- stances surrounding the WYC paving of the 1200 sq ft turn around driveway. This led to a complaint being filed with the M¢"WD Violation Board. The MCWD required an application and a survc),. Upon reviewing the survey and environmental circumstances, the MCWD issued an "after-the-fact" permit. In the meantime, lie- cause of the complaint, the City of Wayzata asked that the h~',l- cover be cut back at the shoreline. The WYC hired Dick Osgood formerly of the Freshwater Foundation, to do an independent watc~' quality appraisal of the situation. Osgood's evaluation said the hardcover was better than the gravel because it does not ca~-~-? the fines from the gravel into the Lake. Penn asked whether the WYC is in violation of any I. MCD Code. Babcock responded not to his knowledge. Penn questioned why LMCD would want to get involved in the City of Wayzata's issues. MOTION: Penn moved, Bloom seconded, to approve a new Multiple Dock License with minor change for the Wayzata Yacht Club Site I y.,, LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1993 allowing the conversion of two mooring buoys to two slips, sub- ject to fees being paid by 3/31/93, and also to approve a DMA li- cense with a change from 22 buoys to 20 buoys. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voted nay, Foster abstained. Grathwol suggested a letter be written to the City of Wayza- ta asking them for more specific information on how water quality is affected by the storm water running into the Lake. Babcock said it is important to remember that any Multiple Dock License has to meet city requirements as well as those of the LMCD. Penn suggested including an acknowledgement to the city addressing its concerns. LMCD staff will prepare a response to the City of Wayzata comments. 7) Cardinal Cove Beach Assn., Halstead Bay, Minnetrista Larry Pillar, President, Cardinal Cove Beach Association. reported all members of the Association have been notified of thc change he submitted a document with signatures indicating all members have responded to the notification. There were no objec- tions. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve a new Multiple Dock License with minor change in dock configuration per 3/12/93 site plan for the Cardinal Cove Beach Association. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. H. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to impose the conditions in the LeFevere letter of 3/5/93 when and if a multiple dock license application for renewal is received from Lakeside Marina. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. I. Resolution 86, Setting fees for New Dock Licenses MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to change Resolution No. 86, (Item 1,b) setting fees for new dock licenses, to set thc Watercraft Storage Unit (WSU) fee at $10 per WSU. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. J. Non-Renewal of Multiple Dock Licenses The executive director reported the following multiple clock licensees have not submitted their renewal applications: Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Gideons Bay, Shorewood Pheasant Lawn, Carmans Bay, Orono Seton View, Seton Lake, Mound Thomas Development, Smithtown Bay, Victoria LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 19q3 A letter was sent on 3/10/93 reminding them of the due date and late fee schedule. Thibault said the applications are sent out in November for the December I due date. Thibault has talk,_'d to some of the five by phone. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded, to authorize staff to send a certified letter by 3/31/93, return receipt requested, to the multiple dock licensees who have not made application advi'-;- ing them that there will be an inspection within 10 days. Il' they are in operation, they are to be prosecuted for operat in!: without a license. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the minutes of the 3/22/93 meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Event New License Application MOTION: Foster moved Grathwol seconded to approve a Special Event License for the Si lverado Pro Am Classic Crappie Tournament of 5/8/93 with stipulations as recommended by Staff, with the addition of using a staggered start for the 42 professional an- glers. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Ordinance Amending Code Sect. 3.09, Subd. 1,2,3.&4 MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the second reading and waive the third reading, adopting an Ordinance Amend- inn Code Sect. 3.09, Subd. 1, 2, 3 & 4, authorizing the executive director to issue new Special Event Licenses. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Deposit Refund MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to approve a depos i t refund of $100 to Westonka Winterfest, the executive director to advise Westonka Winterfest that there was a report of a deficit'n- cy in restroom facilities at the 1/13/93 event. VOTE: Mot ion carried unanimously. E. Wine and Beer License Renewals MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to approve the followi~:~ wine and beer license renewal applications subject to liquor license liability insurance being in place and the charter registration being issued, and to approve refund of the unused portion of the deposit on the preliminary liquor license investi- gation fee for the Excelsior Park: LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1993 Paradise Princess, by David Lawrance Al & Alma's, I,II,III,VI,X,XI XII by Merritt Geyen Excelsior Park, by Phil Weber VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F. Liquor License Renewal With Sunday Option MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the liquor license with Sunday Option renewal for Queen of Excelsior, John Lambin, subject to charter boat registration being current. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. PFD Whistles MOTION: Foster moved, Carlson seconded, to purchase 2500 [,KI) whistles for the use of the Water Patrol at an estimated cost of $500 using Save the Lake funds. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. H. Radar Units Sgt. Chandler exhibited a new marine law enforcement unit which is accurate to 1 mph. MOTION: Babcock moved, Penn seconded, to purchase 2 marine enforcement radar units for the use of the Water Patrol at an estimated cost of $1745 each, using Save the Lake funds. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. I. Navigation Lights at the Narrows MOTION: Foster moved, Carlson seconded, to advise Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvement, that the navigational lights at the Narrows should be activated from ice out until the fall freeze. DISCUSSION: Bloom suggested turning the lights on when the buoys are in and turning them off when the buoys are removed. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. J. Holes in Ice The Board agreed to leave as is the present practice posting thin ice signs around intentionally made holes in thu ice, mostly used for diver training, as conducted by the iff.'s Water Patrol and sports diving persons. K. Decibel Testing The water craft decibel test will be held 2:00 PM, Tuesda?. 5/25/93. at the Water Patrol docks in Spring Park. The LMCD will provide the boats. Chandler has arranged for Water Patrol deputies to use the occasion for training on the use of the radar. The MN Pollution Control Agency will have staff usin~ equipment participate in the test. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS L. Water Patrol Annual Report March 24, 1993 Chandler said the annual report submitted to the Bo;~vd summarizes 1992 Water Patrol enforcement activities. Chandler offered to answer any questions the Board might have about thc Sheriff's Annual Report at the April 19 Lake Use Committee where it will be discussed. The activity report submitted to the committee is current. The snowmobile accident on Wayzata Bay on 3/22 is being investi- gated. It involved a serious personal injury. 3. LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE AND LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol Grathwol said minutes of the meetings of the LMCD i. akc Access Committee and the Lake Access Task Force have been dis- tributed. The Task Force is moving ahead on several fronts. Thc Siting Committee is working on an equitable distribution of tile parking spaces around the Lake. The Agreement Committee is monitoring progress on the Car/Trailer Parking Agreements. Minnetrista has approved its agreement. There have been meetings with Mound and Wayzata. Staff is working with Hennepin County on the public works yard in Orono which serves the Spring Park access. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 3/11/93 meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Staggered Terms MOTION: Rascop moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the letter to be sent to the cities explaining the change to staggered terms o1' the Board members. DISCUSSION: The discussion raised questions as to whether thc letter was clear as to the procedures to be followed to accom- plish the staggered terms. MOTION: Carlson moved, Foster seconded, to table the letter b:tcl' to the committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. ENVIRONMENT, The executive director reported the Environment Committee has not taken any action. Copies of the minutes of 3/9/93 were distributed. He said that Hurr urges the Board members to attend the Lake Watch Training session, 10 AM~ Saturday. April 17. at the Tonka Bay Marina Club House. 17 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1993 6. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn A. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Penn moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes the meeting of 3/19/93 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Penn called attention to the current status of the Sonar evaluation. The DNR will do testing on Parkers and Zumbra Lakes in 1993. They will conduct field enclosure tests on SONAR on St. Albans Bay. The DNR will issue residential permits for milfoil treatment on St. Albans Bay in areas away from the field enclo- sures. Penn called attention to the test information on Page 4 of the minutes. Biological control study continues at the Universi- ty of [qinnesota. There will be field tests, but Dr. Ray Newman does not believe it is feasible for the immediate future. There will be an update on Zebra Mussel spread at the next meet i ng. B. EWM Operat ions Manager MOTION: Penn moved, Reese seconded, approve the employnlcn[ agreement with Robert Pierce to serve as Project Manager for thc Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Program. DISCUSSION: Rascop questioned the use of $.26/mile for use of Pierce's personal vehicle vs. the $.28/mile allowed by the I.R.S. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Rascop moved, Penn seconded, to change the reimbursement for the use of Robert Pierce's personal car to $. 28/mi le. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: There was one aye vote and seven nay votes, Rascop voting aye. Motion failed VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. C. Budget Presentation for 1993 Operations Program Penn submitted the proposed 1993 Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Program budget for 1993. He called attention to the $50,000 item to establish an Equipment Acquisition Fund. Carlson said he was concerned when he reviewed the 1992 finances that there had been no provision to replace the harvest- ers and other equipment. Carlson said in looking at the budget the focus is on increasing efficiency. He recommended a brie[ narrative summary of how the program will be implemented for the benefit of the cities. Babcock said he would like to be informed enough to address his city's concerns. Babcock would like to take the budget to his city for direction before the Board proves it. The executive director said the revenue sources have to be reviewed. Truck bids have yet to be taken. MOTION: Foster moved, Carlson seconded, to give preliminary approval to the budget subject to further review. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 19q3 7. FEE STUDY COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes ~)t' the 3/9/93 meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Progress on staff time Study The minutes of the 3/9 meeting were the basis for discus- sion. Regarding Item #8 of the Multiple Dock Related Activities review, Foster said it would be difficult and burdensome for the staff to break out the time spent on each participating multiple dock licensee. Carlson said experience will tell which of the licensees require more than two inspections to gain compliance. Babcock said he sympathizes with the marinas who do things right. Carlson offered the possibility of the licensees posting a to guarantee compliance. Carlson encouraged Board members to attend the Fee Study Committee meetings. The next meeting is scheduled for 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 13. Babcock said he would like the decisions come from the licensees themselves. If they are willing to post a bond he would feel that is fair as a method of compliance. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson 1. February Statement of Cash Transactions The Board accepted the February statement and ordered it filed. All of the cities except Orono and Tonka Bay have paid their levies. 2. Audit of Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Carlson moved, Babcock seconded, to approve p~yment t,f bills in the amount of $15,016.86, checks No. 9073 through and Payroll checks 1019 through 1028. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. 1992 Fiscal Year Audit MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to accept thu revised 1992 audit report as submitted by Babcock, Langbein and Co,npa~y. Discussion to be deferred to the April Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. 1993 Budget Amendment MOTION: Carlson moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the !')'~3 LMCD Budget amendment showing a Save the Lake Revenue and expc,~c account of $10.000 to reflect activity in the Save the LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 24, 1993 program for activities not otherwise budgeted. The revenue portion of the Save the Lake Fund is to be broken down into Donations and Reserve Fund. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Gene Strommen 1. Personnel Report A. Strommen reported Carol Avant, Clerk, resigned as of 3/29/93. She preferred a different work schedule. Janet Briner has been hired to replace her. B. Lisa Bird, Secretary/Bookkeeper, resigned 3/17/93 to take other employment 3/31/93. Strommen noted Bird has served the District well in implementing the computerized bookkeeping system. Advertisements have been placed for a replacement. There are 8 applicants to date. Carlson has offered to assist in keeping the computer entry data up to date in the interim. The executive director recommended $6.75 per hour for Janet Briner. Rascop suggested checking salary ranges through the League of Minnesota Cities Stanton Report. Babcock suggested hiring temporary help if needed to offset the secretarial needs. MOTION: Rascop moved, Penn seconded, to approve an hourly rate of $6.75 per hour for Janet Briner. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Meeting Schedule Strommen distributed the April meeting schedule. The Fee Study Committee is to be changed from 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM. Strommen mentioned the Hennepin County Town Meeting to be held 7:00 PM Tuesday, March 30th, at the Orono City Hall. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Rascop moved, Penn seconded, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary 1.5 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 9:00 AM, Saturday, April 10, 1993 Norwest Bank, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; David Cochran, Greenwood; Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria; Robert Slocum, Wood- land. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM. 1. Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay. Babcock introduced the information from the 4/10/93 public hearing for the new multiple dock license and dock length vari- ance applications as submitted by Thomas Wartman for the Gideons Point Homeowners Association. Babcock said, for the variance and license applications, the entire 2550' of shoreline of the Gide- ons Point subdivision is treated as one site. Penn asked, in granting a length variance, if that would allow the variance for all docks along the shore. Babcock said variances have to be requested for a certain location. LeFevere said in this case a specific plan is being present- ed for the entire shoreline, not specific to one dock. Carlson said this application has to be looked at as if it were a new application being granted under the current code. He would not have supported the original configuration as approved in 1985. The Outlot should have been in the center to avoid impacting the properties on either side. He said the applicant should be aware that in granting dock licenses the LMCD is not guaranteeing a certain water depth. Carlson said with the con- cern about density on the Lake, the LMCD should be careful in considering multiple dock licenses. Regarding dredging, Carlson said that activity is governed by other agencies. If there is not enough water depth for the current configuration at the Outlot serving non-riparian lots, it is possible that the non- riparian users would have to resort to a lottery system to allo- cate the slips. Rascop asked if the individual rights of the riparian owners are considered despite the 8' shoreline easement. LeFevere re- sponded that the Homeowners Association (HOA) has control over where the docks are located and constructed on all the HOA shore- line. LeFevere observed that while there are no individual docking rights on Lots 6 through 12, the Association has the right to store 4 boats at each of those locations. This configu- ration gives the area a residential appearance. If the docks were all placed in one location it would look like a marina. Penn said he feels there must be another alternative for this 2550' of shoreline without infringing on neighboring proper- ties. He would oppose the present plan. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE April 10, 1993 Wartman said they could have 51 boats according to the shoreline footage. Under this plan there will probably be only 26 boats. The HOA pays for the full 51 Boat Storage Units and Water Storage Units. Cochran said if this is being treated as a new application there may not be that much shoreline, as the wetland in the lagoon might not be counted. It is also possible that Outlot A could be considered as a single lot with an 8' wide extension along the shoreline. Cochran said he could not support the application as presented. Johnstone said he is troubled by the use of the wetland area as proposed by the variance application. He would like to see a plan for reconfiguration at the Outlot that better respects the original design and the neighboring properties. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Reese seconded, to recommend denying the variance application of the Gideons Point Homeowners Assn. because the docks could be located elsewhere on the Association shore Iine. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Penn moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend denying the Multiple Dock License application of the Gideons Point Homeowners Assn. to reconfigure the docks because it would create an undue hardship on the adjacent neighbors not part of the Association. DISCUSSION: Slocum said that although he sees this plan as legal accord- ing to the Code requirements for setbacks, he will vote against it because he doesn't think it is appropriate to go back on the plans agreed to when the license was originally granted. Carlson, referring to the check list for new multiple dock licenses, said the license does not meet criteria 5) "will be compatible with the adjacent development", criteria 6) "will be compatible with the maintenance of the natural beauty of the Lake~, and criteria 11) "will obstruct or occupy too great an area of the public water in relationship to its utility to the general public". He believes there are too many minuses. He said the LMCD needs to put a stop to creeping expansion and intrusion on neighbors. Penn said the committee should listen to the people impact- ed. Babcock said that while this technically meets the set- backs, the Code allows the committee to review other issues besides the technical aspects. LeFevere said that the application must meet the Dock Use Area requirements. The review criteria must also be used in granting a license. If the criteria are met, the Board cannot deny a license. However, the criteria items which an application fails to meet provide substance for denial. Cochran said he came up with the same criteria that are not being met, and these are consistent with the Management Plan policies. Wartman asked what are the criteria that are not being met. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE April 10, 1993 Carlson said that there are eleven items listed in the Code, Sec. 2.03, Subd. 3,(a), as criteria for reviewing a new multiple dock license. The criteria not being met are #5, #6, #7, #8 and #11. LeFevere advised that if the committee recommends denial to the Board, the Board will state the reasons for denial and pre- pare findings with a statement and declaration of denial. Babcock asked LeFevere what could be done to allow the applicant a chance for a new proposal under the existing applica- tion. LeFevere said if it appears the committee is going to recom- mend denial, the applicant could request the application be tabled before it goes to the full Board. That would allow the applicant to come back with a new dock plan before Board action. Penn agreed that would give the applicant time to work with the Association, the neighbors and LMCD staff to arrive at a more acceptable solution. Wartfnan said he would be willing to see if he can come up with a new plan, but doubted he could get approval of the entire neighborhood. MOTION: Babcock moved, Penn seconded, to table the new dock license application of the Gideon Point Homeowners Assn. to the next Water Structures Committee meeting, on Saturday, 5/8/93. VOTE: Motion carried, Cochran voting nay. 2. Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association, Upper Lake, Shorewood. The committee received the report of the Public Hearing held on 3/24/93, with findings, for a new dock license application from the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association to move 6 slips from the lagoon to the dock on the main lake. The Public Hearing report was corrected to show there would be five 32' slips and eleven 24' slips on the main lake (Page 2, Paragraph 6 of the report and item 1. of the Findings). The executive direc- tor reviewed the background and history of the multiple dock li- cense. The committee received additional letters of objection from D. R. and Carol Verdoorn, 28210 Woodside Road and Jack D. Chandler, 28200 Woodside Road. Robert $. Dunn submitted a peti- tion opposing the change in the multiple dock license for Boulder Bridge Farm signed by 40 petitioners. Mr. and Mrs. Duane Little, 28265 Boulder Circle, wrote stating they have no objection to the reconfiguration. Babcock stated this is a grandfathered license with a non- conforming density. The application is for a substantial -change, therefore requiring a new Multiple Dock License and subject to the review criteria in the Code. Carlson observed that almost all of the comments made at the Gideons Point Homeowners Association discussion apply to this application. He does not believe the committee should recommend anything to increase the impact of the non-conforming density. Johnstone asked the applicant, Thomas Wartman, why he wants to make this change. Wartman said six slips are not accessible by land because of the removal of the bridge. He said there is ~5 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE April 10, 1993 no increase in density. In 1978 the original'application was for 46 slips but later changed to 40. Ten were granted on the lake and 30 in the lagoon. Wartman presented pictures of the area. Bob Dunn said that in 1978 the primary, issue was how many boats would be allowed at this site and it was agreed on 30 in the lagoon and 10 on the Lake. The LMCD assured everyone that those numbers would be maintained with no change. In 1986, a similar application to move slips out was submitted. At that time reference was made to the earlier commitment and the Board reconfirmed their decision. Dunn said the committee has to look at the best interests of the Lake, and urged the committee to deny the application. Dan Lindsey, President of the Association, said the lagoon is part of Lake Minnetonka and is used by people other than Boulder Bridge residents for fishing. When the bridge was re- moved, access was lost to six of the slips. Wartman said the bridge could be rebuilt but the lagoon requires maintenance dredging every 4 to 5 years and the bridge impedes access. Cochran said he has talked to Thomas Maple, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, who was chair of the LMCD Board when the original license was granted. Maple was emphatic about not going back on the 1978 decision MOTION: Carlson moved, Owen seconded, to recommend denial of the new Multiple Dock License for Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Assoc. to reconfigure the docks because it does not meet all of the criteria for granting a new license. VOTE: Motion carried, Reese abstaining. 3. Multiple Dock. License Applications. A. Renewals Without Change MOTION: Babcock moved, Penn seconded to recommend approval of the following Multiple Dock License renewals without change, subject to Village Certificate being approved or time expiring. fees have been paid in full, with late fee: 1) Halstead Acres Improvement Assn., Halsted Bay, Mound 2) Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Gideons Bay, Shorewood 3) Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Assn., Carmans Bay, Orono 4) Seton View, Seton Lake, Mound 5) D. Thomas Devel./Bayshore III, S Upper Lake, Victoria VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono The executive director reported the letter of 3/26/93 was served on Jim Dunn, President of Lakeside btarina. Lakeside Marina has forwarded full payment of the license application fee including late fee. The letter to Lakeside Marina stated the conditions to be imposed on its 1993 license. Dunn was advised he may demand a hearing within 30 days of the date of receipt of the not ice. ! I I I I L WATER STRUCTURES COMMIT'rEE April 10, 1993 MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of the Lakeside Marina Multiple Dock License adding conditions in the 3/26/93 letter, subject to Village Certificate being ap- proved or time expiring, and subject to 30 days expiring for an appeal by the applicant. DISCUSSION: Carlson said the City of Orono should be aware of the recom- mendation because of the overlapping jurisdiction. The executive director said the applicant for Lakeside Marina, Jim Dunn, asked Orono City officials if the LMCD has the right to regulate stor- age of boats on land. Orono officials were reported in their minutes as saying the LMCD does not have that authority. The executive director said there is the possibility of Orono object- ing to the license and that could delay the Lakeside Marina license renewal. Babcock and Cochran want Orono to have a chance to respond before the Board meeting. Carlson said consideration has to be given to the best interest of everyone involved. said he would be hesitant to approve a license without the ap- proval of the City of Orono. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director is to communicate the committee recommendation to the City of Orono on 4/12. C. Applications for New Licenses for Minor Changes 1) Loring Acres Beach Assn., W Upper Lake, Minnetrista Thibault explained that Loring Acres Beach Assn. is elimi- nating Slip #5. A walkway is being added between slip 3 and 4, and slip 7 is being relocated next to slip 4. Because of elimi- nating slip 5, slip 9 changes to a larger slip, but the actual structure has not changed. WSUs remain the same. The density was 1:9' before the change and 1:10' after the change. Carlson said the association will have 8 slips on 80' of shoreline. The association gave up the slip to come more into conformance as required by the City of Minnetrista. The Minne- trista Council has approved the change in the dock plan. Bill Vit, President of the association said they usually do not use more than 6 slips. He will renumber the slips. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of a new Multiple Dock License for Loring Acres Beach Assn. with a minor change per the 3/29/93 site plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2) Chapman Place Marina, Cooks Bay, Mound (1:5' density) The new site plan submitted 3/17/93 shows a walkway is being added along the shore to reach slips 1-6, instead of attaching the dock fingers to shore. There is no change in slip size or Boat Storage Units. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE April 10, 1993 MOTION: Reese moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend approval of a new Multiple Dock License for Chapman Place Marina with a minor change per the 3/17/93 site plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3) Dennis Boats, Lower Lake S, Tonka Bay (1:6' Density) Dennis Boats proposes to reconfigure its docks from six "stick" docks with 32 tie on slips to two main docks with 16 slips each. The Water Storage Units will decrease from 74 to 68. Don Westman, applicant for Dennis Boats, has talked to the neighbor to the north who indicates the 32' setback is satisfac- tory to him. ~/estman said he will have small boats in slips 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 31 and 32. Carlson said he would want an assurance that there is enough depth for navigability. Westman said he understands the limitations on these 8 slips. Carlson said he believes this is as significant a change as the one for Gideon's Point and the same hearing process should be followed. Penn said he proposes to discuss this with the Tonka Bay City Council. Johnstone said he is also concerned about taking action without a Public Hearing. He believes that the changes are significant, and others who had a public hearing would object to action on this license without a hearing. West- man said this license application will be reviewed by the Tonka Bay City Council, which will notify all of the surrounding property owners of the hearing. It was explained that there is not enough time for the requirements of notification and publication to call for a Public Hearing this month. Johnstone, Babcock and Carlson expressed their opinions that the change is significant enough to require a public hearing (Babcock) or notification of some type before the Board takes any action. Carlson said there appears to have been a staff decision made to handle this as a minor change. If in fact there is a need for a Public Hearing the applicant should not be penalized by delaying the Board consideration until May. Johnstone suggested referring the application to the Board with notification given to the abutting property owners as done for a Public Hearing. If there are no objections, he would not have a problem with making the decision at that time. If there should be objections, he would then want the full Public Hearing proce- dures followed for the next Board meeting. Carlson suggested a definite policy be established as to when an application requires a Public Hearing. Rascop was excused. I~IOTION: Carlson moved, Penn seconded, to refer the Dennis Boats application to the Board. Prior to the Board meeting, notice of the meeting and application review is to be sent to the property owners within 500' of Dennis Boats and to the City of Tonka Bay. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE April 10, 1993 4) Forest Arms Improvement Assn., Forest Lake, Orono, (1:16' density) Thibault reported she sent a letter 3/31/93 to Lynn Adams President of Forest Arms Improvement Assn. with suggestions made by the Committee at its 2/13/93 meeting on how the association could reconfigure its docks to meet LMCD requirements. There has been no response. MOTION: Babcock moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend denial of a new Multiple Dock License for Forest Arms Improvement Assn. and to approve renewal of the license with no change. The committee recommends that the association be advised they are to install the docks as currently licensed. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Corrections to the 3/13/93 Water Structures Committee Minutes MOTION: Cochran moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend the fol- lowing corrections to the 3/13/93 Water Structures Committee minutes: Page 2 under Excelsior Park Tavern - 3rd sentence to read "The amenity list called for four charter boats for passenger service." Page 3 under Gideons Point Homeowners Assn. - 2nd sentence to read "on the west side of the walkway." Page 4, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence should read - "The dock meets the 30' setback requirement." VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Additional Business. A. Cochran called attention to page 3 of the New Dock License Application, Item 13 regarding the computation of Water- craft Storage Units. Cochran noted that the reference is to 1 WSU for each slip up to 20' long and 1-1/2 WSU for each slip 20'+ to 24' long. Staff will review the wording to be sure the 20' boats are included. B. PREPARATIONS FOR MAYORS QUARTERLY MEETING. In light of the limited attendance at the 4/8/93 Administrative Committee meeting, Chair Carlson asked the committee for its response to the discussion he and Cochran had on the subject. Orono Mayor Ed Callahan and Council Member Gabriel Jabbour attended the meeting, along with Sailor news reporter Parker Hodges. LIqCD board reorganization as introduced by Jabbour at the 3/24 board meeting, and status of a legislative bill to remove the .00242 city levy limit allowance to assist cities in funding LMCD annual operations was discussed at the Administrative Com- mittee. The format that these and other subjects should be discussed at the next quarterly Mayors Meeting received atten- tion. Carlson added that he recommends that a concrete recommendation be made at the Mayors Meeting on how to proceed on the reorganization recommendation rather than respond to what is WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE April 10, 1993 brought up by mayors attending tile meeting. The recommendation will deal with how to proceed in dealing with the subject. Setting a date for the next Mayors Meeting is important at this time. A consensus for Friday, May 7, Lafayette Club, was reached. A concept agenda was circulated by the executive director. Principal topics suggest included: a. Budget preparations for 1994 and board policy plans re- garding budgetary limitations; b. Eurasian water milfoil control program projections; c. Lake Access Task Force progress; d. Assessment of the public proposal to address LMCD board member selection procedure, considering a format for addressing this procedure and other LMCD organizational areas of interest for possible legislative submission. Committee members suggested board members make their own inquiries of their mayor as to their thoughts in particular on the board member selection procedure. LEVY LIMIT REMOVAL PROPOSED BY HOUSE FILE 443, proposing to eliminate language in State Statute i03B.635 granting limited additional taxing authority to the cities for LMCD funding pur- poses was questioned by Babcock. This issue was drawn to member cities attention by a City of Orono mayor's letter of 3/23/93. This letter urged member cities to oppose passage of this legis- lation as undesirable at the present time . in light of its direct and indirect effect upon the actual operation of the LMCD and its effects. Carlson, as Board treasurer, commented that he does not see LMCD changing its operations just because this levy limit on the cities is being removed. He believes a limit on budget increases would be appropriate to assure the cities of LMCD's budget re- sponsibility. Preparations for the Mayors Meeting will be finalized at an Administrative Committee meeting proposed for 5:30 PM, Wednesday, April 28, preceding the Board meeting. All Board members will be invited to this meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair '" ,¢¢..o (~o eSE c::, ~L' .IJt~o APR 2, § 19~ FEB 1~ 1989 Subject to the Order of 2-22-89 Revised Dock Plan meeting 20' set back requirements beyond 100" poin~ per Dock Committae resolution of 2/11/89 meeting. I I Action Report: Meeting: IIf/:'l APR 2 8 1098 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT Lake Use and Recreation Committee 4:30 PM., Monday, April 19, 1993 Norwest Bank, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grath- wol, Excelsior; David Cochran, Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Capt. Larry Peterson, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Deputy Cliff Schmidt, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Meeting Time At the suggestion of Bloom, the committee discussed changing the time of the committee meeting to a time more convenient than 4:30 PM on the third Monday of the month Options were dis- cussed. ' MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend changing the monthly Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting to the Tuesday no sooner than eight days before the Board meeting, at 7 PM, effective in May, 1993. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Special Events A. New Special Events for committee information 1), Dennis Green Invitation Bass Classic, 5/30/93, consist- ing of 100 entrants, ease off at Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata. B. Renewal Special Events for committee information The committee received the Special Events Calendar for April through June, with notations showing the new special events. There was discussion as to the necessity for reporting all of the sailboat races to save staff time. It was agreed there is value in communicating the combined activity per day and date, illustrating the number of events on each day. The complete listing was accepted as presented. C. Deposit Refunds MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of the following deposit refunds of $100 each: 1) Ice Fishing Excursions 2) Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Winter Fest,1/14-24/93 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE April 19, 1993 3. DNR Shore Fishing Site Improvement Proposal Progress - Spring Park The executive director reported on a meeting, March 22, with Mayor Jerry Rockvam and Administrator Pat Osmanson, Spring Park City, Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, Mike McDonough, DNR. and Alan Bell, Lord Fletchers. There was a discussion of the shore fishing improvement at Coffee Cove, Lord Fletcher's side of the bridge, off County Road 19. The plan is to construct a model shore fishing facility including platforms to accommodate the handicapped. Parking would be improved to include handicapped spaces. Mayor Rockvam concluded that it would be an improvement over the present eroded shoreline situation. The City is looking to the DNR or County to assume the site maintenance. The represen- tative from Lord Fletchers saw it as an improvement over the current random parking. County officials have checked out the property rights. The County has an easement to use the land for the proposed purpose. The DNR will prepare a concept plan and bring that to the Spring Park City Council for its consideration. The DNR would like to have a completed agreement with the City by June 30, 1993. The funds must be committed for the improvement, although it may not be done until later in the year. This will be a DNR facility. Hennepin County will provide and service litter barrels. Bloom sees this proposal as a great improvement environmen- tally and for handicapped accessibility. He said the LMCD should support it. There was no action called for at this time. 4. Charter Boat Registration Thibault submitted a list of 19 charter boat license appli- cations that have been received as of 4/19/93. She estimates there will be a total of 30 boats registered. Thibault will prepare a listing with additional information after all of the license applications are received. She noted David J. Lawrance has purchased Small World and is registering it under a new name, Paradise Lady. Foster said charter boats are an excellent means for the public to enjoy an experience on the Lake. He asked what the LMCD can do to support charter boat activity on the Lake. Deputy Schmitt said the Water Patrol has had no major problems with the charter boats. Bloom said he has received complaints about the noise, more specifically from the bands and record players at night. He said it is more than an occasional problem. He believes the LMCD should review the noise regulations, including the Code require- ment for bands to be on the inside of the boats. Peterson said the Water Patrol has warned the operators they should turn the music down and to talk to their passengers about noise when the Water Patrol is responding to complaints. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE April 19, 1993 Grathwol posed the question as to what the charter boat operators can do for the Lake. H'e suggested providing a method for the operators to ascertain the number of passengers they carry in a season. That number s'hould be publicized to show the amount of activity on the Lake. There was discussion as to how this might be done without intruding on the competitive nature of the business. Grathwol said there would be no intent to relate the number to the operator's income. Foster suggested writing a letter to the operators asking for their cooperation in arriving at a year end total. 5. Water Patrol Report A. Monthly Report Peterson reported the following: Accidents 4-3-93 Car Through Ice - West Arm Bay 4-14-93 Water Related Accident (Near Drowning) Near City of Greenwood - Man went through ice going to Big Is- land. Peterson will send letter of commendation to the Hennepin County Sheriff on behalf of the two citizens who went out to save the man. Criminal There was no criminal activity for this period There were no DWI's for this time period. There was a total of 6 for the season. B. Annual Report Peterson reviewed the Annual Sheriff's Water Patrol Report. He said it was a comprehensive report, put together by Sgt. Wm. Chandler and Nancy Willcox of the Water Patrol office staff. Peterson pointed out the Hennepin County Sheriff's Lake Report Comparisons (Page 4). This is a comparison of activities between Lake Minnetonka and the other entities served by the Water Patrol. It indicates most of the activity is on Lake Minnetonka. There has been an increase in the northwest portion of Hennepin County resulting in more requests for additional patrolling. He said there are more complaints from Twin Lake. Foster found that interesting as he understands Twin Lake has segregated areas for various activities. Grathwol suggested getting aerial photos of Medicine Lake, Weaver Lake and/or Twin Lake when the flights are made over Lake Minnetonka during peak use hours to compare to Lake Minnetonka. Peterson called attention to Page 7, the breakdown by time of day and day of the week that the various activities take place. He noted there are 9,000 thefts listed but the statistic is misleading. The detail shows the time of day that the report was taken by the Water Patrol, not when the theft took place. Peterson reviewed Page 14, the activity on Lake Minnetonka by bays. Grathwol said he did not see anything unusual. He said the Lake appears to be well patrolled. Cochran said it will be interesting to compare these statistics with the Biocentric study which is due 4/23. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE April 19, 1993 6. Decibel Test Program Foster reported Sgt. Chandler is making arrangements for the technical part of the decibel test to take place on May 25 at the Water Patrol Headquarters. The boats are to be provided by the LMCD. Foster asked for committee input as to the type of boats to be tested. Bloom will provide his 20 year old inboard with a straight pipe. A Scarab with an above water pipe will be sup- plied by Howard Bennis, Deephaven. Various other types of boats were discussed. Bloom will talk to Chris Butler, Performance Marine, about a Supra,Moomba pro-ski boat for a test run. Co- chran suggested talking to some of the marina operators about volunteering boats from their establishments. Capt. Peterson said he would want it understood the speed at which the run is made is within the Code parameters. Foster said Chandler would consider the Scarab to go through at full speed - 60 mph. That raises a question of liability and a deliberate speed in excess of Code allowances. The number of boats in the area would have to bear on whether excess speed could be allowed. Peterson suggested publicity announcing the testing, asking lake residents to bring their boats to determine if they are operating at a legal decibel rating. There would have to be a pre-registration to control the number of boats. Grathwol was excused. The executive director will work with the Water Patrol to implement the program. 7. Fee Refund The executive director presented a request .from Ice Fishing Excursions for a partial refund of its Special Event License fee. Thibault explained it paid for 34 days' events and had only 6 'days' events. Ice Fishing Excursions is asking for a refund for the 28 days they did not have any activity. MOTION: Bloom moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend a refund of $280 to Ice Fishing Excursions for the 28 days they did not have any activity. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. ADJOURNMENT Cochran moved, Bloom seconded, that the meeting be ad- journed. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 PM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair APR 2, 6 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Minutes 4:00 pm, Thursday, April 8, 1993 LMCD Conference Room PRESENT: Chair Scott Carlson, LMCD Chair Dave Cochran guests Orono Mayor Ed Callahan, Orono Council member Gabriel Jabbour, news reporter Parker Hodges Sun-Sailor News; Rachel Thibault, Gene Strommen; STAGGERED TERMS FOR BOARD MEMBERS. Reviewing the 3/16 draft outline presented to the Board, which was sent by the Board back to the committee due to lack of agreement on its content the committee found further questions on the intended procedure. Since a quorum was also not present, the subject was held for a future meeting. BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTATION AT LMCD "STAKEHOLDER" MEETINGS. Certain city, agency and community organization meetings or programs are recognized to take place which involve subjects of mutual interest to LMCD. LMCD might also benefit such groups by identifying its role to those groups on certain subjects. Board member assignment to such meetings/programs is desired. A list of city/agency/organization meetings developed by staff could serve to guide board member representation. The board should discuss considering such assignments. Representation at this Administrative Committee meeting was discussed. Chair Carlson noted the time was delayed to better accommodate board member schedules. Johnstone submitted a message in his absence that the committee consider conducting some meetings back-to-back for greater time efficiency. The committee will address this idea. LEVY LIMIT REMOVAL. House File 443, Art. 6, Sect. 1 proposes to remove the city authorization for an extra .00242 levy allowance to fund LMCD operations. The bill's intent was to remove levy limits by which cities are no longer bound. Orono city officials stated in a 3/23/93 letter to LMCD member cities "that in practical application the language in the present statute (M.S. 103b.635) has been considered by the LMCD as a limit upon the LMCD ability to raise money. Without a specified limit on municipal funding of the LMCD, the LMCD would have unrestricted spending authority and unrestricted access to each city's taxing authority without any direct accountability." Appointed vs. elected boards were brought into this discussion, Orono officials feeling strongly about the accountability issue for funds received from the cities. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 4/8/93, P. 2 . Jabbour stated he believes Orono has had zero impact on Lake Minnetonka through the LMCD. He added the city has been called upon to support a great number of the lake's needs, but it has not had proportionate input on the (LMCD decisions made. Carlson recommended that a dialogue take place with the cities on how LMCD should be reorganized. Jabbour sees a lack of board interest as illustrated by the lack of board attendance at this meeting. Callahan said he is not satisfied with how LMCD is operating. In response to Carlson's question as to what his concerns are, Callahan added that he sees the basic philosophy (of LMCD) as one of survival. In practice, he continued, LMCD is the agent of the DNR. Callahan does not see that the Management Plan (objectives) being able to control the limit on the number of boats on the lake. He does not believe LMCD will ever do it. He sees lake use now becoming a "class" problem -- free public vs. private homeowners. Carlson sees the need for cities to cooperate in identifying car/trailer parking spaces to achieve the 700 car/trailer parking goal. He believes this will have the long-term effect of closing poor and inadequate accesses and eliminating unreliable and undesirable car/trailer spaces. Jabbour cited Orono's withdrawal from the Lake Access Task Force (LATF) to by-pass the middleman, since Orono could not get agreement with the LATF chair. He believes it is better for the lake if Orono works independent of LMCD. He also believes LMCD board members need to do their homework. Carlson asked what LMCD can do to meet Callahan's objections. Callahan responded that LMCD should stop existing. LMCD as it is presently constituted will not satisfy Callahan's expectations. He suggested maybe some other make-up through a joint powers arrangement could be acceptable. Cochran asked if Orono could agree that a single organization is needed to govern the lake, vs. the 14 cities independently governing it. Jabbour said he sees the differing philosophies of the 14 cities as the problem with the LMCD board. Callahan said he has no solution for replacing the LMCD with another organization -- he does not have an answer. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, MINuTEs, 4/8/93, P. 3 Board member "election" by the councils was raised. Jabbour thought it could be based upon the amount of shoreline in each city or some other combination , but definitely make it more representative in some way, but not elected by the citizens. A statement with an historical perspective on LMCD budgeting and the LMCD board remaining consistent with that experience was proposed for staff to develop. REPORT TO THE MAYORS. The quarterly report was discussed with a draft agenda prepared by staff. A 7:00 am, 4/23/93 breakfast at the LaFayette Club was proposed. Topic ideas: a. Budget preparations for 1994 and board policy plans regarding budgetary limitations; b. Eurasian water milfoil control program projections; c. Lake Access Task Force progress; d. Assessment of public proposal re. LMCD board member selection, proposing a format or means to address this procedure and other LMCD organizational areas for possible legislative submission; It was agreed that research will be needed to deal with item "d" on the above agenda following the Mayor's Report. A team including city representation for needed research and to make recommendations should be proposed to the mayors at the Mayors Report meeting. Carlson and Cochran agreed they should confer with the dock committee members 4/10 before finalizing the 4/23 meeting date. PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT ON THE BOARD AGENDA. As a result of recent extended board discussion of the public comment offered at the 3/28 board meeting, it was proposed that such comments be received but not discussed. Rather the item raised should be referred to the appropriate committee. This will be recommended to the board. FEE STUDY COMMITTEE PROGRESS. How to collect for extra staff and legal time from multiple dock owners as a result of Code violations is a current focus of the committee. Advance deposits and bonds have been discussed. Deposits may be more practical. They would have to be applied to all licensees. This issue is still unresolved. AUDIT REVIEW. The treasurer and executive director will prepare a summary outline to present to the Board as a recommendation for accepting the audit. STAFF PROGRESS. Applications for the secretary/bookkeeper position are being taken. Interviews start 4/9.· ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 4/8/93, P. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST. A draft concept on this possible contract service has not been started. It will be undertaken at an early opportunity according to the executive director's report. NEXT MEETING. A meeting prior to the 4/28 Board meeting was suggested for April considering the issues the committee must present to the Board. A 5:30 pm meeting with box lunches prior to the 7:00 pm public hearing would provide the opportunity. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, ~t r ommen Executive Director APR 2 6 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Fee Study Subcommittee Report 4:30 pm, Tuesday, April 13, 1993 LMCD Conference Room #160 PRESENT: Treasurer Scott Carlson, Board Chair Dave Cochran, Multiple Dock Owners Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marine; Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Resort; Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boat Works; Rachel Thibault, Gene Strommen STAFF REPORT ON TIME ACCOUNTING. Staff time accounting for specific multiple dock activities as a percent of total activity by month and for the quarter were reported as follows: Jan. Feb. Mar. Quarter Rachel Thibault 37% 50% 50% 46% Gene Strommen 10% 11% 13% 11% Thibault's time in Feb. and Mar. has involved license processing as renewals are being finalized for approval. ORDINANCE CHANGES TO LMCD CODE IN PAST TWO YEARS. Thibault presented a summary of ten Code changes which involve multiple dock licensing among 20 changes made in the past two years. The Code ~hanges from 1/31/90 to 3/93 are: 106, 1/90, Moratorium on multiple dock licenses 107, 2/90, Special density licenses (amenities) 112, 12/90, Special density licenses (amenities) 114, 5/91, Conversion of use, non-conforming mult. docks. 115, 2/92, Moratorium extension (for special density lic.) 116, 6/92, DMA conversions (from buoys to slips~ mult dock) 118, 6/92, Low water variances 119, 11/92, Deicing administration (authorizing staff) 122, 3/93, Expanded bead polystyrene foam use prohibition 123, 3/93, Special density licenses (construct time limit) Question was raised'by the dock owners as how much time was required to develop these ordinances. Time was not tracked at the time these were developed, Strommen responded. Question was also raised as to who benefits by such ordinances. Carlson observed that the existence of multiple dock operations require such ordinances. Rockvam believes that these ordinances benefit the entire lake. For the current year, staff and legal time will be tracked for all multiple dock-related ordinances. An explanation of why an ordinance is being amended will be made. It was agreed there is no need to do monthly multiple dock financial postings. This can be allocated at year end. FEE STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE, 4/13/93, P. 2 BONDS OR DEPOSITS TO RECOVER COSTS OF LICENSE ENFORCEMENT. A staff memo of 4/5/93 surmnarized the use of bonds or deposits as a collection means for staff and legal time involved with non-complying multiple dock license operators. Staff reco~unended that a requirement for a bond or deposit over and above the annual license fee should be held pending the results of the 1993 experience of tracking multiple dock license costs. The resulting time tracking would then assist in determining what level of expense might be involved in considering whether a bond or deposit is necessary. Jabbour commented that he believes the total cost of litigation must be charged back to the violator. A suggestion was offered by the dock operators that a deposit be required of all multiple dock licensees. Once a violation occurs requiring litigation, a deposit would be required of the violator until all litigation costs are recovered. Carlson concluded this item will require more evaluation. NEXT MEETING. It was agreed that 4:30 pm, Tuesday, June 8 would be suitable for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Eu~neR.-"Strommen Executive Director 11 lVIINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 8, 1993 Present were: Commissioners Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Case¥, Marilyn Byrnes, Shirley Andersen, Carolyn Schmidt, and Steve Kirshbaum; Council Representative, Andrea Ahrens; Parks Director, Jim Fackler; and Secretary, Peggy James. Commissioner Mo Mueller was absent and excused. The following persons were also present: MINUTES Peter C. Meyer. MOTION made by Casey sec.onded b.y. Asleson to approve the aP:rk ?.117 Open Spa. ce Co-~xssion Mlllutes of March 11, ';993 wrxcten. Motxon carried unanimously. NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS PLAN - REVIEW DRAFT DATED APRIL 8, 1993. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed changes made in the plan as a result of the Park Commission,s previous review. On Page 6 of the plan, #9 "Zoning Status of Adjacent Properties,, was added as a parameter. Koegler reviewed the following sections: Administration, and Action Plan. NCA Uses, Costs, Casey referred to "Maintenance Costs', on Page 10, the statement "As NCA's become established, the cost of these items will undoubtedly rise", and questioned how Koegler figured that the maintenance costs would rise by designating a parcel as an NCA. Koegler commented that he believes due to heightened awareness and use by the people they will be more apt to contact the City if there is a tree down, etc. Casey suggested that the verbiage be softened, such as "the cost of these items ~ rise.', Casey also commented that maintenance costs may increase to the City even if the parcel is sold to an adjoining property owner if the City is forced to site the property for derelict vehicles or junk in the yard. Asleson suggested adding a line under "Maintenance Cost" on Page 10 mentioning that the Adopt a Green Space program may be a means to help reduce maintenance costs. Asleson also noted a typo on Page 8, which should be amended as follows: "Mound Share of Existing Tax for Parcel ~A:". Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ~pr£1 8, 1993 Casey referred to the "Introduction,, on page 1, within the third paragraph where it talks about buildable and unbuildable parcels. Casey expressed that he would like to see some reference made to the fact that buildable parcels are just as important to protect. Koegler will consider the best place to insert this statement. Koegler will revise the draft to include the Commission's comments. The Park and Open Space Commission determined their next step would be to meet with the Planning Commission and receive their comments. It was decided that this would be placed on the April 26, 1993 Planning Commission Workshop Meeting agenda. DISCUSS THEME FOR MAY 13, 1993 PARKS TOUR AND SITES TO VISIT. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, informed the Commission that the City has received a few applications for Public Land Permits which need to be reviewed at the May meeting, and therefore suggested post- poning the parks tour. After further discussion regarding dates, the following motions was passed: MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Schmidt to tentatively schedule the 1993 Parks Tour for September 9, 1993. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Andersen, &sleson, Byrnes, Kirshbaum, Schmidt, Skoglund and Ahrens. Casey opposed. Casey would prefer the tour be in the springtime. "CELEBRATE SUMMER" UPDATE. The subcommittee, Marilyn Byrnes, Brian Asleson, and Carolyn Schmidt updated the Commission on the progress of the "Celebrate Summer" program to have entertainment at Mound Bay Park once a month during the summer. Byrnes announced that the Rotary has agreed to sponsor two events. ADOPT A GREEN SPACE UPDATE. Marilyn Byrnes announced that a kick-off meeting is scheduled for April 15, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Representative's Report. Andrea Ahrens reviewed highlights of the City Council meetings in March. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 8, 1993 Park Director's Report. Jim Fackler reported that the Parks Director has received their new truck. He also reported that the realtors meeting was successful but attendance may have been lower due to the late date, last year the meeting was one month earlier. Dock Inspector's Report. Tom McCaffrey reported that all dock sites are full and he is now working on matching people to share their docks. MOTION made by Byrnes, secon~e~ by Andersen to adjourn the Park and Open S~ace Commission Meeting at 8:33 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.