The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-06-08CITY OF MOUND MI,~SION STATF~MF~NT The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ME. ETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 25, 1993, CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING AND THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 25, 1993, REGULAR MEETING. ~ASE ~93-012: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR GARY & KATHLEEN SPAULDING, 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0069. DISCUSSION: TEAL POINTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW). PG. 1915-1927 PG. 1928-1929 PG. 1930-1989 PG. 1991-1992 5. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 6. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. PG. 1990 7. RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 35 MPH TO 30 MPH ON COUNTY ROAD 15 FROM COUNTY ROAD 110 EAST TO BELMONT LANE. 8. DISCUSSION: LMCD LAKE ACCESS PARKING AGREEMENT. 9. REVIEW OF LMCD 1994 PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET. PG. 1993-1998 10. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. AND BALBOA MINNESOTA CO., INC., INVOLVING LAND NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE. SUGGESTED DATE: JULY 13, 1993. PG. 1999-2000 1912 11. 12. 13. LICENSE RENEWALS. PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS PG. 2001 PG. 2002-2009 Eo Fe ao B. C. D. Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1993. PG. 2010-2034 LMCD Representative,s Report for May 1993. L.M.C.D. mailings. PG. 2035-2036 PG. 2037 Lake Area Mayor's Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 15, 1993, 7:30 A.M., Copper Stein, Tonka Bay. This meeting is to discuss a proposed agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the Lake Minnetonka Cities as it relates to a Service Delivery Analysis to be performed, with technical assistance, by Staff of the Metro Council. This study relates to the project we have been reviewing dealing with Lake Area Cities Cooperation and Collaboration on municipal service delivery. Letter from a Spring Park resident thanking Officer Huggett for his assistance in helping her take care of a flat tire. PG. 2038-2039 Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1993. PG. 2040-2046 Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 20, 1993. PG. 2047 REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Walk, Saturday, June 12, 1993, Mound Bay Park. Spaghetti Feed Friday, June 11, 1993 Mound Bay Park, 5 P.M. - 8 P.M. , Je REMINDER: "Celebrate Summer,, Series - Music in the Park Friday, June 11, 1993, 5 P.M. - 9 P.M. ' REMINDER: Annual Community Education and Services Certificate of Compliance Meeting, June 14, 1993, 7:00 P.M. - 7-30 P.M. School Board Meeting Room. · , REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, June 15, 1993, 7:30 P.M. City Hall. Lo REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 18-20, 1993. REMINDER: City of Orono Open House at new City Hall June 20, 1993, 1-4 P.M. , Sunday, 1913 REMINDER: Bruce Miller Day, Thursday, July 1, 1993. Letter from Hennepin County Assessor regarding statistical data on the January 2, 1993 assessment. PG. 2048 1914 MOUND CPPY COUNCIL M~PU'~ES MAY 2~, 1~3 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW - MAY 25, 1993 CONTINUED FROM MAY 11, 1993 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review reconvened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on May 25, 1993, at 7:00 PM. 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 Linda Strong, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt and Hennepin County Appraiser Bill Davy and the following interested citizens: Dan Aretz, Robert Nygaard and John Shackleford. 1.0 Mayor Johnson opened the reconvened Board of Review and introduced Keith Rennerfeldt, Assessor for Hennepin County and Bill Davy, Appraiser for Hennepin County. Mr. Rennerfeldt stated that they had spoken with the persons that had appeared before the Council or wrote letters for the May 11, 1993 meeting and he was presenting the County's decisions as to the value of the properties questioned. It was stated that the property owner could appeal the ~nee~ decision at the Hennepin County Board of Review on June 15, 1993. The county must be notified prior to appearing. PID #13-117-24 32 0083 - D.R. HOLMS, 5421 CHURCH ROAD The Assessor reduced the value from $83,000 to $78,000. PID #14-117-24 41 0053 - ROBERT GOVE, 5789 ELM ROAD The Assessor reduced the value from $94,000 to $93,000. PID #19-117-23 34 0073 - J.L. VORIS, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE The Assessor reduced the value from $122,000 to $117,500. PID #14-117-24 14 0010 - NORMAN SIMONDET, 5690 GRANDVIEW BLVD. The Assessor reduced the value from $99,000 to $95,500. MOTION by Smith seconded by Ahrens to accept the Assessor,s recommended value of the above PID's. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PID #23-117-24 23 0015 The Assessor suggested property. - DAN & SUE ARETZ, 6228 WESTWOOD CIRCLE no change in the value of this MOUI~ CITY COUNCIL MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jensen to accept the Assessor,s recommended no change in value of PID #23-117-24 23 0015. The vote vas unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PID #19-117-23 33 0106 - ALLEN WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD The Assessor reduced the value from $94,900 to $81,000. Mrs. Wigand was in attendance and objected to the reduction for not being enough. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jensen to accept the Assessor,s recommended change from $94,900 to $81,000 on PID #19-117-23 33 0106. The vote vas unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PID #19-117-23 24 0080 - KATHLEEN SHERIDAN, 4407 WILSHIRE BLVD., #302F PID #14-117-24 14 0017 - JOHN ESSE, 5773 GRANDVIEW, BLVD. PID #13-117-24 23 0027 - FLOYD PALM, 1910 COMMERCE BLVD. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to accept the Assessor,s recommended value on the above properties. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 10. PID #19-117-23 13 0123 - ROBT. NYGAARD, LAKEWINDS CONDO. The Assessor recommended no change in the value of $29,200. Mr. Nygaard was present and objected to the value. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to accept the Assessor,s recommended value of $29,200 on PID #19-117-23 13 0123. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried· 11. PID #23-117-24 44 0002 - JEFFREY BERGMANN, 3032 HIGHLAND BLVD. The Assessor recommended no change. 12. 13. 14. 15. PID #13-117-24 41 0035 - DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE The Assessor recommended reducing from $165,200 to $154,000. PID #24-117-24 43 0034 - MELVIN ZUCKMAN, 5012 TUXEDO BLVD. The Assessor recommended no change in value of $117,000. PID #25-117-24 21 0102 - WILLIAM JOHNSON, 5300 PIPER ROAD The Assessor recommended no change in value of $103,000. PID #23-117-24 23 0106 - WALTER LARSON, 2631 SETTER CIRCLE The Assessor recommended no change in value of $96,000. ! I I I MOUND ~ COUNC~ ~ MAF 25. 1993 16. PID #13-117-24 31 0073 - CLARK PETERS, 2146 NOBLE LANE The Assessor recommended no Change in value of $68,200. 17. PID #19-117-23 13 0025 PID #19-117-23 13 0129 PID #19-117-23 24 0060 - TED FOX, 4363 WILSHIRE BLVD. (LAKEWINDS CONDOMINIUMS) The Assessor recommended no change in values. 18. PID 13-117-24 13 0009 - John T. Miller, 1712 Eagle Lane The Assessor recommended reducing the value from $52,000 to $42,000. 19. PID 14-117-24 34 0038 - Charles E. Cummins, 2230 Millpond Lane The Assessor recommended reducing the value from $97,000 to $92,000. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Smith to accept the Assessor,s recommendations on the above property values. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Smith and carried unanimously to adjourn the reconvened Board of Review at 7:45 PM. Motion carried. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 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 Linda Strong, City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following interested citizens: Dan Aretz, Bob Nygaard, Alberta Wigand, Gordon Simons, Dixie and Ned Dow, Peter Meyer, Paula Messer, Phil and Eva Hasch, Ray and Sue Falls, Lin Terwilliger, Roxanne and Jeffrey Ritenour, Bruce A. McComb, Sandra and Joel Laskey, Dennis Hansen, Jim Bedell, Shelly Dorian, Julie Lilledahl, Vernon Christiansen, Margaret and Dayton Williamson, Tom Tart, Dorie Finn, Drew Wilkinson, Lewis and Sue Anderson, John Doom, Dick and Mary McCurdy, Sue and Jeff Erickson, Tom DeNeui, Chuck Faith, Ted Hansen, Sally Pieper, Kathy Okins, Bernard Gaudette, Bud Muttener, Dennis Hedn, Diane Maloney, Parker Hodges, Dorothy and William Netka, Del Pfeifer, George Werner, Russ and Betty Falness, Verna and Cklair Hasse, Sally Bedell and Jody Johnson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. 3 MOUI~D CKI'Y COUNCIL ~ MAY 2~, 1993 The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 Approve the minutes of the May 11, 1993, Board of Review meeting, May 11, 1993 Regular Meeting and the May 18, 1993 Committee of the Whole Meeting. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 11, 1993 Board of Review, the May 11, 1993 regular meeting and the May 18, 1993 Committee of the Whole. 1.1 Proclamation of July 1, 1993 as Bruce Miller Day in the City of Mound. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following: PROCLAMATION #93-60 PROCLAIMING JULY 1, 1993, AS BRUCE MILLER DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE ~93-012~ GARY & KATHLEEN SPAULDING, 5335 BAYWOOD SHIRES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117- 24 21 0069. REQUEST: VARIANCE. Building Inspector Jon Sutherland explained this item. Staff had originally recommended to the Planning Commission that if lack of hardship or practical difficulty exists the request should be denied. It is found that practical difficulty exists due to the fact the house was poorly placed on the corner lot and that it is reasonable to allow the further encroachment of 7.5' into the front yard, and further that the addition will create a more condusively designed house for the neighborhood, a favorable recommendation could be made. The Planning Commission recommendation was approval of the variance by a 5 to 3 vote. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to accept the Planning Commission,s recommendation to approve the variance. Motion failed with of vote of 3 to Z, with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting no. Motion failed. MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to direct city attorney to prepare a resolution of denial for the variance request on case %93-012. Motion carried, Ahrens voting no. MOUI~ CITY COUNCIL M~ MA¥25. 1993 1.3 CASE f93-015: JEFFREY RITENOUR, 5656 BARTLETT BLVD. LOTS 11 TO 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID #23-117-24 14 0027. REOUEST: MINOR SUBDIVISION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a Minor Subdivision to create two lots, both of which will be conforming to the minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square feet. Parcel A is proposed with 8,451 square feet and Parcel B with 6,607 square feet. Parcel A has an existing nonconforming dwelling due to the front yard setback of 11.5' resulting in an 8.5' setback variance which was recognized by Resolutions #91-43 and #92-110. Staff recommended approval with conditions listed in the resolution. The applicant agreed to the conditions. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 93-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND A VARIANCE FOR 5656 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 11 TO 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID #23-117-24 14 0027, P & Z CASE 93- 015. The resolution carried with a 4 to 1 vote, Jensen voting nay. 1.4 CASE J93-017: RAYMOND & SUZANNE FALLS, BLVD., LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DRIFTWOOD SHORES, 0001. REQUEST: VARIANCE. 5503 THREE POINTS PID #13-117-24 22 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed this item with Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-62 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DRIFTWOOD SHORES, 5503 THREE POINTS BLVD., PID #13- 117-24 22 0001, P & Z CASE #93-017. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present had any comments or suggestions for the Council. Michael Durell approached Council and spoke against removal of the mid-block crosswalks at 5555 Shoreline Drive. Dorothy Netka, Del Pfeiffer of Wayzata and Dayton Williamson spoke with regard to the removal of the crosswalks. Council stated that there was ample parking in the rear of the building. MOUND CITY COUNC~ MIN~IEg MAY25, 1~93 1.6 CHARLES & MARY FAITH, 4625 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 10, BLOCK 1, DEVON, DOCK SITE #41319. REOUEST: LAND ALTERATION TO TRIM VEGETATION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed this item, discussing the 6 conditions that are listed in the proposed resolution. The dead wires can be removed by the applicant. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-63 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAND ALTERATIONS PEI~ZTANDA CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L~qDS PER~ZT TO ALLOW THE TRIMMING OF SUMACH ~qD REPLACEMENT OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS, ABUTTING 4625 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 10, BLOCK 1, DEVON ABUTTING DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE %41319 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 JOEL & SANDRA LASKEY (1749 SUMACH LANE), ABUTTING ADDRESS - 4901 THREE POINTS BLVD., LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT, DOCK SITE #02930. REOUEST: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW STAIRWAY. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, reviewed this with Council. He stated that the area did not have a stairway and one was needed to access the dock. The Park Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-64 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STAIRWAY AT DOCK SITE #02950 ABUTTING THREE POINTS BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 TOM & PEGGY JAMES (5078 WOODLAND ROAD), ABUTTING ADDRESS - 1559 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 12, 2 & 3, BLOCK 3, WOODLAND POINT, DOCK SITE #02040. REOUEST: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS TO REPLACE EXISTING STAIRWAY. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed this item. that the Park Commission recommended approval. He stated Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: 6 I? o MOUND ~ COUNCIA M~rlF~ M~Y ZSo 1~3 RESOLUTION %93-65 RESOLUTION TO ~PPROVE ~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLic LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE I~ECONSTRUCTION OF ~ ST~IRW~Y ON W~URII~ COI~ONS, ABUTTIN~ ~559 E~LE L~TE~ LOTS 2~ 3~ · 12~ B~CK 3~ W~D~ ~I~ ~CK SITE %02040 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 WILLARD WAYNE & LIN TERWILLIGER, 2945 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 34, WYCHWOOD, DOCK SITE #50970. REOUEST: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS TO REPLACE EXISTING STAIRWAY. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated that the Parks Commission recommended approval. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-66 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON BRIOHTON COMMONSt ABUTTINO 2945 CAMBRIDOE LANEt LOTS 9 & 10t BLOCK 34, WYCHWOOD, DOCK SITE %5O970 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 DEAN HANUS, 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 7, BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #42351. REOUEST~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS TO CONSTRUCT STAIRWAY LANDINGS. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated the applicant is seeking a permit to construct an upper landing attached to the existing boathouse and a mid-landing for the stairway. The original stairway was constructed without a permit and portions of it removed according to the City Council order. Mr. Hanus would like to put it back together to gain access to his dock. The applicant request includes anchoring the upper landings to the boathouse that has been ordered to be removed by the Council. This request is directly contrary to the City's prior order. Approval of connection would conflict with City Council's decision of December 10, 1991 and May 26, 1992. Dean Hanus was present and discussed the conditions of the resolution one by one with Council. Mr. Hanus does not agree with Item lA: Item B was agreeable; Item C needed to be discussed further; Item D, not willing to buy plants to hide railing; Item E, strike first sentence; Item F, agreed; Item G, agreed; Item H, doesn't agree to have electrical contractor disconnect power supply temporarily; Item I, won't sign any documents with the City of Mound; Item J, regarding lawsuit, he feels he sued the City; Item K, doesn't agree to file actions with 7 MOUI~CI'I~COUNC~ M~O'IF~ MAY~,I995 the county. The City Attorney commented that this was for a new buyer to be aware, this information needs to be filed with county and city so people are advised. Records need to be kept as to ownership of private structures that exists on the commons. Intent is to prevent future problems by filing this information with county and city. Councilmember Ahrens inquired about retaining walls being built on abutting commons and being filed with the City and county as a responsibility of the property owner has never been done before, why now? Mayor Johnson stated that the staff did an excellent job in preparing this resolution considering the litigation in effect. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution as submitted: Discussion followed. Ahrens disagreed with the filing requirement. Mr. Hanus did do electrical repair on commons without an electrical permit, violating state law. The Council could not approve the electrical permit after Mr. Hanus has it temporarily disconnected. Councilmember Smith withdrew motion and Mayor Johnson withdrew his second. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the resolution with the changes to delete the first sentence in item E and add to item H "...must be temporarily disconnected by a qualified electrical contractor and verified by staff.,, Also plantings are to be paid for by the applicant. The vote was called. RESOLUTION #93-67 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF STAIRWAY LANDINGS ON DEVON COMMONS WITH THE ABOVE CHANGES~ ABUTTING 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 7~ LOT 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #42351. The vote carried 4 to 1, with Ahrens voting no. 1.11 BRUCE A. MCCOMB, 3005 BRIGHTON BLVD., LOTS 2, 3, 34 & 35, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, DOCK SITE #50640. ~ LAND ALTERATION TO TRIM BUSHES. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated that Bruce wanted to only trim the lilacs 1-2 feet and not to remove them totally from the commons. Mr. McComb stated that he has maintained the area, mowed the lawn for 5 years. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: MOUI~ CITY COUNCIL MAY 25, 1993 RESOLUTION J93-68 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALLOW THE TRIMMING OF LILAC BUSHES LOCATED ON BRIGHTON COMMON, ABUTTING 3005 BRIGHTON BLVD., LOTS Z, 3v 34 & 35, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, DOCK SITE %50640. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Ned Dow, 4944 Manchester Road, asked that neighbors be notified when changes were imminent on the commons. 1.12 PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTIES. City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed this item with Council. There are six properties involved. The Park Commission would like a decision held until the Nature Conservation Area Plan is approved by the Council. The plan should be coming within the next month. MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Smith to concur with the Park and Open Space Commission and hold off a decision on these 6 properties until we have the Nature Conservation Area Plan approved. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 REQUEST TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL ON WATER BILL ISSUE - ~ WILLIAMSON (FORMER PROPERTY.OWNER AT 2012 VILLA LANE, NOW RESIDENT OF WOODBURY). City Manager Ed Shukle informed Council on this item. Mr. Williamson has an outstanding water bill of $95.40 and he is disputing this for several reasons. Mr. Williamson came forth, producing a jar of bad looking water from his 2012 Villa Lane address. He discussed with the Council several times that he was advised by the Water Department to flush his pipes, that pressure was bad, pipes were to small. He had run water all summer to clear up color. Mayor Johnson suggested splitting the bill, Mr. Williamson had no objections. MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to split the utility bill of $95.40 with Mr. Williamson. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. MOUI~CO~C~ MI~F..g MAYPo1993 1.14 REPORT FROM RENTAL HOUSING TASK FORCE RE: REVIEW OF PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE - JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, reviewed this item with the Council. He stated that the Rental Housing Task Force had worked hard and that he appreciated their efforts. Jon stated that this revised draft of the Rental Housing Ordinance was very basic, there were no fees for property owners, no licensing required, no mandatory inspections, no added staffing. Inspections would be by complaint only. Council discussed stating the ordinance will now go to the Planning Commission for their review on June 28, 1993, they will then set a date for a Planning Commission public hearing, then the Council will receive the draft and they will set a public hearing date. Jim Bedell, member of the Rental Housing Task Force - Stated several incorrect facts that had been printed by news sources about the rental housing ordinance. He read a statement from the Task Force stating that an ordinance such as this is not needed as laws are set by the state, county and Mound's Building Code. The following citizens spoke against having a rental housing Ordinance: Gordon Simons - 3017 Longfellow Lane, Mound Ted Hanson - 5133 Meadow Ridge, Edina Dennis Heckes - 3225 Tuxedo. Blvd. John Doom - 3600 Wedgewood Lane, Plymouth Dorothy Netka - 2360 Commerce Blvd. This item will be on the agenda for the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993. 1.15 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE LMCD LAKE ACCESS PARKING AGREEMENT. GTE had withdrawn their parking lot as a possible parking site for car/trailers. Council's concern was how signage was to be done. Where and how were these parking places going to be made known to the boater? Council took no action. At 11:15 PM City Council went into Executive Session. At 12:20 AM, the Executive Session ended and the regular council meeting resumed. Upon returning from Executive Session, City Attorney Curt Pearson, stated that the Council will, by motion, appoint Allen Barnard to represent the City with Dakota Rail as substitute attorney and to do the trial work, and to confirm the terms by letter. 10 MOUND CKIY COUNCll~ M~ MAY 25, 1993 MOTION by Jensen, secondedbySmith to appoint Allen Barnard as an attorney to represent the City in pending litigation with Dakota Rail, as stated by the city attorney. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. City Attorney, Curt Pearson, mentioned a letter received from Mr. Flack and neighbors on Bluebird Lane. The Council is directing him to meet with the counsel for the property owners and to discuss the legal research that has been done and to discuss their points and our points and report back to the Council. Council agreed. 1.16 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT JOINING THE WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD ON A TRIAL BASIS. City Manager, Ed Shukle, reviewed this item stating that the cost to join was $50 through 1994. The City did belong long ago. He mentioned the items in the resolution that this service provides. Council discussed that each member should attend at least one meeting to research the purpose of the City belonging. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-69 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITELAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 (BINGO DURING MOUND CITY DAYS AT MOUND BAY PARK - JUNE 20, 1993). Smith moved, Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-71 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #398. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITELAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS (PULL TABS DURING MOUND CITY DAYS DANCE AT POND ARENA - JUNE 19, 1993.) Smith moved, Ahrens seconded the following resolution: 11 MOUND ~ COUNCll. M~lU~ RESOLUTION #93-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.19 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION by ~ensen, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $552,495.86, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .!NFORMATION/N!SCELLANEOUS: April 1993 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro Finance Director. ' Be Invitation from City of Orono re: Open House at new city hall scheduled for Sunday, June 20, 1993, 1-4 pm. Memorandum dated May 19, 1993 from Mark Koegler City Planner, on timetable of Teal Pointe EAW process. De Excerpt from May 10, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes re: recommendation on park dedication fees. Ee Invitation from MWCC re: budget meetings. Our area is scheduled for Friday, June 4, 7:30 - 9 am, at T- Wrights's in Minnetonka. Please let Linda know if you want to attend. Fe Parade invitations for Mound City Days. Please submit your own registration by May 25th to person indicated on form. G. Results of evaluation on Cleanup/Recycling Days. He REMINDER_____[.- Memorial Day Holiday May 31, 1993 City offices will be closed. ' REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Walk Saturday, June 12, 1993. Spaghetti feed on Friday, June 11, 1993 all at Mound Bay Park. J. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 18-20. K. REMI____~NDER: Bruce Miller Day, Thursday, July 1, 1993. L. Annual AMM Salary Survey for Elected Officials. 12 MO~DCKI~COUNC~ M~F.~ M. Letter from Minnesota Association of Housing Code Officials re: statewide housing code. N. Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 1993. O. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-10-93. MAY 25, 1993 13, HOTION by Smith, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 12:45 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., city Manager Attest: Acting city Clerk 13 uJr~ur~ ir.L: ,>~-202~ Jun U3.9,5 1/J:42 No.OiU P.U2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR 5335 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 5, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0069 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-012 WI~KREAS, the applicants, Gary and Katbleen Spaulding, have applied for a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive and to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to BaYwood Lane to allow construction of an addition, and WBEREAS, 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 W~EREAS, the City Council, after thorough.review of the facts involved in this case, and the Mound City Code regulations regarding the R-1 ~oning District and specifically the 30 foot front yard setback requirement has determined that the 9ranting of the variance request is not consistent with the criteria set forth in City Code Section 350:05 for variances, and WBEREAS, in this case there has been insufficient showing of hardship or practical difficulty to warrant granting a variance, and W~EREAS, there is currently a .94 foot encroachment to the front~ yard setback, and the proposed addition includes an entryway which would result in further encroachment into the required 30 foot setback of 7 5 feet, and · W~EREAS, when the applicants' house was constructed it was poorly placed on the corner lot but substantially according to the setbacks required at that time, and WI~EREAS, the applicants' case was presented to the Planning Commission on April 12 and May 10, 1993, and the Commission recommended approval with 5 in favor and $ opposeS, NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby deny the request for a 7.5' front yard setback variance to Baywood Shores Drive to allow construction of an addition at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive based upon the following findings: There is at present a minor encroachment into the front yard setback. The request is to increase the encroachment to 7.5 feet (22.5 feet from the street). L~. UUY/UUZ June 8, 1993 Mr. Jon Sutherland, Building Inspector City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon: SUBJECT: Request for Variance at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive I am aware of the Mound City Council,s action denying my request for a variance. We would like to ask the council to send the variance request back to the Planning Commission so we may submit a modified proposal. Thank you for hearing this request. Sincerely, Gary Spaulding 5335 Baywood Shores Drive Mound, MN 55364 ~1-' L t Jill I~L: O0~-262b Jun Ub,~j6 14:42 No.U1U P,U6 Variances are to be used in cases of hardship such as lot size, lot shape, soils, topographic conditions, and things of that nature. In this case there is no showing of hardship but merely for the property owners' Convenience. Allowing variances without true hardship or extenuating circumstances would merely circum- vent the ordinance setback requirements and perpetuate the difficulties in getting properties in the City to conform to current ordinances. E. The fact the existing house was poorly placed on a corner lot does not provide justification for varying the setback requirements. F. The Council finds that the granting of the requested variance would confer on the applicants special privileges that are denied by the zoning code to other owners of land in the same residential district. The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties in the area, since no hardship has been shown on the owners of this property other than convenience to justify the issuance of the variance. The Council further finds that if general standards and requirements are waived or relaxed for one property owner, other property owners have the right to expect the same type of treatment or their constitutional rights would be adversely affected by failing to apply the eqoal protection rules of the constitution for all citizens. · ' IE "D JUN $ Environmer Assessment Worksheet (EAW) NOTE TO PREPARERS This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit IRGU) or its asents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary ~or the worksheet, but is not to complete the fmal worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksb~'t contact the Minn~ Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or conmlt "EAW Guidelines," a bookie: available from the E(~. NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an ElS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness bf the information and suggest issues for investisation in the ElS. 1. Pm]sctTltie TEAL pOINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Teal Pointe Development Co. 3. RGU City of Mound 2. proposer Contact person Neil Weber Contact person Mark Koegler Address 3952 Louisiana Ave. S. and title City Planner Minneapolis~ MN 55426 Address 5341 Maywood Road Phone 926-1156 - Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-0600 4. Reason for EAW Prel~mtion Fl ElS scopin8 [] mandatory EAW If EAW or ElS W mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 5. Project Loc,,tlon North~.. ~/+ ~ 1-/4 Section 25 Township County Hennepin Attach cot~s of tach of the following to the EA W: citizen petition [] RGU discretion O Proposer volunteered Not mandatory 117 P~n~e 24 Ci__i~/Twp Mound a. a county map showing the ~enera] location of the pm~ct; Exhibit 1, Page 12 b. copy(les) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1'/4,000 scale map (photocopy is Ok') indicating the pro~t boundaries; E xh i b i t 2 ,P ag e C. a site pla~. show~.' .g all signifjc~n, t. ?.re~c~,.and~na_t_ur~, ~features. Exhibit 3, Page lfl d. C't Section. LXRiD1L 4, MSQU I. . D~scrlp~o~ G~ve. complete description of the pro~.~ed pro~t ana ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timin8 and duration of construction activities. See attached, Page 7 13 Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice: , See attached, Page 7 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. rrir BH MEMORANDUM May 26, 1993 To: File From: Bruce Chamberlain Re~ Possibility of rare natural features on the Teal Pointe property and impacts of development. I spoke yesterday with Bonita Eliason, the endangered resources/environmental review specialist for the DNR, about the ecological impacts of development on Teal Pointe and whether an on-site ecological survey may be warranted. I described the site as 5.7 acres in size, 2.5 of which is a wetland. I mentioned that the property contained a single family residence until roughly 1982. Species of Oak, Maple, Sumac and various other species associated with old-field succession are present on the property. I mentioned that the steeply sloped area of the site contains a fairly stable upland hardwood plant community and the area which at one time was the home and 'yard location contains an early successional plant community with mostly weedy species. It was Ms. Eliason's opinion that due to the small size of the site and history of human disturbance, it is unlikely that it contains habitat for rare species, plant or animal. Rare plant species are usually found in pristine plant communities, relatively undisturbed by humans. Ms. Eliason mentioned that two rare animal species, the Red Shouldered Hawk and the Blanding's Turtle, have been located in the Lake Minnetonka region. It is possible but unlikely that this site is used as a nesting location for these species. The Red Shouldered Hawk requires large sites of undisturbed habitat for nesting and Teal Pointe would be much too small unless it were immediately adjacent to a large nesting habitat. The Blanding's Turtle feeds in the lake but nests in upland, sandy, open areas which are not present on the site. Ms. Eliason indicated that development will inevitably impact the species currently living on this site and cause some to disappear and others to adapt to the development. TEALEA W2. MEM Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. IniT[ I iH MEMORANDUM May 26, 1993 To: File From: Bruce Chamberlain Re~ Possibility of rare natural features on the Teal Pointe property and impacts of development. I spoke yesterday with Bonita Eliason, the endangered resources/environmental review specialist for the DNR, about the ecological impacts of development on Teal Pointe and whether an on-site ecological survey may be warranted. I described the site as 5.7 acres in size, 2.5 of which is a wetland. ! mentioned that the property contained a single family residence until roughly 1982. Species of Oak, Maple, Sumac and various other species associated with old-field succession are present on the property. I mentioned that the steeply sloped area of the site contains a fairly stable upland hardwood plant community and the area which at one time was 'the home and yard location contains an early successional plant community with mostly weedy species. It was Ms. Eliason's opinion that due to the small size of the site and history of human disturbance, it is unlikely that it contains habitat for rare species, plant or animal. Rare plant species are usually found in pristine plant communities, relatively undisturbed by humans. Ms. Eliason mentioned that two rare animal species, the Red Shouldered Hawk and the Blanding's Turtle, have been located in the Lake Minnetonka region. It is possible but unlikely that this site is used as a nesting location for these species. The Red Shouldered Hawk requires large sites of undisturbed habitat for nesting and Teal Pointe would be much too small unless it were immediately adjacent to a large nesting habitat. The Blanding's Turtle feeds in the lake but nests in upland, sandy, open areas which are not present on the site. Ms. Eliason indicated that development will inevitably impact the species currently living on this site and cause some to disappear and others to adapt to the development. TEALEA W2. MEM Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (6t2) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 J ! 1, I · Ii i ~ SCHWARZ / WEBER ARCHITECTS PROJECT: 3952 LOUISIANA AVE S · MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 PRO]ECT NU~BFR: TO: RE: I I I I I MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345-1597 office: (612) 939-8320 fax: (612) 939-8244 DISTRICT COORDINATOR: Ellen B, K]anderman BOARD OF MANAGERS: C Woodrow Love · John E. Thomas · Ciarkson Lindley Thomas Maple Jr · Thomas W. LaBoun~ · Martha S. Hariliei · Pamela G Bi,x1 June 3, 1993 WATZRSHED BOUNDARY / LAKE MINNETONKA Permit Application No.93-50 Applicant= Teal Pointe Development Co./Netl Weber 3952 Louisiana Avenue S. Minneapolis, HN 55426 Location: City of Mound, Tl17, R24, Bec. 25, NE 1/4 Purpose= Stormwater management plan involving construction of a nine lot subdivision and cul-de-sac called "Teal Point Development". Dear Mr. Weber: At the regularly scheduled May 27, 1993 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: 1. Permit Application 93-50 received March 15, 1993. 2. Preliminary plat received March 15, 1993. 3. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations received March 15, 1993. 4. Baffled weir detail received March 15, 1993. 5. Design information for individual homes received March 24, 1993. 6. Letter from applicant's engineer received March 24, 1993. 7. Revised grading and drainage plan received April 2, 1993. Permit Application No. 93-50 Page Two June 3, 1993 Action was taken to approve your permit application pending receipt and staff approval of the following exhibits: 1. Completion of EAW approval process. Demonstration that city has accepted the proposed drainage easement associated with the stormwater pond. The following conditions will be placed on the permit due to the steep grade of the proposed road into the development and the filling necessary to construct the road. Pond grading and outlet construction shall be completed prior to other grading and filling activities. A sediment barrier shall be placed around the inside of the pond outlet. Ail disturbed areas shall be either seeded and mulched or sodded within 48 hours of the completion of grading. Slopes 2:1 or steeper shall be sodded and staked. Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted and you have been notified of permit issuance. Sincerely, Ellen B. Klanderman District Coordinator cc: Mark Gronberg, Coffin and Gromberg, Inc. Jon Sutherland, City of Mound EBK/cr June 5, 1993 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Mr. Neil Weber Teal Pointe Development 3952 Louisiana Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55438 Dear Mr. Weber: Re: Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Teal Pointe Development Mound, Hennepin County MHS Referral File Number: 93-0911 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. We have reviewed the results of the survey of the project area by the Section 106 Group. Based on the results of this survey, we feel that the probability of any unreported properties being located in the area of potential effect is low. Please note that a separate consultation with the Indian Affairs Council is necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act are met. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions on our review of this project. Sincerely, Britta L. Bloomberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer BLB: drab cc: The Section 106 Group Ltd. Roger Head, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Earl Sargent, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council PmJee! Magnitude Data Total Project Arm (acres) Number of Residential Units Unattached 9 acres or Length (miles) Attached 0 Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) Total N.A. ~quare feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office N.A. Retail N.A. Warehouse N_ A Light Industrial N. A. Other Commerdal (specify) N.A. Building Height(s) Manufacturing N.A. Other Industrial , N, A. lnstitutior~! N.A. Agricultural N. A Standard residential (under 35') N.A. 8. Permits and Approvals Requital List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required: Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Mound Preliminary Plat Approved with conditions (see Exhibit 8), Page 35 City of Mound Final Plat Yet to be submitted Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Stormwater Management Plan (see Exhibit 9), Page 42 Approved with conditions Department of Health Water Utility Plans To be submitted with Final Plat End Uu Descr;be current and recent past ]and use and dev~opment on the gte and on ad,cent Lands. [:)iscu~ the compatibili~ of the project with ad,cern and nearby land u~s; ~dicate wh~h~ any potential confli~s ~volve environmental ma~s. Identify any potenth] environmental bayard due W p~t land uses, such ~ ~ ~ntamination or abandoned sWrage ~n~. See attached, Page $ 10. 11. Cover Types Estimate the acrea.ge of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): in square feet Before After Bdore A~ter Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 113,996 113,996 Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 48 ,~4~ Wooded/Forest 4[-]: ~l~fi 34: 000 Landscaping Brush/Grassland gA, 7 ~9 97; 900 Impervious Surface O ~6 Cropland 0 0 Other (descn"ve) 0 Fl Rsh, Wlldllfe, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. See attached, Page 8 b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or spedal-concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? [] Yes ~ No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. See attached, Page 8 tiS1 Phy~cal Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrolos;ic alteration (dredge,~ fillins, stream diversion, outfa]l structure, dikin& impoundment) of any surface water Oake, pond, wet]and, stream, drainage ditch)? I"l yes I~ No If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, includin8 the construction process; volumes of dredged or flu material; area affected; lensth of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Adjacent wetland to remain undisturbed. 1:3. Wmr Use a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? I~ Ye~ ~] No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known). There is an existing well on the previous residential site (see Exhibit lO)~ Page 47 Well will be properly sealed before development. b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? r"l yes ~ No If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on 8~otmd water levels. ~ Will the project require connection to a public water supply? I~1 yes I'q No If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. Development will be supplied by City of Mound municipal water service. Useage will be under lO,O00 gallons/day and I million gallons/year. 14. Wa~-related Land Use Management Dletrict~ Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? rg yes I-1 No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compat~'billty of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. See attached, Page Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? I-1 Yes [~ No ~th If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with er users or fish and wildlife resources. 16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to: Ground water: minimum 18 ' average 2~; ' Bedrock: minimum 88 ' average 120 ' Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.) There are two soil classifications on the site (EnO &EnE), both in the E~-~-n series as classified by the SCS. Erin soils are deep, well-drained and moderately fine textured soils that formed from glacial till. Soils provide good bearing capacity and require coarse backfill material to insure drainage from buildings. 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 0.75 ; cubic yards ] ,788 Describe any steep slopes or highly erodib]e soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. See attached, Page 9 ! ! 1, I ! Ii, I ~ ~8. W.m Ouellty. 6urfa~ WaW Runoff ~- Compare the (:jua~tity a~ quality o[ site rcmo~ before a~cl a~ter the j:~-o~ct. Describe methode to be used to tm. at nmoE. See attached, Page 9 bo Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (l~ flu~ runoff nury aff~t a !~ consult 'EA W Guidelines" a~out whgther a nutrient b~dggt tna~s~ is nggdgd.) See attached, Page 10 19, Water Guallty. Wsstsw~tsrs. ~. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. Development produces normal domestic sewage. Sewage calculated at: 9 units x 2.5 occupants x 100 gal./person/day = 2,250 gal./day b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge may affect a ~ consu/t "EAW Guiddines' about whether a nutri~ budget analysis is n~d~d.) N.A. - Treated by municipal system. C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. See m~tnched, Pnge 10 .~0. Ground WB~r- Pot~Ug ~or Conl~n~mdon a. Appm~te d~ (~ ~) to ~d wat~: 18 ' ~; 26 ' avenge. b. ~ ~y of the ~o~g sim ~s m ~d ~mr ~d ~ iden~ ~em on ~e sim map: s~ol~; sh~ow l~ne ~aeons/~t ~ndi~om; mils ~ Mgh ~ffi~on mtn; a~don~ or ~u~ we~s. ~ m~u~ m avoid or ~e ~en~ problems due ~ ~y of ~ ~s. There is an existing well on the previous residential site (see Exhibit 10), Page 50 ~ell will be properly sealed before development. CJ Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. None 21. Solid Wastes; H~z~rdous Wast~; S~0r~ge T~nks IL Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. No wastes of this type will be generated. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). None 22. ?ra~¢ Parking spaces added 18 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0 Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 9[-] Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: ] f r i n/h eveninQ. For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. ' Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will See attached, Page 10 23. Vehicle-related air emlsslonl Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the Froject involves SO0 or more parking spaces, consult "EA W Guidelines" about whether a d~tailed air quality analysis is n~ded.) See attached, Page 10 24. Stationary ~0urce air amlsslona Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? n Yea ~ No If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? R'I Yes 0 No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vidnity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. A limited and likely insignificant amount of dust will be generated by home construction and gicen site characteristics, windborne dust will be minimal. Noise levels will be normal for single-family home construction. 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? [] Yes [] No Research underway. Exhibit 12, Page 56 D. prime or unique farmlands? 0 Yes ffl No C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? [] Yes [] No d. scenic views and vistas? [] Yes n No e. other unique resources? [] Yes [] No wetlands If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. See attached, Page 11 27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and larg~ vis:~le plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) [] Yes I~ No If yes, explain. 28. Project is compatible with City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan. The current Plan and past Plans have designated the site for residential uses. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or f~deral agency? [:~ Yes [] No If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain. 29. imp~t on InfrH~ctur. and Publl~ ~ervl0el Will new or expanded utilities, toads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? [] Yes I-1 No If yes, de~ribe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any ~nfrasfructure th~ fs a "c~nntcted action" ~fh ~espect to the Froject must bt assessed in this EAW; see "EA W Guidelines"far details.) See attached, Page 11 30. Related 0eveloprmnts; Cumulative Impacts a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? [] Yes t~ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? [] Yes [] No If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review. C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? [] Yes K] No If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project. d. If a,b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. 31. Other Potential Envlmnmentsl Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items I to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None ~2. SUMMARY OF ISSUES (This sect/on need not be completed i/the EAW/s being done for EI$ scop/ng; instead, address relevant issues in the draft $coping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. See attached, Page ll CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU notice in the EOB Monitor) A. (all 3 certifications must be signed for EOB acceptance of tho EA W for publication of I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or "phased actions," as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60. Signature I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list. Signature Title of signer Date Attachments to the EAW: Teal Pointe Residential Development page 7 Abstract to use in the EQB Monitor Teal Pointe is a proposed 9 lot residential development in Mound, MN. The 5.7 acre site is on a peninsula surrounded on the east by wetland. The peninsula is significantly lower than adjacent residential areas and contains scattered mature trees, principally around the perimeter. The owner proposes several development techniques to minimize environmental impacts. #6 Teal Pointe is a proposed 9 lot residential development in Mound, MN. The 5.7 acre site is on a peninsula surrounded on the east by a wetland and on the west by an existing residential development. The peninsula is approximately 35 feet lower than the existing homes and streets to the west. The site contains scattered mature trees of the upland hardwood varieties, principally arotmd the perimeter. The remainder of the property contains old-field succession tree, brush and grassland cover. There are steep slopes (exceeding 30%) on lots 1-3, slopes of roughly 12% on lots 4 and 5 and less severe slopes on lots 6-9. See Exhibit 5, page 16 for further site information. Six of the 9 lots will be served by a 365' extension of Windsor Road terminating in a cul de sac. The remaining 3 lots will be served by an 80' dead-end extension of Drummond Road. The development will have a density of roughly 3 to 4 d.u./acre. See Exhibit 6, page 32 for total site tabulations. The site plan for Teal Pointe is designed to have much less of an impact on the environment than a typical residential subdivision. Yard areas will be kept to a minimum, homes will be built in such a way to lessen the amount of grading required and a vegetative buffer will be maintained between the yard areas and the adjacent wetland. Since a majority of the site contains brush/grassland cover, homes can, in many cases, be placed on the lots in a way that will minimize the impact on mature trees. The development will be served by City water and sewer so there will be no wells or septic systems. Homes on lots 1-3 will be built on stilts to minimize grading on the steep slopes. Only the mechanical area of the home will be in contact with the ground (see Exhibit 7, page 33). The lots will have virtually no landscaped areas, leaving the site around the homes as natural as possible. Homes and yards on lots 4-9 will be more conventional, taking advantage of the less steep slopes. Homes on all the lots will be placed in a way to minimize tree impact although lots 1-3 will inevitably loose trees. The new homes will have wood exteriors and will be stained in earth tones to insure compatibility with each other and the site. Special measures will be taken during the construction process to insure minimal impacts to the site. Excavation will be done with smaller than normal machinery, trees and brush will be protected to the extent possible, silt fences will be installed to protect the wetland and steep slopes and revegetation will occur as per directiofi from the Watershed District. ! ! 1, i J IJ I 1, Attachments to the EAW: Teal Pointe Residential Development #9 page 8 In the past, this site was a single family residence (see Exhibit 10, page 47). Through condemnation proceedings by the City of Mound, the home on the site was destroyed in 1982 by controlled fire and the lot was cleared. To the City's or property owner's knowledge, there is no subsurface contamination or other environmental hazards due to previous use on the site. The previous home site on the property was served by City water and sewer but there is a well on the site and there is a possibility that a septic system exists. If so, the septic system will be properly removed before development. The well will be properly sealed before development occurs. The adjacent land use is single family residential with densities of roughly 7 d.u./acre or 6,000 S.F./lot. The proposed development calls for densities in the range of 3 to 4 d.u./acre or averaging 12,800 S.F./lot. The proposed development will cause no conflict with surrounding land uses. The proposed development will connect to the public sanitary sewer system. No on-site septic systems are proposed. Municipal water service will supply the development. #1la Teal Pointe contains a wetland, bluff areas with over 30% slope, forested areas and savanna/grassland areas. A majority of the site has remained relatively undisturbed for a significant period of time. The new development proposes unique styles of homes and yards to minimize ecological impacts. The site is not in the immediate vicinity of any designated wildlife refuges or connected to any via upland habitat corridors. The wetland on the site is connected by a channel to Lake Minnetonka. Wetlands will be protected as required by the Mound Wetlands Ordinance (Section 350:1100 of the Mound City Code) and the Shoreland Management Ordinance (Section 350:1200 of the Mound City Code). Drainage from the proposed street and the fronts of five of the nine lots is to drain to a stormwater detention pond. Ail lots will be separated from the wetland with a vegetative buffer. #lib No on-site ecological survey has been conducted for Teal Pointe. According to the Natural Heritage Program of the MN/DNR there are no known designated rare natural species or features on the site. Hardscrabble Point Woods which is a designated rare Maple-Basswood Forest is roughly 1 mile from the site. See Exhibit 11, page 51 for Natural Heritage Program listing of rare natural features. The wetland and bluff areas on the site are ecologically sensitive and will require special care if the property is developed. Measures discussed in questions #6 and #1 la attempt to mitigate impacts on these features. ~ Attachments to the EAW: Teal Pointe Residential Development page 9 #14 The City of Mound has recently approved its Shoreland Management Ordinance and DNR approval is pending. Teal Pointe falls within the shoreland zone although at the time the subdivision was approved, the Shoreland Ordinance was not in effect. If the project proceeds, building permit applications will be subject to Shoreland Management standards. The aspect of the Shoreland Management Ordinance which would have affected this development is that aspect of the ordinance addressing bluff areas. The ordinance prohibits development in areas that are classified as bluffs (>30% slope) and requires a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff for all structures. Lots 1, 2 and 3 contain slopes exceeding 30% with a maximum slope approaching 45% on portions of Lot 1. Virtually all of Lots 1, 2 and 3 would be unbuildable if the shoreland provisions were applied. #17 A number of areas on this site contain very steep slopes (see Exhibit 5, page 26). As mentioned in question #6, silt fences will be installed during construction to protect steep slopes. Where disturbance occurs, revegetation will be carried out as per direction from the Watershed District. Soils on the site are not considered highly erodible. Post-construction erosion and sedimentation control measures are described in question//18. #18a Existing runoff from the site is calculated to be 4 cubic feet per second during a 100 year storm. Runoff from the developed site will be 3.01 cubic feet per second during a 100 year storm. See stormwater calculations in Exhibit 9, page 42. These figures indicate that the overall amount of runoff entering the wetland during a heavy rainstorm will decrease if the site is developed. Stormwater from Windsor Road along with runoff from the front yards of lots 5-9 will flow through a detention pond prior to entering the adjacent wetland. See Exhibit 8, page 40 for the location of the proposed detention pond. Currently, stormwater from existing Windsor Road flows directly into the wetland through a natural but eroded swale. If the development occurs, quality and quantity of the street runoff entering the wetland will likely be improved over the current situation due to the detention pond. Runoff from lots 1-4, the rear yards of lots 5-9 and the private extension of Drummond Road will overland flow toward the adjacent wetland. The amount of runoff from these portions of the property will likely increase with development because the runoff will not enter a detention pond. Attachments to the EAW: Teal Pointe Residential Development page 10 #18b All runoff from the Teal Pointe development which does not percolate into the soil will eventually run into the adjacent wetland. A water control device and skimmer (Exhibit 9, page 46) will be constructed at the outlet of the proposed detention pond which will control stormwater entering the wetland in this particular location. Runoff from areas of the site which do not drain to the detention pond will overland flow through a vegetative buffer which will be required between yards and the wetland. Quality of runoff entering the wetland should be higher than normal residential runoff due to smaller yards, lower impacts on the natural vegetation and as a result less need for pesticides and fertilizers. Water exiting the detention pond will be free of sediments and floating oils due to the weir devise (see detail in Exhibit 9, page 46). #19c Sanitary sewer service for Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be provided by private individual lift pumps with the forcemains combined into one common line located in Outlot A. This private line will discharge into the public system located in Drummond Road. Sanitary sewer for Lots 4-9 will be entirely public and will require a lift pump along the extension of Windsor Road. Discharge resulting from the complete development will be easily handled by existing public sewer capacity. #22 Streets accessing the Teal Pointe development are currently dead end streets with no more than 9 units on each street. Thus, current traffic levels are very low. Traffic generated by the proposed development would be divided between Drummond Road (1/3 of total) and Windsor Road (2/3 of total). Traffic impact will require no street modifications. In determining traffic impact, standards indicate 10 trips/day/lot for a total of 90 trips per day (30 trips on Drummond Road and 60 trips on Windsor Road). Peak hour would be evening ~ 1 trip/home and morning ~ 0.7 trips/home. #23 The Teal Pointe project is not expected to have a negative impact on air quality. During construction, equipment used for grading and home construction will generate additional exhaust fumes including carbon monoxide. Upon completion of the project, the vehicles used for daily activities by the nine homeowners will discharge exhaust emissions at normal levels as governed by Minnesota's vehicle emission standards. Attachments to the EAW: Teal Pointe Residential Development page 11 #26 The wetland adjacent to the Teal Pointe site is unique and provides scenic views. The proposed development may in some cases restrict the views to the wetland from existing homes. Given the grade difference between the existing residential area and proposed development, restricted views will be minimal. Also, the lower densities of the proposed development will allow greater visual openings to the wetland. //29 Windsor Road along with sewer, water, gas and electricity will be extended according to City standards, approximately 365 feet to accommodate the Teal Pointe development. The extension of Windsor Road will be 28 feet in width to match the existing roadway. This project is a single phase and will not result in future commitment to build infrastructure. //32 The Teal Pointe residential development is being proposed on a challenging site due to steep slopes, existing mature trees and an adjacent wetland. There is no doubt that the current ecological make-up of the site will change with development. Potential exists for adverse impacts to the wetland, increased erosion levels, sedimentation, adverse impacts to vegetation, loss of plant and animal species and increased runoff. A number of development techniques such as homes built on stilts, reduced yard areas, a stormwater detention pond, a vegetative buffer between yards and the wetland and careful construction methods are being proposed to diminish or eliminate the impacts to the site both during and after construction. The amount of erosion and sedimentation on the site and in the existing wetland should be diminished due to development, Vegetation will be impacted but much less than a typical residential development and runoff will be decreased after development. EXHIBIT I page 12 EXHIBIT 2 page 13 Z ,- ~' I O~. 07 u.'" 3: Z< ~_-_. , <~zz~ LI.I~ '' L-- '"'°' N30GO0 ' - C~ > 0 t= EXHIBIT 3 page 1. XHIBIT 4 Z ~ = : ti.)page 1,' EXHIBIT 5 page 16 NElL WEBER A R C HIT E C T / PLANNER page 1~ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA Site Area Tabulation 'SITE ANALYSIS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. Site Location Map Water Run-Off Slope Analysis/Wind Currents Vegetation Coverage Spacial Analysis Existing Conditions Climate Climate Sketch Plan (Mound approved July 6, 1992) Preliminary Plat Road Profile page 18 A. INTRODUCTION This application is a continuation of a process that was started in December of 1984. The concepts presented are simply a continuation of what was developed at that time. We have revised the plans to balance the lot sizes and provide the flexibility to more fully protect the uniqueness and beauty of the site. We have met with Mound Staff and Consultants a number of times to insure that we meet or exceed the standards expected by the city. We have also meet with gas, telephone and electric representatives to make sure that all utilities can and will be installed underground. The access drive further allows us to preserve the uniqueness of the site. Again this has not changed since the city supported the concept in 1984. The streets have been vacated which was the first step in allowing the development to proceed with the concept as presented. This is in fact a similar approach to what Jonathan has used in its' development in the City of Chaska. The following list illustrates the actions that the city has already taken to insure that this project be completed. Support of Development Concept The site concept which divided the site into 9 lots with a street access system was present and supported in 1984. A. Mound Planning Commission support 12/10/84 B. Mound Council support 12/26/84 Street Vacation Because the concept was supported the vaction of streets between the properties was completed. A. Mound Planning Commission support 4/8/85 B. Mound Council support 5/14/85 Conveyance of Tax Forfeit Property Because of the support of the development concept the city supported the conveyance of tax forfeit property to make the project more complete and of better quality. A. Mound Council approval 6/11/85 Approval of New Development Concept Plan A. Mound Planning Commission Sketch Plan Approval 7/8/91 page 19 WRITTEN STATMENT OF PROJECT · The Teal Pointe Development Co. is pleased to present for your approval, a plan for the development of single family homes oh the property located at the end of Windsor and Drummond Roads in Mound. We have analyzed the site according to environmental and physical conditions that are illustrated in the following diagrams. We feel that it is important to maintain the single family nature of the neighborhood. Therefore, we are proposing to subdivide the land into nine single family lots. We feel it is important that these sites be developed as a unified whole rather than individual sites with homes of rather questionable design. character. The intent, therefore, is to have a development of nine homes all designed by one person, being built to give a feeling of oneness. I feel this is.a very important characteristic which should be encouraged. It will be a unified community which will add to the value of the neighborhood. The area is currently zoned R2 and there is no intention to change' that zoning. Again, I want to emphasize that we are developing single family homes. The plan calls for nine lots to be developed on the property. If you count the area above the 929.5 elevation, it is important to note that each lot would average over 10,000 square feet. It is important for the protection of each of the individual lot owners as well as to the surrounding area that these areas be protected now and in the future. I can not emphasize enough the characteristics that I feel developments like this can be shown to be a real plus to the neighborhood by careful and thoughtful design work. The homes in this area would probably range in the $150,000 to $200,000 price range as a base price. I feel that this is an appropriate value for homes in this area because of the uniqueness of the site and the beauty of the surrounding Lake Minnetonka area. The lots will not be sold to seperate builders but rather will be developed by one entity to insure to total quality of design. Ail the home will be designed by Neil Weber, Architect to further insure the total "community" feel of this development. We would like to make this a project by which others could be measured. page 20 C. SITE ANALYSIS Critical in the production of a plan is a careful site analysis. We have found over a period of time that this site analysis can be done in two different ways. First, one may search rather aimlessly, forgetting the use to which the area is to be put, looking only at the site itself, and ~atching for interesting features and revealing clues. This type of unsystematic, almost subconscious, reconnaissance pften produces information or connections that would otherwise be missed. It is usually natural evolution, its former use and associations. Must of the flavor and structure of a place, as well as the present direction of change, is thereby revealed. Second, a more systematic survey can be undertake, guided by the purposes to be served. Each piece of ground should now be tested for the suitability for that purpose. Since the data that could be gathered is later influence the design in some significant way. Some types of information are almost always required, such as the topography, climatic data, and the survey of land use and circulation. The following categories illustrate this survey and the information gathered by it. Once the information is assembled, it can be put into a concise, usable form. It will then be brought to a final point -- a graphic and written statement describing the essential nature of the site for the purpose at hand. The principal problems raised by the location are set down, as well as the basic potentialities and values. This is the basis on which the design is developed. Site analysis is not a self-contained step that must be completed before the design begins. First thoughts on design accompany and guide the original reconnaissance, and analysis continues as long as the design is being created. The' image of the site guides the design. It does not dictate the design, nor will there by any unique best solution mystically latent in the site, waiting to be uncovered. The plan develops from the creative effort of the designer, but is must respond to the site and not disregard it. We are looking for the best possible use of this site in regard to developing single family homes. The following characteristics help influence our plan, and will result in a site plan that is conducive to what the people of Mound would accept and view as a good development for their community. page 21 1. Site Location Map The Site Location Map indicates where the particular site is located within Mound. The site is located in the central portion of the western end of .Lake Minnetonka, basically in the heart of the western lakes area. The site is located in a R2 zoning area where many of the lots are at.the minimum 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit. A couple of blocks away a commercial use A1 and Alma's Restaurant is located. The site is basically located at the dead ends of Drummond Road and Windsor Road. The site is surrounded on three sides by a deep wetlands area which is connected to Lake Minnetonka, Phelps Bay, by a channel and can be navigated by boat. The site is isolated from traffic because of these conditions. The site is surrounded by homes that range in value from $75,000-to $200,000. A short distance to the south are homes that approach the $250,000 value. 2. Water Run-Off The site is quite varied in its topography and the water run-off patterns are quite distinct on the property. While the property is lower than the surrounding street areas, it is still significantly higher than the wetland areas that surround it. Drawing 2 indicates the direction of the run-off. The design of the sub-division should reflect the fact that run-off patterns will not be changed under the new plan and, if fact, should not be altered. In some cases the speed of the run-off should be slowed down through various landscaping means. There has been no attempt to control the run-off conditions in the past in this area, resulting in some damage to the slough area. It is, therefore, intended that the current problems be reduced in the future. We have discussed this with Mound Staff. 3. Slope Analysis/Wind Current Slopes help to find spacial relationships within the site. More intense slopes have to be dealt with in different ways than shallow slopes. Slopes determine whether the units will be walk-out or flat. The existing topography is important to understand because any development that we would propose would be done within the intention of minimizing the amount of earth that needs to be moved. In so doing, the impact on the site would be reduced. There are some areas that are quite flat and others that are quite steep. Diagram 3 indicates the slopes that exist on the site, as well as the direction of the summer and winter winds. One advantage with the winter winds is that most of the site is protected on the northwest corner by higher ground, and most ~f the winter winds would go over the site helping to protect and insulate the site. The southeast summer winds would have more of an access to the site because of it coming up across the water, which is of course, lower than the site. page 22 Vegetation Coverage Most of the vegetation on the site exists around the edges. The site has been cleared of most of the dead and dying trees. There are no elms left on the site. In addition to the removal of the dead trees, a number of trees have been thinned out to help stregthen the growth of the existing trees. The center of the site has only a few major trees located as illustrated on Drawing 4. The basic type of vegetation on the site includes read oaks, sugar maple, lindens, birch, some pin oak and a lot of ingleboom ivy. It is the intent of the proposed development to retain as much as possible of the existing vegetation and tree growth. This is one of the great assets of the site and there is no intention to remove any of the trees that are not absolutely necessary for the benefit of the whole site. A final location of dwelling units on this site will be determined by the careful analysis of the existing tree locations. The drip line of existing trees must be treated carefully to assure the saving of each tree. Spacial Analysis A landscape is typically seen from a rather limited set of viewpoints. The lines of a site from a critical fixed or moving point should be analyzed carefully. The essentially visual criterion of this site design is that is would exhibit a rhythmic pattern throughout the site and coherent succession of spaces, textures, or objects in which each part relates harmoniously to the next, but which makes a constant play of variation from the basic them. If there is a chain of spaces they should seem to be part of any extended whole. Thus, the early step in the site planning process is to develop a spacial formm and analyze its visual consequences when seen in sequence. Spaces should be seen and considered as a total pattern, not seen as a flat plan from the air, but as a progression through space which one moves. Continuity develops the important transitions. The joints between the house and ground, between the house and its corners, gateways between open space~,a nd the upper edge of objects, these factors should be looked at now ~nd developed as the plan develops. A good site plan is basically straight formward and while being highly refined at certain critical points, it is often coarse in its overall form. The spacial analysis is a critical tool in the development of the site plan. Hard edges are formed where basically you can not see through with any kind of a vista. Soft edges are edges of vegetation which create somewhat of a visual barrier but do not totally stop any visual penetration. The vistas are imporCant considerations when looking at sittings of homes, sice the vista is a very critical element from a home, especially on a site of this nature surrounded by such beauty. page 23 6. £xis=ing Conditions Drawing 6 exhibits the existing conditions on this site. Spot elevations and topography give you an example of how the topography varies on this site. ~nc~uded are loca~=ons of major ~rees and the marsh grass which exists around the water line. The elevatCon B~9.5, which is the normal high water mark of Lake Minnetonka, is illustrated, in addition to the elevation of B32.5, which is the lowes= elevation of that allowed for a living ~oor ad~acen~ to Lake Minnetonka. As stated earlier, the zoning is R2 in the area. The site is located at the dead ends o~ Drummond and Windsor Roads. Directly a~]acent homes are shown on the exhibit as well. 7 & B. Climate Any climate is complex and is usually variable. A site planner must be concerne~ particularly with the distribution o~ air temperature, relative hum~ity, wind direction and ~orce, broken down by month and season. These are funda=ental data for determining the effect of temperature in its' relationship to the com~ort zone. In addition, consideration of maximum intensities of rain indicate the need ~or overhead shel~er an~ requirements for a~equa~e ~rainage. ¥inally, the hours of sunshine, wind direction, and elevation of the sun indicate measures %hat must be taken to invite or ward off solar radiation. ' The chart shows that the outdoor temperatures are frequently above the comfort zone in Suly and August, and most useful cooling winds are from the southwest. A general analysis coupled with a study of the ways in which local buildings and the habits of life are already adjusted to climate, furnish the first clues for the choice of arrangement on the site. £ach individual site as indicated on the plan would be analyzed, especlaily ~o~ wind ~irection an~ sun access, to take best advantage of these c=nditions. Diagrams 9 ~hrough 12 are showing photographs to and ~rom the site ~ro= various points of view. £ach photo is labeled and shoui~ give you a ~eeilng for the kind of topography, vegetation, and views that exist. The si~e is very unique and beautiful. It is very unlike the ima§e that is normally given to properties on the island in Mound. I think that the marketing will take advantage of this and will exploit the fact that this is a very unique site, with beautiful surroundings, and tha~ once you are on the site you are aware of the beautiful natural environment so unique to ~ake Minnetonka. page 24 ! I ! ! / ! ! i' I I I I I page 25 page 26 page 27 I / I \\ \x I I / / / / / / / / // // / / / / // / / I I page 28 Z w uJ z w. 0 ~ page 29 / / / I / / / / / / I i i · Il, page 30 page 31 page 32 SITE TABULATION EXHIBIT 6 TOTAL HARDCOVER GREENSPACE Lot Area Access R.O.W. 114,900 sf 15,300 sf 99,600 sf 19,859 sf 10,216 sf 9,643 sf Totals Outlot B (Wetland) Total Site Area 134,759 sf 25,516 sf 109,243 sf (18.9%) (81.1%) 113,996 sf 248,755 sf LOT TABULATION Lot Size (sf) 1 10,000 2 10,100 Approx. Bldg. Approx. Drives Total Footprint (sf) and Walks (sf) Hardcover (sf) Greenspace (sf) 3 10,600 4 15,300 5 llN00 6 1~100 7 10,100 8 16,100 9 16,700 114,900 1,200 12.0% 500 5.0% 1,200 11.9% 500 4.9% 1,200 11.3% 500 4.7% 1,200 7.8% 500 3.2% 1,200 10.1% 500 4.2% 1,200 8.5% 500 3.5% 1,200 11.8% 500 4.9% 1,200 7.5% 500 3.1% 1,200 7.1% 500 2.9% 1,700 11.0% 8,300 89.0% 1,700 10.9% 8,400 89.1% 1,700 10.4% 8,900 89.6% 1,700 11.0% 13,600 89.0% 1,700 14.3% 10,200 85.7% 1,700 12.0% 12,400 88.0% 1,700 16.7% 8,400 83.3% 1,700 10.6% 14,400 89.4% 1,700 10.0% 15,000 90.0% 10,800 9.4% 4,500 3.9% 15,300 13.3% 99,600 86.7% EXHIBIT 7 page 33 ,'f ~ I' page 34 ~t EXHIBIT 8 February 9, 1993 page 35 ~LUTION 93.-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PR£1.1MINARY PLAT APPROVALs APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR TEAL POINTE WITH THE ADDITION OF 17, 15 & 19 & THE CHANGE IN EXHIBIT A WItEREAS, applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Pointe, pursuant to Section 330 of the City Code, and WHEREAS, applicant's propo.~l includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish Teal Pointe as a Planned Development Area, together with a request for street design variances, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat. the planned development area and the variances taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement. location, width of streets, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and WI~EREAS, the street variances for Drummond Road and Windsor Road will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the widths of the existing paved streets, and WlIEREAS, the proposed subdivision as'conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and ~, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable development plans and policies, and' WIIF_.RF~S, the physical characteristics of the site are' suitable for the type and density of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met, and WFIF. REAS, the applicant will be participating in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and should .the EAW identify significant environmental issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to final plat application, and WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed page 36 February 9, 1993 project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations, and WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other n~ facilities are being provided, and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the existing land use in the area, and WHEREAS, the use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district and is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is exceptional in that it is irregularly shaped and has unusual topography, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature vegetation which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography requires some variation from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the zoning code to allow applicant to preserve the natural trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, and WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the hardship created by shape and topography and to facilitate the preservation of vegetation, and WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same district, and WHEREAS, the granting of the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF~OLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Preliminary Plat approval, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Development Area including the designation of Ouflot A as a private street, lot frontage variances for Lots 1, 2 and 3, a variance for the length of Windsor Road and variances from the right-of-way and paved roadway width requirements for Windsor Road including the cul-de-sac area are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements: A new preliminary plat drawing shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Mound. Said drawing shall be generally in conformance with page 37 February 9, 1993 Exhibit 'A' except that it shall identify the retention of Cobden Road and Drummond Road west of Cobden Road as public right-of-way. The portion of Outlot C lying outside of Cobden Road (as shown on Exhibit "A') shall be dedicated as public right-of-way. The developer/project owner shall participate in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (F. AW) with the Responsible Governmental Unit in compliance with the Environmental Review Pro_eram Rules. Minn. Rp]es, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800 and all other applicable sections. All costs incurred by the City of Mound in the F. AW process shall be charged to the developers escrow account. If the completed EAW identifies significant environmental issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat which shall be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submission of the final plat application. The developer shall submit to the City of Mound, a copy of a letter prepared by the State Archaeologist or designated representative thereof, addressing the probability of the location of indian burial mounds within the project site. Any mounds or other artifacts discovered during construction shall be addressed in the manner identified within Minnesota State Statutes. ** PreliminaO, approvals by the City of Mound shall be subject to the completion of all required reviews and securing of permits as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota De .pa!'anent of Health and all other applicable regional, State and Federal agencies. All lots shall be required to observe the front, side and rear yard setbacks as shown on the preliminary plat .... e Cash in lieu of land dedication for park land dedication shall be required in conformance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. A park fee in the amoUnt of $500.00 per lot shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. e Impervious cover on individual residential lots shall be limited to no more than 30% of the lot area. page 38 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. February 9, 1993 Outlot B as shown on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the City of Mound. The developer shall not receive park dedication credits for the conveyance of Outlot B to the City of Mound since the property lies below the 929.4 contour. A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the sulxlivision. Design control covenants shall be prepared addressing the architectural compatibility of the exteriors of all structures. Said covenants should include but not be limited to acc~table siding, masonry and roofing materials. All bylaws, Home Owner's Association Articles of Incorporation, and protective covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the record plat. The revised preliminary plat identified in item #1 shall note the type of housing to be placed on all lots with slopes exceeding 10% in conformance with Section 330:40, Subd. 4f of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The cost of public u~ilities in Windsor Road shall be borne by the developer, including a sanitary sewer pumping station design approved by the City Engineer. Sanitary sewer service for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be provided by private individual lift pumps with the forcemains combined into one common line located in Outlot A. This private line shall discharge into the public system located in Drummond Road. Windsor Road shall be extended by the developer from its present termination at the City's standard width of 28 feet. The developer shall be responsible for either obtaining easements to place fill on private property as shown on the preliminary plans, or furnish an engineered retaining wall design approved by the City Engineer. Homes constructed on Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall utilize caisson and cantilevered construction techniques as generally shown on Exhibit 'B' to reduce ground cover impacts. The developer/project owner shall complete the Proceeding Subsequent Action pertaining to the vacation of portions of Drummond Road and Windsor Road within the confines of the property boundaries generally shown on Exhibit 'A'. I?t7 page 39 February 9, 1993 16. The developer shall maintain a positive cash balance in the developers escrow account to cover the costs incurred by the City of Mound in reviewing compliance with the conditions of approval. If at any time the funds in the account are depleted, the City shall suspend all review for compliance with the aforementioned conditions until such time as additional funds are deposited. 17. Approval of Title by the City AUomey. 18. The Developer is to sign a Development Contract and furnish to the City a performance bond in an amount 125~ of the cost of the improvements to cover grading, drainage, utility and street construction as per plans approved by the City Engineer. 19. A comprehensive search shall be performed to identify any existing wells on the property. A licensed well driller shall properly abandon any unused wells in the plat. Such abandonment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The foregoing resolution was moved .by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Iensen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: nolle. Councilmember J'essen was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk t,I page40 page 41 ]i.lli'l~;~:i! ~i · iA,iii i ~.; I,'~l.: ,.lillAj.j:- 111:..; l:'l':j I I-~'l.it':i ill.IIA Ii ~.,'~ ..I tt ! i 1, i ! Ii, I I EXHIBIT 9 page 42 Permit Application No. 93-50 Applicant: Teal Pointe Development Go./Neil Weber 3952 Louisiana Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55426 April 15, 1993 Location: City of Mound, Tl17, R24, Sec. 25, NE 1/4 Purpose: Stormwater management plan involving construction of a nine lot subdivision and cul-de-sac called "Teal Point Development". Applicable Rules: Exhibits Reviewed: Rule B - Stormwater Management Plan for a residential development 1. Permit Application 93-50 received March 15, 1993 2. Preliminary plat received March 15, 1993 3. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations received March 15, 1993. 4. Baffled weir detail received March 15, 1993. 5. Design information for individual homes received March 24, 1993. 6. Letter from applicant's engineer received March 24, 1993. 7. Revised grading and drainage plan received April 2, 1993. Staff Review Summary: The project involves the construction of a nine-lot subdivision and cul-de-sac to serve the proposed lots. The site is located in Mound north of Phelps Bay, Lake Minnetonka, and is surrounded on three sides by DNR protected wetland 948W. Drainage from the proposed road and the fronts of five of the nine lots is to drain to a stormwater treatment pond. Unique California style homes, built on stilts, are proposed to be constructed on three of the remote building sites with existing slopes of approximately 30 percent. The applicant states the unique construction methods would have the effect of minimizing grading and reducing the percentage of ground cover on these sites. Recommendations: Approval pending receipt and staff approval of: 1. Demonstration that city has accepted the proposed drainage easement associated with the stormwater pond. It is also recommended that due to the steep grade down the proposed road into the development and the filling necessary to construct the road, that the following conditions be placed on the permit: 1. Pond grading and outlet construction shall be completed prior to other grading and filling activities. A sediment barrier shall be placed around the inside of the pond outlet. 2. All disturbed areas shall be either seeded and mulched or sodded within 48 hours of the completion of grading. 3. Slopes 2:1 or steeper shall be sodded and staked. Project Review Status by Other Government Units: The applicant states the project has received preliminary~ approval from the City of Mound. MINNEHAHA CR£EK WATERSHED DISTRICT RO. Box Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Wee Reverse Side For InsL,'uct~ons} (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Permit Application No. .... Date Received Notice Sent :- ..... Agenda Date APPLICATION FOR PERMIT '2. 3. PermR Rectue~ed For;, (Che~ All Appropriate Boxes) B. Stormw~ter Management CI Commercial ~ Industrial [] In~Rutlbn~ or Highway C. ~ Floodpl~ln Alteration page 43 ///C. D. [] Wetbnd Alte~ion E. {~ Dredging F. [] Shoreline/Ba'tk Imp¢ovement O.. I"1 Streez'nJL. ake Crossing 5, Describe ~e Project: = ~/~/~ c.~/~ ~,, ~ ~ .... 4~ ~ 6. !! This Project Requires Muniolp~I Approval or Review, Attach Dooumentat~Ion of Municip~l'~RevleW. 7, Body of W~eC Stream or WeO~d ~e~e8 by Runoff From This 8~te: ~ .~ ~d _ /Cr~f~ ,. 8. Schedule For Conatru~cn, lmpTemen~on of Tempor~ Ems[on ~ntrols. ~ubs~ntl~ Complet~o~ ~n~stom- t ~nce ~n ¢ompteQng ~ts fo~ ~ required, tn submt~ng thl~ ~o~, page 44 ' page 45 ~C~OR $CI£~IFI page 46 ~,oo~ WE i R DE. TA IL NO. I / f?$ '%. %., .- Pl~t of Su~/ey for Jo.~. K. Hiller Lots 1/., 15, 16, a.~f 17, Block 15, Whinple T;ermec."n Coxmty., Mir~esnta EXHIBIT 10 ..- Case No. 82-154 page 47..--~; J ~) CertifJe. ate of ~ur~,o:.,: I hereby mertlfy'~ ~h.~+. t.h~.s !s a t~ a~. cnrr.,~.et'repre~-~nt~Mnn of a survey of the boundar.~e.~ of bots l&, 15, 16, amd )7, P. lock 15, W?3~pple. ~t does not ~:orti to ~ho~ improvement_- or enero~.eh~.nts, er. mep% existing house. ' Scale: 1" = ~! Date : 1-~-73 o : Iron ~rk~r Land Surveyor and 9lanner page 4t .",/ , ~[ II il # II Il II I1 II II II N 11 I IILI[ x x X X X X I1~ X X X X page 49 I i i I Ii, I ~ l t 1 page 50 .i! ~)! !~'~ : I ' I~ ' h !~ I' h iii '1 .. *j ;,I .) D STATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155-40.__ (612) 296-6157 O7 EXHIBIT 1 1 October 29, 1990 Niel Weber 511131 Windsor Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Rare natural features in Hennepin Co. Dear Mr. Weber: John Almendinger of the Natural Heritage Program referred your request for information to me. John said that you were interested in information about natural areas and rare species in Hennepin Co., including the types of natural areas, their significance and kno%m locations. I am enclosing several kinds of information that you may find of interest. The first is a 3-page print-out from the Minnesota Natural Heritage database that shows known occurrences of rare natural features in Hennepin Co. Before I explain the format of the print-out, let me just briefly explain the kind of information we have in our database. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better understanding and protection of r these rare features. The information in the database is dra~rn from many parts of Minnesota, and is constantly being updated, but if not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore, there are currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the database. We are in the process of addressing this problem via the Minnesota County Biological Survey, a county-by, county inventory of ra~e natural features, which is no~ underway. Having given you that background informaCion, let me explain the print-out. Each line in the print-out represents- a single occurrence of a rare natural feature. The information is organized by Township, Range and Section. You will note that records may have varying degrees of precision; some are listed only to the nearest section, or sections, others are listed to the nearest 40 acres (e.g., SWNW32 means the SW 1/4 of the N~.l/4 of section 32). Next is listed the managed area in which the rare feature occurs. In Hennepin Co. managed areas are mostly city or regional parks. If this column is blank, the occurrence is either on private land or the ownership is unknown. Next is listed the Class; the class codes are as follows: GP-geologic feature, SA-animal species, SP-plant species, NC-natural communities, 0T-colonial waterbird nesting colonies. Next is listed the state status (MNSTAT), which for plant and animal species is the legal status under the state endangered AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER page 52 2 species lay. Codes for status are as follows: END-endangered, THR-threatened, SP¢-special concern, NON-rare, but no legal status. Although natural communities or habitats have no legal status in Mirmesota, the Natural Heritage program has evaluated and ranked them according to their relative rarity and endangerment in the state (natural community status shown ~n parenthesis in the ~NSTAT column). Colonial waterb£rd nesting sites are tracked in the database even ~f the species that nest in them have no legal status, because of the sensitivity of colonial nesters to environmental disturbances. The next column indicates the year in which the information was collected. I have included this as an indication of the likelihood that the feature still exists on the site indicated; some older occurrences may no longer exist. Finally, the last two columns show the scientific and common names of the natural features. Regarding the types of natural areas found in Minnesota and their significance, several sources of information come to mind. I am enclosing copies of the following: 1) a brochure produced by the DNR Division of Waters which describes functions performed by naturally occurring wetland habitats, 2) a recent issue of the Minnesota Volunteer that contains several articles on - native prairies in Minnesota, 3) Natural VeKetation of Minnesota, a brochure produced by our program which describes the original vegetation types found in Minnesota, and 4) The Uncommon Ones, which addresses the issue of endangered species from several angles. More detailed information about rare species of plants and animals in Minnesota, including their habitat preferences and range, can be found in Minnesota's EndanKered Flora and Fauna, B. Coffin and L. Pfannmuller, eds., Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1988. The introduction to this book also contains a detailed discussion of Minnesota's plant communities. Finally, regarding your question about what local governments are doing to preserve natural areas, you might try contacting the Metropolitan Council, if you have not already done so, to see if they can giv~ you some information on this topic. The strongest protection for natural areas on a state-wide basis is designation as a Scientific and Natural Area. I have enclosed a brochure about the program, and a brief description of Wolsfeld Woods, the only SNA in Hennepin Co. I hope you find the enclosed information useful. If you have further questions, or my explanation of the.prin,-out is not clear, please feel free to call me at 296-8324. Sincerely, Bonita Eltason Endangered Resource/Environmental Review Specialist John Almendinger page 53 page 54 page 55 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TI-IF. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 REVIEW ANDCOMMENT ON ENVIRON~--~NTALASSESSMENTWORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE TEAL POINTE D~VELOPM~NT BY BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, displayed a flow chart depicting the EAW Process, and he read from the EAW Guidelines the four major steps involved in processing an EAW, as follows: me The proposer of the project supplies data necessary for the completion of the EAW to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU). The RGU prepares the EAW. Thirty (30) day public comment period. The RGU responds to the comments received and makes a decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on the EAW, comments received, and the responses to the comments. The RGU and other units of government may require modifications to the project to mitigate environmental impacts as disclosed through the EAW process. Koegler displayed the Teal Pointe EAW Schedule on the overhead, as follows: June 8, 1993 June I0, 1993 June 14, I993 June 15, 1993 June 28, 1993 July 28, 1993 August 10, 1993 August I2, 1993 August 23, 1993 City Council approval of the EAW for distribution. City of Mound sends EAW to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and distribution list. EAW received by EQB (assumed). City of Mound submits required press release to "The Laker" for publication on June 21, I993. Publication of EAW in "EQB Monitor" - start of 30 day comment period. End of comment period. Mound City Council Meeting - EAW decision on need for an EIS. City of Mound distributes notice of EAW decision. Notice of decision published in "EQB Monitor". The only other EAW the City of Mound has been involved with was for the proposed Pelican Point Development, and that EAW was never formally submitted to the EQB. Koegler noted two typos within the "Attachments to the EAW" as follows: ' Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 Teal Point EAW #9 should read that "all" of this site was a single family residential lot. #14, second paragraph, the setback from the top of the bluff shall be 30' for principal structures and 10' for accessory structures. (NOTE: Further investigation of the ordinance reveals the required setback to all structures from the top of a bluff is 10 feet.) Koegler reviewed the reason for the EAW. The City Council ordered, by resolution, an EAW be completed for the proposed Teal Pointe subdivision due to findings that the proposed subdivision may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission now have the opportunity to comment on the EAW prior to the City Council sending it to the EQB for review. Koegler stated that the results of this EAW are well under the threshold for a mandatory EIS. Staff confirmed that the cost of the EAW is being paid by the developer through and escrow account at the City. Clapsaddle questioned the source of the information in the report. Koegler commented Bruce Chamberlain of his office compiled the information, and most of it was supplied by the developer. Concern was expressed relating to lots 1, 2, and 3, and the related variances. Koegler confirmed that the Shoreland Management Ordinance regulations will not apply to this PDA, however, must meet the requirements outlined in the Preliminary Plat Resolution #93-20. The Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission made comments on the following questions. For the purpose of organization, the questions are listed in numerical order, however, were not necessarily discussed in this order. Q. #6 Description. See Exhibit 6, Site Tabulation It was questioned how the Building Footprint square footage was calculated. Staff confirmed that the houses which are to be elevated with open space underneath were calculated at 75% hardcover. What is type of surface going to be under house? Both Koegler and Neil Weber agreed that the calculation could be changed to 100% coverage because it will not change the impact of the hardcover. Q. #9 Land Use. The answer to this question in the "Attachments to the EAW" should be corrected to reflect a "public" sewer system with one private lift station. Planning Commission Minutes Teal Point EAW May 24, 1993 Q. #11 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nest colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? The answer listed is no. Comments in the "Attachments to the EAW" states "According to the Natural Heritage Program of the MN/DNR there are no ~esiqnated rare natural species or features on the site or within a mile of the site (see Exhibit 11 for Natural Heritage Program listing of rare natural features). Casey requested that this answer be confirmed by conducting an on-site survey. The Natural Heritage Program listing indicates that an on-site survey of this area has not been conducted, so how do we really know if there are any rare species on the property? Mueller commented that rare species were located in Hardscrabble Point Woods which is not too far from this site, and he questioned if it is within one mile of Teal Pointe. He also remarked that he would hate to learn a species was lost to the world because the development was approved. Chamberlain confirmed that Hardscrabble Point Woods is more than 1 mile from Teal Pointe. Johnson suggested that the verbiage in the "Attachments to the EAW" be amended as follows: "According to the . . . there are no ~h~ designated rare . . .,, It was also suggested that the verbiage fu~:~:~: clarify that no on-site survey has been conducted on the subject property. Chair Meyer took a poll: Those in favor of requesting an on-site survey were: Casey. Those not in favor of a survey, but in favor of modifying the language were: Johnson, Byrnes, Weiland, Meyer, Jensen, Hanus, Michael. Clapsaddle and Mueller stated they are in favor of changing the language, however, they would like the City to investigate the ~ost of a survey. Andersen was not present for the poll. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? (Answered "no"). If yes, indicate the current and pro4ected watercraft ~sage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 Teal Point EAW Mueller questioned if the proposed lots will have riparian rights and stated that this property abuts the 929.4, therefore, they have every right to erect a dock and use the lake for watercraft. In his opinion, this project could change the number of watercraft on Lake Minnetonka and this question should be answered "yes". Koegler stated that no dockage is allowed without first obtaining a dock license from the City of Mound because it abuts a City wetland. Koegler agreed that someone could put a canoe in the water. Mueller commented that we have a more pristine wetland now and that the condition of this wetland will change in the future due to the development. Neil Weber commented that the run-off will be better after the development because it will be controlled. Mueller feels that the water surface usage will change. Casey agrees with Mueller and commented that we have no control over the new property owners on their use of herbicides or other actions affecting the water quality. Chair Meyer took a poll. The results Were 3 in favor and 8 opposed to changing the answer to "yes", as follows: Those in favor were Casey, Clapsaddle and Mueller, and those opposed were Byrnes, Andersen, Meyer, Michael, Hanus, Johnson, Weiland, and Jensen were opposed. Q #17 Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 0.75 ; cubic yards 900 . Mueller questioned how Chamberlain arrived at this figure. Neil Weber commented that he supplied the figures to Chamberlain, and then he confirmed them to be accurate. The fill is for the two access roads, and the construction of the retaining walls as requested by the neighbors has reduced the amount of fill needed. Chamberlain will reconfirm the grading quantity. Q #18 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. Mueller noted that there were no comments made in the EAW regarding water run-off/retention for Drummond Road and Outlot A, only for Windsor Road and five of the lots. Casey commented that it is important to reflect the impact of all the land. Q #X9 Water Quality - Wastewaters. Language should be added to this answer including mention of the lift station serving lots 1, 2, and 3. Q #21 Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes,; Storage Tanks. b. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). 4 ~J 6/5/93 Abstract Mounds water and sewer system serves 9700 people. There are 4 wells, and 3 water towers that deliver 310,000,000 gallons per year or about 90 gallons per person per day. Although screen systems are used on the wells, there is no filtration of city water. Since the City is undertaking a bc~d issue to update various external cc~onents of the system (install new water meters, repaint a water tower) it seems timely to consider upgrading the quality of the drinking water inside the system. Current C~ndition The water fr=n these wells contain iron and manganese in various quantities. The EPA has suggested that there should be no more than 0.2 mg/liter of iron and that there should be less than 0.05 rog/liter of manganese. The Mound water tested ranges from 0.23 to 0.92 rog/1 of iron and 0.065 to 0.55 mg/1 of manganese. Effects of unfiltered water The presence of inorganics like iron and n~nganese can cause a number of problems for the co~su~ers as well as the city. 1) Fouling of fixtures. Excessive iron creates a red discoloring of water fixtures. Too much msnganese causes a black color on the same fixtures. Look inside the tank of the toilet. 2) Iron shortens the life of water softeners. Excessive iron will cause the resin in water softeners to becc~ne fouled much more quickly than with filtered source water. As resin becomes more fouled, more salt is required to regenerate resin effectiveness. Although it is difficult to say exactly how this would impact everyone since water us- age varies, a new water softener softening water with high iron content may need resin replace~ent after 3-4 years where a water softener treating low level iron source water could last 25 years. Resin cost for an average water softener could be $200. ' 3) Odor. Dissolved gases that can be detected by the odor of tap water are re~noved by filtration. 4) Iron settling in distribution system. Creates cost for the city to clean iron frown water mains or would increase iron level over time to consuners tap if not addressed. Federal Regulations Congress has recently passed the Safe Water Drinking Act (~NDA) to pro- tect consuners. The act states that every city over 10,000 in popula- tion must have filtration of water for residents. Cities must be in c~¥~liance with this by the end of the decade. Solutions There are four solutions that the city has as options. 1) Update the facilities without filtering the water. 2) Add a Iron/Manganese filtration system and leave the water softening to the h~neowners 3) A~_~_ a Iron/Manganese filtration system as well as a Ion Exchange softening system. This would be the same as homeowners replacing hard- ness with some sodium as current water softeners accomplish. It would remove the need for home water softeners. 4) Add_ a Ir~n/Manganese filtratio~ system as well as a Lime/Ash soften- ing system. This would also soften water but without placing residual sodium in the system. All the options would include u~dating the facilities. Options 2 would still deliver hard water to hemes, but without the iron/manganese problems. Options 3 and 4 would remove the need for homeowners to soften water, buy salts, etc. /Costs for Systems /System Today 1 2 3 4 Annual 0 1.3mil 2.55mil 3.766mil 4.535mil \Water Per Home 148 182 218 257 275 \Sewer Per Hc~e 284 348 348 348 348 Total 432 530 566 605 623 ~Hcmeowner Costs per Year / Option 1 2 3 4 ( no filter filter flt/soft flt/sft/no salt \Type of Expense ~Cleaning of fixtures 25 0 0 0 JResin (200/4 yrs.) 50 0 0 0 /Water Soft. Salts 180 144 0 0 /Store bottled water 20 0 0 0 { Average Annual Cost 275 144 0 0 \Annual Costs to Family of Four under different Options: tion 0 1 2 3 4 707 805 710 605 623 Therefore the option where the city softens the water with the Ion Exchange method appears to have the lowest overall cost for acheiving softened water. Factors not considered: -City costs for disposing of sludge/brine for softening -Interest for money for options 2,3, and 4 -added water expense for regenerating (40 gal/time) -City costs for purging lines for any scenario REFERENCES Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements, for the City of Mound. 1990 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. City Managers letter of proposed facility upgrades and costs dated 5/18/93. Federal Water Quality Act EPA water quality brochure Eric Lindberg 5561 Sherwood Drive, Mound 472-0787 [-~-~.~ ........................................ ~ ........................................... ~ .............................................................................................................................................................. :. ....................................................... 432 530 ~25 723 780 ~ ~Tota~ .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... , ...................................................... 275 275 154 10 .... 'i"6 Planning Comm~seion Minutes Teal Point EAW May 24, 1993 Mueller questioned if the lift station should be mentioned in this answer. Koegler commented that a lift station is not a storage tank. It was determined that reference to the lift station could be mentioned in Question #19. Q #26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? The answer listed is: "Research underway". Casey questioned the status of the archeological survey. Neil Weber commented that he has seen only a draft of the survey, however, the final draft has been forwarded to the State Archeologist for their review. He explained that the required process is for the State Archeologist to respond in writing to the RGU after he reviews the archeological survey. Koegler requested that the City receive a copy of the survey, along with the Letter as soon as possible, prior to the June 8, 1993 City Council meeting. SUMMARY OF ISSUES. Johnson questioned the meaning of "Careful Construction Methods". Koegler commented that this means to take care when constructing, to trees, vegetation, and other natural resources. Casey asked what assurances does the City have that these methods will be used? Staff suggested that restrictions could be established to regulate vegetation removal on the bluffs. General Comments and Conclusion Staff noted that private covenants and restrictions can be required with final plat approval and restrictions can be listed in this document to help control concerns. Conditions in final plat approval can still be added. Clapsaddle questioned the number of vehicles allowed to be stored on each lot. He commented that it will degrade the property if they are allowed to store 7 recreational vehicles in their yards, especially considering the topography of the lots. Meyer suggested that something be put in the covenants to help control this situation. This concluded the review and comments session on the EAW. These minutes will be forwarded to the City Council for the June 8, 1993 meeting. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 9~- RESOLUTION RE~FFll~N~ ~UTHORIZIN~ C~TY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE ~I~--NT-IN-~ID SNO~OBILE TI~L FUNDS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota did on February 12, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-30 entitled, "Resolution Authorizing City Sponsorship in State Grant-In-Aid Snowmobile Trail Funds"; and WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources is requesting that the City again reaffirm its sponsorship of the State grant-in-aid snowmobile trail funds; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Trails Association have requested the City of Mound sponsor grant-in-aid snowmobile trails through the Minnesota Trails Assistance Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, is willing to act as a sponsoring unit of government in applying to the State of Minnesota for the grant-in-aid funds for snowmobile trails that will be maintained by the Southwest Trails Association. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota Trail Assistance Program on behalf of the Southwest Trails Association; and The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and approve contractual agreements for this grant. I J 1, i ! Ii I ~ CITY of MOUND June 4, 1993 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~ FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ATTACHED RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY AND MNDOT TO STUDY SPEED LIMITS IN DOWNTOWN AREA As you know you requested that we contact Hennepin County to make contact with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to study the feasibility of reducing the speed limit on County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) from County Road 110 (Commerce Blvd.) east to Belmont Lane. I made this request several weeks ago and was recently contacted by Hennepin County indicating that they needed to have a formal resolution making this request. Hence, I have given you a proposed resolution for consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:is printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION #93 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 35 MILES PER HOUR TO 30 MILES PER HOUR ON COUNTY ROAD 15 FROM COUNTY ROAD 110 EAST TO BELMONT LANE WHEREAS, the City of Mound for many years has had mid-block crosswalks within the City; and WHEREAS, in December of 1992, a traffic fatality occurred in the mid- block crosswalk on Shoreline Drive between the House of Moy restaurant and the City parking lot; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed City staff to work with Hennepin County staff to determine what measures could be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of a fatality or other accidents in mid-block crosswalks; and WHEREAS, City staff, working with Hennepin County staff, determined that, for public safety reasons only, four mid-block crosswalks within the immediate downtown area should be removed, including the mid-block crosswalk at the House of Moy restaurant on Shoreline Drive (Hennepin County Road 15); and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Mound to place public parking signage so that the area south of Auditor's Road, and on the south side of Shoreline Drive will be more easily identified as parking areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about the speed limit on County Road 15, east of County Road 110, to Belmont Lane, which is currently signed at 35 miles per hour; and WHEREAS, the City Council has requested Hennepin County to request the Minnesota Department of Transportation to ~ the speed limit in this specific area. ~ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby requests.~..~gnepin County to request of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to ~f the speed limit on County Road 15 from County Road 110 east to Belmont Lane, tko dcterminc if it ' ' · ' from 35 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour in this specific area. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk May 28, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: JUN LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT City Administrators Executive Director Gene Stro~en.~-~~_~ Preliminary Draft Budget Review The 1994 LMCD preliminary draft budget has been presented to the board May 26 for its initial review and comment. The preliminary draft as reviewed and by the board is offered for city staff and mayor/council review and comment. It has been our practice the past two years to invite city administrators to meet with the LMCD executive director to meet as a group and discuss the budget. This serves to acquaint city administrators in greater detail with the plans supporting the budget. It is apparent at this time that some city councils meet the first week of June. This may be their only time to pre~ent the budget to their mayor/council. Your LMCD executive director has a meeting problem before Monday, June 7. He is serving as a county juror until that time. Unless an early dismissal is received, the earliest available meeting time to meet with city administrators is: 1:30 pm, Monday, June 7 LMCD Office Room 160 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata An effort will be made to contact those city administrators by phone the week of June 1 for initial questions, com~ents. All are otherwise encouraged to meet June 7. Your RSVP, yes or now, is requested. Those unable tc meet the 7th are offered an alternate date of Monday, June 14, same time, place. Please RSVP for the alternate date if that is better. As a reminder, your council responses will be passed on tc the LMCD board before the actual adoption of this draft budget. Councils may still respond to the budget after it is presented officially on or before July 1. It is pessibie there will be adjustments in the adopted version. City share in the budget ~iil be calculated as the adopted version is presented. You may estimate yeu£ city's share fer 1994, however, by referring t,3 the 1992 schedule which most closely parallels the 1994 pro]ec%ed funding needs. Thanks for your response and participation. REVENUE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget I LMCD Communities Admn Levy 2 Reserve Fund Allocation 3 Court Fines 4 Licenses & Permits 5 Interest, Public Funds 6 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 7 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultants 8 Other Income SubTOtal, Administration (a) Income Prepaid at 80% in 1992 9 1992 1992 1993 1994 Budget Actual Budget Budget $107,230 $107,230 $0 $0 $38,000 $46,347 $85,000 $138,595 $8,000 $14,336 $20,000 $16,000 $10,000 $8,000 ~0 $15 $268,23015330,523 $60,000 $103,500 $43,432 $45,000 $45,000 $117,300 $112,000 $ 7,000 $ 6,000 $0 $4,000 (a) $0 $2,000 (a) ~272,732' $272,500 EW Milfoil Program a City Contributions b Other Public Agencies c Private Solicitation d Reserve Fund Allocation e Interest SubTotal, EW Milfoil. $63,000 $63,O00 $170,OO0 $0 $17,OO0 $25,512 $0 $0 ~ 917,722 $250,00Oii~$106,234 $63,000 $63,000 $57,280 $0 $7,930 $30,000 $0 927,000 $5,700 96,000 $133,910115126,0001 10 Save The Lake Program: a Private Donations b Interest Sub Total, saVe the Lake 11 TOTAL REVENUE $0 $9,054 $10,000 $20,000 _~_ $4,193 ~4,000 94,000 ,~?i i$0:$13,247 $14,000 11:$24,000 ~518,230 .$450,004 ~420,642 $422.500 DISBURSEMENTS ADMINISTRATION Personnel Services: 1 Salaries 2 Mgmt Plan Impl/PT Tech. 3 Employer Benefit Contributions 4 Total personnel SerVices $104,500 9106,643 $105,700 $106,150 90 $0 $15,000 90 ~17,000 ~18,777 $18,000 $19,600 $121,500 ::$125,420 ~138,700 ~125,750 Contractual Services: 5 Office Lease & Storage 6 Professional Services 7 Total Contractual Services $10,130 $10,461 $10,482 $11,600 ~5,550 94,926 $5,550 95,400 $15,680 $15,387 $16,032 $17,000 Office & Administrative: 8 Office, General Supplies 9 Telephone 10 Postage 11 Printing, Publ. 12 Maintenance, Office Equipment 13 Subscriptions, Memberships 14 Insurance, Bonds 15 Mileage, Expenses, Training 16 Total Office & Administration ' Iffy $3,500 $3,888 $4,000 $4,300 $2,350 $2,045 $1,600 $2,000 $4,000 $3,082 $4,000 $4,000 $4,500 $1,682 $3,000 $3,000 $1,700 $1,480 $2,000 $2,000 $200 $235 $200 $250 $5,200 $4,804 $6,000 $5,000 ~2,300 ~2,129 $2.500 93,000 $23,750 $19,345 $23,300 $23,550 Capital Outlay: 17 Furniture, Equipment 18 Total Capital Outlay 1992 1992 1993 1994 Budget Actual Budget Budget $2,000 $2,000 $4,423 $4,423 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $3,000 Legal 19 Legal Services 20 Prosecution 21 Process Service 22 Total Legal $18,000 $16,095 $25,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,011 $27,000 $30,000 $30Q ~30 $200 $200 $43,300 $46,136 $52,200 $50,200 Contract Services/Studies 23 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultant 24 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 25 Lake Use Density Study 26 Wetland Inventory Mapping 27 Public Information, Legal Notices 28 Public Access Studies 29 Mgmt Plan Implementation Studies 30 School District Boater Ed. Program 31 Total Contract Services/Studies 32 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $10,000 $3,075 $0 $2,000 $20,000 S3,000 $0 $4,000 $12,000 $14,750 $0 $15,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $3,000 $100 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $1,435 $2,000 $0 $0 $27,500 $30,000 $__Q0 $_QO $5,000 $50,500 *256,730 $22,360 ~ $37,500 $53,000 $233,071,272,732 $272,500 CONTINGENCY/MISCELLANEOUS 33 At approx. 5% of Admn Budget 34 TOTAL ADMIN, CONTINGENCY $11,500 *268,230 $0 $0 '233,071 *272,732 ~272,500 Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM) Weed Harvesting Program 35 Barge Service 36 Trucking 37 Personnel 38 Equipment Ins., WC Ins, FICA, 39 Opn,Supplies,Fund Raising 40 Contract Services 41 Contingency (at approx. 5%) ' 42 TOTAL EWM OPERATIONS 43 SAVE THE LAKE PROGRAM 44 TOTAL ADMN, EWM, S/L EXPENSE EWM EQUIP. INFORMATIONAL: R~serve Fund a Accrued for Equipment Acquisition $114,000 $0 $0 (Detail $32,000 $20,956 *35,280 follows $45,000 $25,363' $43,560 close of $31,000 $19,113 $9,040 1993 $16,000 $16,847 *30,400 season) $0 $0 $9,250 $12,000 $12,897 *6,380 $250,000~ $95,176 :$133,910 $126,000 $0 ~$0 '14,000 '24,000 ~518,230 ,*328,247 ~420,642 ~422,50,0 $50,000 *50,000 lotus.budget94 3/24/93 Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Mtka. Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Sh'ore~ood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Totals Less Mtka. Balance for 13'cities LAKE HINNETONKA CONSERVATION 1992 Budget Distribution NET TAX % OF TOTAL CAPACITY NET TAX CAPACITY 6,303,113 2,538,336 1,247,268 67,249,959 1,728,106 5,367,482 7,148,129 14,378,759 8,070,339 1,913,039 2,909,857 2,362,547 8,816,260 2,097,909 132,131,103 67,249,959 7 3 1 20 2 6 8 17 72 9 95 2 36 3 59 2 91 10 87 2 58 100.00 78 13 54 00 13 62 82 DISTRICT of Expense ADMIN SHARE OF $107,230 8,343 3,356 1,651 21,446 2,284 7,099 9,458 19,001 10,669 2,531 3,850 3,120 11,656 2,766 107,236 EWM SliARE OF $63,000 4,901 1,972 970 12,600 1,342 4,171 5,557 11,164 6,268 1,487 2,262 1,833 6,848 1,625 63,000 64,881,144 TOTAL SiIARE OF $170,230 13,244 5,328 2,621 34,046 3,626 11,270 15,015 30 165 16 937 4 018 6 112 4 953 18 504 4,391 170,230 6/28/91 I ! 1, i ! I~, I t LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Program Proposed 1993 Budget 1992 Actual Salaries (and positions as projected for 1993) Project Manager (1) --- 360 hrs @ $18/hr Field Supervisor (1) --- 490 hrs @ $12/hr Asst Supvr/Asst Mech (1) --- 440 hrs @ $10/hr Harvester Operators (4) --- 440 hrs @ $9/hr Conveyor Operators (2) --- 440 hrs @ $7/hr Access Maint Helpers (2) --- 400 hrs @ $6/hr $7,237 $18,126 Total Salaries $25,363 Employee Benefits Workers Comp Insurance FICA Expense $5,563 $1,940 Total Employee Benefits $7,503 Contract Services Mechanic -- Eq. Repair Service @ $17/hr (plus mileage) Specialty Mechanic Contingency Aquatic Plant Survey (provision for 1993) Chemical Control (Diamond Reef) Aerial Surveys Program Evaluation 1992 $5,346 $0 $3,281 $460 $110 $3,7O0 Total Contract Services $12,897 Administrative / Fundraising Clerical Services Contingency Telephone (long distance charges) Postage (fundraising mailings) Printing (fundraising) Office Supplies Public Information (film,empl.ads,video) Legal Expenses Committee Expenses (food, bev, mtg rooms) Uniforms (shirts,water shoes,gloves) Mileage/Travel Expenses Equipment Insurance (boats,suburban,harvesters) $0 $3O $1,063 $933 $236 $525 $152 $0 $274 $188 $8,2O9 Total Administrative / Fundraising $11,610 1993 Budg $6,480 $5,880 $4,400 $15,840 $6,160 $4,800 $43,560 $4,200 $3,300 $7,5O0 $4,750 $2,000 $2,OOO $0 $500 99,250 $1,000 $200 $1,500 $450 $250 $300 9400 $200 $350 $250 91,540 $6,440 EWM CONTROL PROGRAM BUDGET, 1993, P. 2 Field Operations Fuel, Harvesters/Work Boats Fuel, Service, Supplies (Suburban Van) Equipment Supplies,Maintenance, Fuel Tanks (Harvesters/Work Boats) Total Field Operations Truck Service 44 days (6/21-8/20) @ 2 X 8 hrs est. $45/hr X 704 hrs = Total Truck Service SUBTOTAL, Program Operations Contingency Funds Contingency @ 5% of program 1992 Actual $3,302 $0 $13,545 $16,847 $20,956 $20,956 $95,176 $0 1993 Budg $5,500 $1,500 $18,500 $25,500 $35,280 $35,28O 27,530 $6,380 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES $95,176 $133,910 REVENUES: LMCD Community Contributions Agency Matching Grant Hennepin Cons. District Private Solicitations interest TOTAL REVENUE $63,000 $0 $25,512 $17,772 · $106,284 $63,000 $57,280 $7,93O $5,700 $133,910 *Operations share of interest Reserve Fund Reserve for Equipment Acquisition iotus:cwm93b $50,000 $50,000 CITY of , IOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-023 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. AND BALBOA MINNESOTA CO., INC. INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13, 1993 to consider a major subdivision of land located north of the Balboa Building for lands owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. The subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels, generally located in the following described property: Ail that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of way located in the South Half os Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridan, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is attached for your reference. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark~ City Clerk Published in "The Laker" June 28, 1993, and mailed to property owners within 350' on June 25, 1993. : ) I ! 1, ! ! Ii I I FOR DUNE 8, ~993~ COUNCIL NEETZN~ LICENSE RENEWALS -- Expire 6-30-93. 6-30-94. New License Period 7-1-93 to Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being provided; all taxes and water for the property being paid; approval of the Police Chief; and where necessary the appropriate department. On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Headliners Bar & Grill Club License American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 Sunday On-Sale Liquor Headliners Bar & Grill VFW Post #5113 Off-Sale Beer A1 & Alma's Supper Club Brickley's Market PDQ Store #0292 SuperAmerica #4194 On-Sale Beer A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Mound Lanes On-Sale Wine A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Set-Up Permit A1 & Alma's Supper Club BILLS June 08, 1993 BATCH 3054 TOTAL BILLS $70,869.80 $70,869.80 ,~ ,..J I-- Z ,0 $ U, ii j 1, i · C U,J I June 8, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION COMBINING PRECINCTS IN THE CITY OF MOUND BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby combine the following precincts: 1. Precincts 2-A & 2-B into Precinct 2 2. Precincts 6-A & 6-B into Precinct 6 ! I ~st hennepin h_uman s_ervlces west hennepin human services planning board 4100 vernon avenue south, st. louis park, minnesota 55416 921~5533 JUN ? 1.993 ST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES BOARD MEETING DATES 1993 JANUARY 16TH (Retreat) JULY 6TH FEBRUARY 2ND NO AUGUST MEETING MARCH 2ND SEPTEMBER 7TH APRIL 6TH OCTOBER 5TH MAY 4TH NOVEMBER 2ND JUNE 1ST DECEMBER 7TH JUN ? 99,3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Public Hearing: To consider a variance application from Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mouncl, Halsteds Bay, to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a dock and a boat. Meeting: 7 PM, Wednesday. May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: David Cochran, Chair. Greenwood: blike Bloom. Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Bert Foster, Deep- haven; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; George Owen, Victoria; Robert Rascop. Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound. Robert Slocum, Woodland and Duane btarkus, Wayzata arrived during the discussion. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administra- tive Technician: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The Public Hearing was convened at 7 PM by Chair Cochran. The Board received a report from the staff with site draw- ings, a copy of The Bluffs plat, and a survey of the Stocks' lot. Thibault explained the Stocks' lot was platted on 12/3/74 with 20' of shoreline. The LMCD Code requires 10' side setbacks for a dock use area unless the owners have permission from the neighbors to adjust the side setbacks. There is a code provi- sion, Sect. 2.01, Subd. 2. b) 3), which to allows 5' side set- backs if the lot was platted before 2/2/70. That provision does not apply in this case because of the date of platting. Thibault said the previous owner, Robert Humphrey, had a dock with a boat at this site since 1975. In purchasing the property, the Stocks understood they could have a similar ar- rangement. When Stocks started to sell the property the neigh- bors informed them that they had limited dock rights and they were not willing to give unconditional approval for a reduced side setback. The Stocks have applied for a variance to reduce the side setbacks to 5' so they can sell the property with dock rights. Roma Stocks presented additional historical facts. She submitted a copy of the advertisement which appeared when they purchased the property. After purchasing the property in 19S~, an immediate neighbor, Mrs. Kathren Olson, 6385 Bayridge Road, advised them they could not have a dock. After checking with the previous owner, Humphrey, and gaining assurance from him that they could have a dock, they proceeded with the installation. A complaint was filed with the LMCD. Mr. Melony, the L~ICD (lock inspector at that time, met with Mr. Humphrey and Mrs. Olson. An arrangement between Humphrey and Olson was arrived at to allow Stocks to keep the dock. Owen asked if ~ound has indicated any interest. Hrs. Stocl.:s replied the City approved the lot with a 20' shoreline and city records do not indicate anything about dock rights, llurr said Mound must have had in mind giving dockage access in allowing the 20' lakeshore on the Stocks' lot and 20' on another lot at the west end of the plat. I PUBLIC IlEARING, Thomas Stocks ~ay 26, lO93 Patrick Kelly. attorney representing Mr. and ,',Irs. Stocks. stressed there has been a clock on the property for lo vear.q. There was a problem with the previous owner of the Stock.q prt,pc, r- ty because his dock encroached on the neighbors, since the Stocks have owned the property there was no problem unt il tile Stocks prepared to sel 1 the property. The neighbors have been unwilling to give written authorization that can be communicated to a buyer saying there are dock rights. Kelly said one of thc neighbors indicated they have no object ion to the dock but are not willing to put it in writing, Kelly pointed out that there are no deed restrictions itt The Bluffs plat on this property. There is an out lot in tile center of the development shoreline which is used as a beach for the non-riparian owners and has restrictions about using it for boat dockage. Thibault called attention to a letter dated 5/20/03 dressed to the L~ICD from llarry and Charlotte Reynolds. 63~5 Bayridge Road, (formerly owned by Kathren Olson) indicatine th,:y have no objection to the Stocks having a dock on their property as long as they do not encroach upon the Reynol,,Is' pr,~pcrty lake frontage rights. Kelly said there was a problem whell the previous owner moved the dock over to avoid a storm sewer outlet. That created an encroachment on the Reynolds property. Robert Humphrey, the previous owner, said he purcha,,~ed the property in 1975 with the express purpose of havin,_, a dock for his 25' cabin cruiser. Iie had various other larger boats at the.. dock over the vears and there were no objections from ,~lrs. He said the Reynolds, at one time, kept a fishing boat ol: his dock. There were no objections when he sold the property to the Stocks. ltumphrey said it was his understanding, through conversa- tions with the developer, that the platting was arrange.,1 to ~ive dock rights to the two identical lots on either end of the plat through the 20' lake access, lie said another issue is the Code itself. He can understand restricting small lots lined up on:: by one. In this case there is no congestion because there are larger lake frontages on either side of the two lots. Bob Floeder. 3027 Bluffs Lane, owner of the 20' lot to the west, said he was sold the property in 1977 with the understand- ing that he had dockage rights. He does not feel he has a prol,- leto at this time because he shares a dock with a nei_ohbor. Responding to a question from tlurr. Floeder said he can forcst:e a problem if he were to sell his property. Slocum and 51arkus arrived. Rascop asked what the significance is of the date. LeFevere responded that is the effective date of tile ordinance which limits dockage rights on lots this small. Bloom asked Kelly if, irt his review of the public recor(l?;, he found any mention of the intent to allow a dock on this property. Kelly said he did not find any discussion of the dockage in thc public record. I I PUBLIC HEARING - Stocks May 26, i993 Roma Stocks said the Hennepin County Assessor reduced the value of the land from $73,000 to $50,000 for tax purposes when this problem was explained. Humphrey said he has talked to Dick Smith, the developer. Smith said platting documents do not address dock rights. Smith did not have to discuss dockage with the neighbors when building and a dock existed on the property when Humphrey purchased it. There is nothing in the covenants restricting dockage on thc lot. A title search did not show anything about setbacks. Kelly asked for prompt action by the Board because of the Stocks' desire to sell. Roma Stocks asked if a variance is granted would there be any restriction on a canopy or a large boat. Cochran responded that the LMCD staff will prepare findings for consideration by the Water Structures Committee at its meeting on June 12. Cochran asked for the neighbors' names. Roma Stocks re- sponded the Reynolds are on the east and Lauries on the west. She said the Lauries have no objection to the variance. Floeder gave the names of his adjacent property owners as Palen and Benz. Carlson wants the variance request reviewed against the L~ICD criteria for granting variances. It was noted that if Floeder needs a variance there will have to be a separate variance application and public hearing on his request. Cochran declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:38 PM with written testimony to be accepted up to ten days prior to the Water Structures Committee meeting of June 12. FINDINGS: Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, have submitted a variance application to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to allow a dock and boat at their property on Halsteds Bay. The Stocks' lot, with 20.5' of lakeshore, was platted on 12/3/74. The Code provision allowing 5' setbacks applies to lots in existence on (platted by) 2/2/70. Therefore, the code provision does not apply to the Stocks' lot. Robert Humphrey, the previous owner of the lot, maintained a dock with a boat since he purchased the property in 1975. Stocks bought the property in 1987 with the seller advertis- ing that the site had dock rights. They purchased the dock with the property. A complaint from Kathren Olson, 6385 Bayridge Road, previ- ous neighbor to the east, was filed with the LbtCD in 1987 shortly after Stocks purchased the property. The former LMCD Inspector, Charles Melony, provided Olson and Humphrey with LMCD Code information regarding dock rights at the PUBLIC IIEARING - Stocks MaY 26, 1993 Stocks' property. Olson, while aware of the dock usc' area restrictions at the Stocks' property, did not press her objections further with the Stocks. The Stocks became aware of the dock restrictions when they prepared to sell the property in 1992. There is no .lention of dock rights in the platt lng docu- ,lents. There is another lot with 20' of lakeshore in the same development. The owner, Robert J. Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, currently does not have a conflict with the neighbors because he shares a dock with one of his adjoining neigh- bors. If a variance is required for that lot, it must be on a separate application. Harry and Charlotte Reynolds, 6385 Bayridge Road, arljoinine neighbors to the east, submitted a letter indicating that they have no objection to a side setback varia~cc l)cin~ granted to the Stocks, as long as it does not encroach upon their property or lake frontage rights· a · ~, · · It ti it,D JUN ? lg93 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT CHECK LIST FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW Applicant's nome and address: Thomas and Rom'a Stocks 3032 Highview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Property is located in the city of: Mound Bay/oreo: Halsted's #1 Section 1.07, Subd. 1. General Statement. Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit o variance from the requirements of this Code or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by [his Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes .of this ordinance, the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners. 1. Type of variance being applied for: side setback variance from 10' to 5' 2. Practical difficulties and/or hardship requiring variance: Small lakeshore frontage (20') 3. Decision standards for variance as observed by staff: A. The proposed use is reasonable. B. It would be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance. No C. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property. * D. The problem is not one created by applicant. No E. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. COMMENTS: 3A. Proposed use of a 40' long dock for one small boat (not to exceed a 7' beam) with 5' setbacks is reasonable, without a full canopy, except for a modified canopy on a boat lift. 3B,¸ It is unreasonable to conform to the ordinance in that with 10' setbacks, there is no dock use area. 3C. The small lot shoreline width is not unique to this property. There are many similarly-sized lots around the lake, including another 20' lot in the same development. 3D. 3E. The problem was not created by the applicant, in fact, the applicants purchased the property with the understanding that they had dock rights. The developer subdivided the lot in 1974' after the LMCD ordinance for Dock Use Areas (DUA) was adopted, apparently unaware of the DUA restriction. The City of Mound approved the development without bringing the LMCD DUA restriction to the developer's attention. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character, as there has been a dock at this location for 19 years. Signed: Date: Stocks Side Setback Variance, Application Review, Page 2 Options as recommended by staff: Deny the variance because the ordinance creating dock use areas was, in part, designed to limit docks on small lots. The hardship is that the lot was platted with only 20' of shoreline after the ordinance for 10' setbacks was adopted, which makes it subject to the ordinance's limitations. Grant the variance for 5' side setbacks because this use is reasonable, a dock has existed at this site for 19 years, and would not encroach on the neighboring dock use areas. Limitations could be imposed restricting use to one 40' long "stick" dock, with no canopy slip structure (except the small canopy type used on boat lifts), for one restricted watercraft with maximum 7' beam, to stay within a 10' dock use area. I · 11 " t STOCKS PROPERTY SURVEY ~-"~ AL%TEAO - CREST HEt, Jt,,IEP~,~ CounTY. b,~klt4ESOT/k l~,u,~.'EaU. Oo. 'Io'*'1 I_M.C.O. ~~ M£IkNOE~2 Wo ;,u~,.by ce~ify that this is a true. aqd correct reoresenlation of a survey of the bnundarles of the land d~scr~b~d ano,'e and ~ 'he Iocnhun ol all buildings thereon, an0 all visible encroachments, il any. from or on 5aid Iaaa. that this su~ey was prepared by me or undor my dbecl ~upe~i~ and thai t ;,~ n~jly ~eg~stered Land Surveyor upderJhe I~ws of the ol ~,"~' t.~ As surveyed by me this _ ~'~ aay ol ~ECE~ ..... 19 ~ .~ 1993 !d >-* J 4 Z 0 Z Z uJ JUN ? 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA:~CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM, Saturday, June 12, 1993 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) Se Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; Findings and Order for new multiple dock license and variance applications, with memorandum as directed by the Board, plus revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license for the entire development and the variance on the west Stocks Side Setback Variance application, Mound, Halsteds Bay; Public hearing report and findings Joseph Zwak, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; boat storage at outlot, staff report Unrestricted Watercraft storage concept and affected ordinances, discussion and consideration for amending ordinances Multiple dock license inspections; staff report on procedure Annual June Inspection Tour, discussion Additional business 6/3/93 ~0~ 0~ I CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOB i'JOUND MiNiN ESOTA ~612~ 472~0631 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 3, 1993 city Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official "(",~.,. " MAY 1993 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY In May 34 permits were issued for a value of $404,116. This brings year to date valuation to $1,198,294. There were 19 plumbing, mechanical and miscellaneous permits issued for a total of 53 this month, and 202 year to date. PLANNING AND ZONING The Planning Commission and City Council were again very busy processing planning and zoning requests. Public lands permits are also being processed by the staff, Park and Open Space Commission and City Council. The proposed rental ordinance has been reviewed by the task force and the council has referred it back to the Planning Commission level. Review by the Planning Commission is continuing on the proposed Truth in Housing Ordinance. Staff is very busy handling building permit requests at this time. JS:pj printed on recycled paper City of Mound BIJILDING Ac*rlvrrY REPORT Month: ~y Yoar: x9~3 TH~:8 I~ONTH YEAR TO I~O~ F~Y D~A~ 2 2 238,878 6 632 t 463 ~ 2 2 238,878 6 632,663 D~A~A~RYB~OS ~ '' 7~200' '~ 5 38.580 D~ 7 15,360 12 27,680 ~~us ~OD~ 20 I00,700 53 176,652 ~ 3~ 165,238 86 ~C~ ~ ~ 7 27,345 ~U~ I 26,22~ D~CHED ACC~ORY D~ACH~ A~ORY BU~D~G$ 1 NON-~~ BU~GS 6 I 198,294 ~o 6 46 ~ 53 202 June 2, 1993 CITY of MOUND 534' t,d~YWOOD ROaD MOUND MINNESOTA 55164 ; 68- r612 472 0600 FAX ~6!2,472-0629 To: Ed Shukle City Manager Subject: Greg Skinner Public Works May Activity Report Street Department We finished sweeping the streets on the 17th of May. We will now start preparing for seal coating. I have informed Allied that we will be ready for them to start on the 19th of July. I expect to sweep the sealcoated roads starting August 9th. Precision Striping has completed all the striping except for 2 parking lots. These will be finished in the week. The four crosswalks, 2 on Shoreline, and the 2 on Commerce have been removed by the County. The chipper came in on May 24th to chip up the pile in the stockpile. This was completed on June 1st. We will leave the gates open for people to get wood chips. No Parking signs were installed on Hanover Rd and Beachwood Rd. The city days banners were put up on the 21st. Water Department We completed our fire hydrant flushing on may 6th. One new hydrant had to be installed. Other than that we just have a few minor repairs. On May 8th we had some problems with the well due to the storm the previous night. There were a few areas in town that had low water pressure for a short period of time. We found a breaker that was out at the main panel. Sewer Department We started cleaning sewer lines this month. This will continue until the end of September. At the same time we have been preparing for Viking Pipe arrival in June. They will be Televising about 10,000 feet of sewer line. printed on recycled paper CITY of ,X IOUND MAY PARKS DEPARTMENT REPORT PARK By the last week in May we had a full seasonal parks crew. The rush was to catch up with mowing and to prepare Mound Bay Park and cemetery for Memorial weekend. The installation of Three Points Park structure is well under way and we still look at mid-June for its completion. CEMETERY A lot of activity in repairs to grounds in preparation for Memorial weekend. BEACHES Mound Bay beach was opened for Memorial Weekend and will remain open only on weekends until school is out. DOCKS The mailing for updates of the private structures on public lands was compiled. These will be mailed out in June. TREES/WEEDS Complaints have begun and notices have been sent out. To date four trees and three weed notices have been sent. JF:ls printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 534': MAYWQOD ~Oa, D L'ObND L,'IIN N_.E 5©7A ~6~2~472 0605 ~aX (6i2~ 472 9620 June 1, 1993 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR MAY, 1993 MONTHLY REPORT Considering the fact that the weather has been only suitable for polar bears and ducks, I would say we had another incredible month. Sales for the month were $126,652. Last year the sales were $121,521. And you must factor in also that last year in May we had an extra Saturday that we did not have this year. Mother's Day, fishing opener and Memorial Day were all sales enhancing events for us. To keep you abreast as to where we stand to date after five months of sales, here are some eye-brow raising figures. Gross sales so far are $520,098. Last year at this time they were at $467,311. That is a difference of $52,787, or an increase of a little over 11%. Customers are up considerably also. We now stand at 42,479, compared to 38,554 last year. Up 3,925. If my calculations and projections are accurate, we should see an increase in dollar amounts for 1993 of approximately $117,000.00! JK:ls printed on recycled paper MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF MAY 1993 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 5/10 5/17 ~ ~ MIRS/ RA~ JEFF ANDERS~IW X X 2 19.00 2½ 42 8_tiff 252.00 GREG ANDERSON X X 2 19.00 2 35 6.Cf] 210.00 JERRY BABB X X 2 19.00 0 28 ~.OD 168.00 DAVID BOlD X O 1 9.50 2 25 6.00 150.00 DON BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 23 6. %9 149.50 SCOTt BRYCE X X 2 19.00 4 32 6.00 192.00 DAVE CARLSON X X 2 19.00 2 29 6.00 174.00 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 1½ 24 6.00 144.00 STEVE COLLINES X C'~ 1 9.50 2 23 6,00 138.00 RANDY ENGELHART X X 2 19.00 1 28 6.00 168.00 $'£~ F~ ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 32 6.25 200.00 PHIL FISK X X 2 19.00 2 31 6.00 186.00 GI~,ALD GARVAI S X X 2 19.00 0 26 6.00 156.00 DAN GRADY X ('~ 1 9.50 4 35 6.00 210.00 KEVIN GRADY120 DAY LEAl :](~) /z'~'> 0 -O- 0 0 6.00 -0- - CI~A TC. ~NlTk'R,q ('iN X X 2 19.00 3 31 6.00 186.00 PAIn. ~¥ X X 2 19.00 3 30 6.00 180.00 BRAD LAND.RMAW X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.00 180.00 RON MAR ~m'~ X X 2 19.00 2 22 6.00 132.00 J(]MN NAFUS X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.00 180.00 JAM~ N~Le~N X X 2 19.00 2 29 6.00 174.00 MARV NEkgO~ X X 2 19.00 1 23 6.00 138.00 BRET NI CCUM ~ X 1 9.50 1 23 6.00 138.00 Gu= Pm~ x x Z ~9.oo o 2o 6.00 12o.oo Tm PA~ X X 2 19.00 3 27 6.0o ~62.00 o~ ~mSON X X 2 ~9.00 2 29 6.OO 1~4.oo ~ ~oSS~N fO CD 0 -0- 0 0 6.00 -O- M~ SAVAOE X X 2 ~9.00 9 32 ~'00 ~92.OO ~ sn, mu:~n x x 2 19.00 1~ 27 6.oo - 162.00 R0N STALl. MAN X ~-~ 1 9.50 5½ 32 6.00 192.00 TOM SWENSON X (~"..2 I 9.50 2 22 6.00 132.OO ED VANECEK X X 2 19.00 2 40 6.00 240.00 RICK WILLIA~ X X 2 19.00 1{ 33 6.00 198.® TIM WILLIA~k~ X X 2 19.00 1 19 6.00 114.00 D~lqlNI S 140YTCKE X X 2 19.00 5~ 35 6.00 210.00 33 29 62 IOFAL$ 82½ 72½ 155 589.00 85~ 999 ~;~ 6,013.50 155 ~;'~ 589.09 85½ ~ ~,167.O0 ~ 7_ 769.50 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT IMIS LAST THIS'YEAR LAST YEAR MONTH OF MAY 1993 MONTH MON/M TO DATE TO DATE NO. OF CALLS 42 58 229 182 FIRE 12 13 47 38 MOUND F~IRGENCY 11 20 91 69 FIRE 1 Q 4 4 MINNETONKA BEACH EM~GENCY 0 FIRE 0 6 ] 3 q MINNETRTSTA ~GENCY 4 4 12 1 FIRE 0 3 10 ORONO MHERGEN~ 4 Z ! ! 7 FIRE O SHOREWOOD I~RGEI',L-~ 1, 0 1 1 SPRING PARK FZRE 0 F~.~-RGENCY 8 4 22 21 FIRE 1 0 Z 2 MUTUAL AID- EM]~GEN~ O O 1 0 TOTAL FIRE CALLS 14 27 90 71 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 28 31 COmmERCIAL 0 RESIDENTIAL 3 7 22, 26 INDUSTRIAL (] 0 (] 1 GRASS & MISCELLANEOUS 7 12 24 1% AUTO O FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS 3 5 3,3 2,1 NO. OF HOURS FIRE ~4 2q6 1145 1062 - MOUND MMERGENCY 2~1 410 1727 1340 TOTAL 565 706 2872 ~402 FIRE 2& (1 49 56 - MTKA BEACH M~iRQENCY (~ 26 26 O TOTAL 24 26 26 56 FIRE O ! ] 7 2~7 285 - M' TRISTA M.~GENLqf 59 7Z 197 23(~ TOTAL 59 189 434 523 FIRE 0 75 210 108 - ORONO D~RGENCY 92 42 252 189 TOTAL 9Z 117 462 Z97 FIRE O 27 27 120 - SHOREWOOD M,D~GENCY ?6 0 TOTAL FIRE ~ ~n5 qlq 211 - SP. PARK MM~RGENCY 1(;4 101 428 396 TOTAL 164 246 741 607 FIRE 69 0 99 112 - btrfUAL AID EMERG~I~CY 0 0 30 0 TOTAL 69 0 129 112 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 160 865 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 427 660 2080 1954 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 572 651 2686 2179 TOTAL FIRE & EMERGENCY HOURS 999 1311 4766 4133 MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 1 0 2 3 MUTUAL AID GIVEN 1 0 2 2 J · ~, i J Il, J ,I, HOUND FIRE DEPARTHENT DRILL .scipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation U'se of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : (2~ Excused X Onexecused REPORT pumper operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance 0 Present / Not Paid w' -,cel laneous : .2'/zJ.Andersen 2~,G.Anderson Z_~__Z_~ J'Babb D Boyd ~/z-D.Sryce ~_~_S.Sryce ~_~,_D.Car]son ~:J.Casey ~Y~S.Col]ins .Eng]ehart ,Erickson 2 ~P Fisk PERSONNEL ~Z~' J'Garvais ~D.Grady _~ _K.Grady ~ ~C.Henderson 2 ~P. Henry ~ LB.Landsman ~_~/,R.Marschke ~J. Na fu s J.Nelson M.Nelson ~2~_/~--~/i,M B'Niccum G.PaIm .Palm ~///~T.Palm ~G.Pederson T.Rassmusen M.Savage K.Sipprell R.Stal]man ~T.Swenson jW.Swenson E.Vanecek R.Williams .Williams zl).Woytcke DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance 0 Present / Not Paid Miscellaneous : PERSONNEL .Andersen .Anderson ~-~V/~j. Babb !.Boyd .Bryce .Bryce Z :Carlson Casey S.Collins R.Englehart .~t S Erickson P[Fisk · t' '° · ,~//~J. Ga tva i s ~ D.Grady ~_~'K .Grady C. Henderson ~z-P Henry R ' La nd sman .Marschke ~z~3.Nafus ~ .Nelson ~-M. Ne l son ff~B. Niccum Z ~'z_G. Pa l m ~M. Palm 2~T.Palm ~.Pederson Rassmusen 2ffz~MlSavage KSipprell ~!Stallman Swenson TRE'Swens°n .Vanecek .Williams .Williams .Woytcke bIOUND FIRE' DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF MEN ON DUTY J. ANDERSEN G. ANDERSON J. BABB D. BOYD D. BRYCE S. BRYCE D. CARLSON J. CASEY S. COLLINS R. ENGELHART S. ERICKSON P. FISK J. GARVAIS D. GRADY K. GRADY C. HENDERSON P. HENRY B. LANDSMAN R. MARSCHKE ~ J. NAFUS ~ J. NELSON / M. NELSON . / B. NICCUM O G. PALM _~ M. PALM , ~ T. PALM c~~ G. PEDERSON ~) T. RASMUSSEN ~ M. SAVAGE //~/ K. SIPPRELL ~_~-~ R. STALLMAN T. SWENSON / W. WILLIAMS E. VANECEK // R. WILLIAMS / T. WILLIAMS TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOD ROAD t,"OUND MINNESOTA 55364 t6!2~ 472 ,~.~t,£ FAX,G12 4-2 1523 June 3, 1993 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: CITY CLERK RE: MAY MONTHLY REPORT There were 2 regular Council Meetings, and 2 Board of Review Meetings in May. From these meetings there were minutes, resolutions and ordinances to be completed. Thanks to Linda who covered the second Board of Review Meeting and Council Meeting. I attended the annual IIMC (International Institute of Municipal Clerks) Conference from May 22 to 28. The theme this year was "Today - A Challenger Tomorrow - A Discovery." There were a variety of topics covered in the educational sessions, presentations and the exhibits. I feel this conference helps me to acquire knowledge that can be used in Mound to better serve the residents and my profession. There were over 40 different workshops on a variety of topics. IIMC now has over 10,000 members from all over the world. I just finished my third year of a three year term on the IIMC Board of Directors representing Region VI (Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin). There are 11 regions in this organization with 2 directors from each region. I have again been appointed to the IIMC Educational/Personal Growth Committee. This Committee recommends programs and projects to enhance the educational opportunities for municipal clerks. It also reviews, recommends and evaluates continuing education programs leading to the CMC (Certified Municipal Clerk) and AAE (Academy for Advanced Education) designation. Review of all liquor and beer license applications and required accompanying data that have been submitted. The Zoning Ordinance has now been proofread by 4 people including myself and corrections to typos, etc. have been corrected. We will be getting this ready for print soon. fc printed on recycled paper 02-Jun-g3 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR MAY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT INVESTMENTS The following is the May investment activity: Balance: :MaY 1~ 1993 Bought: Money Market Monthly Income Reinvested $4,824,066 457 Matured: CP 3.10 Shearson (198,802) Money Market 4M Fund (50,000) Balance: May 31i 1993 $4,575,721 Water/Sewer Bondinn At the request of the City Manager, the Water and Sewer Financial Analysis was prepared for the Council with the recommendation to authorize the sale of bonds for the net of $1,300,000. This money is to be spent to replace the water meters, paint the water tank, improve the watermain and upgrade the lift stations. Pre-Tax Plan In May the new Pre-Tax Plan was implemented for those full time employees who opted to participate. The employees will benefit from the plan because less Federal, State and Social Security Taxes are taken out of their pay checks. The City will benefit from the plan because less Social Security contributions will need to be made. Fixed Assets Data Bas~- At the recommendation of the Auditors, the manual records for Fixed Assets are being converted to a computerized data base. Once the data is entered into the computer, we will be able to produce the necessary reports for departments to verify the accuracy of the assets in their custody. The Finance Department will use the information for the audit and the preparation of the Annual Financial Report. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Len Harrell Monthly Report for May 1993 STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,202 calls for service during the month of May. There were 22 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conducts, 3 burglaries, 15 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thefts. There were 59 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 1 weapon, 1 narcotic, 12 damage to property, 3 liquor law violation, 6 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, 4 domestics (1 with assault), 9 harassments, 6 juvenile status offenses and 11 other offenses. The patrol division issued 106 adult citations and 1 juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an additional 8 tickets. Warnings were issued to 51 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 2 adults and 7 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 17 adults and 9 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 6 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 12 vehicular accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 19 medical emergencies and 107 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 8 occasions in May and requested assistance 3 times. Property valued at $23,244 was stolen in May. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - MAY 1993 II. III. IV. Ve INVESTIGATION The investigators worked on 5 criminal sexual cases and 6 child protection cases during the month of May. These cases accounted for 68 hours of investigative time. Through the first 5 months of 1993 there have been 28 child protection issues and 9 criminal sexual conduct cases reported. Other cases investigated included robbery, burglary, narcotics, fraud, assault, theft, possession of stolen property, NSF check/forgery, harassment, and deprivation of parental rights. Formal complaints were issued for assault and damage to property. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 28 hours of overtime during the month of May. Officers used 91 hours of comp-time, 186 hours of vacation, 53 hours of sick time, and 3 holidays. Officers earned 77 hours of comp-time. Training Sgt. McKinley completed the three month program at the Southern Police Institute and graduated "Dean's Scholar" with straight "A"'s. Sgt. Grand attended Dimensional Management Training for 4 days with BCA learning the psychology of sound management' practices. Sgt. Grand and Inv. Truax attended a one day seminar on police liability issues. Officer Ewald continues to attend the Wilson Leadership and Supervisory course monthly. Officers also attended intoxilyzer and EMT recertification classes. Police Reserves The Reserves donated 297 hours during the month of May. Capt. Fox resigned as has Sgt. Katie Fox, effective May 31, 1993. OF FENSES REPORTED CLEARED UNFOUNDED MAY 1993 CLEARED CLEARED BY ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVENILE PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexua[ Conduct 2 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0 BurgLary 3 0 0 0 Larceny 15 0 0 5 Vehicle Theft 2 0 1 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 22 0 1 5 2 PART Ii CRIMES Chi[d Abuse/Neglect 4 0 0 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 12 0 0 2 3 Weapons 1 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 1 0 0 1 1 Liquor Laws 3 0 0 3 1 O~I 6 0 0 6 6 Simple Assault 2 0 1 0 1 Domestic Assau[t 1 0 0 1 0 Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0 0 Harassment 9 0 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 6 0 3 3 0 Public Peace 1 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Offenses 10 1 1 5 5 TOTAL 59 1 5 21 17 PART Il! & PART IV Property D~m~ge Accidents 10 Persona[ Injury Accidents 2 Fata[ Accidents 0 Medicals 19 Animal Complaints 107 Mutual Aid 8 Other Genera[ Investigations 972 TOTAL 1,118 Hennepin County Child Protection 3 TOTAL 1,202 26 19 16 I I 1, I I Ii, I I MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT MAY 1993 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS MONTH Hazardous Citations 51 Non-Hazardous Citations 45 Hazardous Warnings 10 Non-Hazardous Warnings 20 Verbal Warnings 94 Parking Citations 8 DWI 6 Over .10 5 Property Damage Accidents 10 Personal Injury Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 3 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 12 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 0 Juvenile Felony Arrests 7 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 9 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 0 Part I Offenses 22 Part II Offenses 59 Medicals 19 Animmal Complaints 107 Other Public Contacts 972 YEAR TO DATE 244 219 65 66 666 156 33 23 33 8 0 18 97 2 13 27 1 104 253 150 343 3,569 LAST YEAR TO DATE 282 104 69 221 507 382 26 17 33 9 0 30 168 39 10 25 16 120 294 118 400 2,287 TOTAL 1,461 Assists 35 Follow-Ups 33 Henn. County Child Protection 3 Mutual Aid Given 8 Mutual Aid Requested 3 6,090 199 115 20 40 7 5,157 322 88 27 48 22 CITATIONS DWI More than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates Illegal Passing Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Derelict Autos Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT MAY 1993 ADULT 6 5 0 6 0 43 0 0 14 0 3 1 0 0 18 0 1 8 1 2 0 4 0 114 JUV 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT MAY 1993 WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Warrant Misdemeanor Warrants ADULT 1 10 10 0 2 19 0 6 1 2 51 1 5 JUV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run: 28-Nay-93 13:17 PRO03 Primary ISN~s only: No Date Reported range: 04/26/93 - 05/25/93 Activity codes: ALl Property Status: ALL Property Types= All Property Oescs: All Brands: All Node[s: All Officers/Badges: All HOUND POLZCE DEPARTHENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Page Prop Prop %nc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Tp Oesc SN Stat Stolen Value Date Recov~d Quantity Act Brand Node[ Off-1 Off-2 Recov'd Value Code Assnd Assnd A Prop type Totals: 900 B Prop type Totals: 775 E Prop type Totals: 1 0 Prop type Totals: 168 R Prop type Totals: 500 S Prop type Totals: 19,570 T Prop type Totals: 50 W Prop type Totals: 50 X Prop type Totals: 976 Y Prop type Totals: 254 **** Report Totals: 23,244 900 1.000 0 3.000 1 1.000 0 1.000 0 4.000 0 4.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 24 5.000 925 22.000 Run: 1-Jun-93 10:46 CFS08 Primary lSN's on[y: No Dat,.~ Reported range: 04/26/93 - 05/25/93 r 'ange each day: 00:00 - 2]:59 How Received: Activity Resulted: AIl Dispositions: AIl Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: Patrol Areas: Alt Days of the week: AIl MOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT Enfors Ca[Is For Service INCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 9006 TEST REFUSAL 9014 STOP SIGN 9016 FAILURE TO YIELD 9021 J'CARELESS/RECKLESS 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 9p''~'* CROSSWALK VIOLATION 9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 42 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 6 1/, 19 1 2 10 3 2 8 2 2 2 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 9301 LOST PERSONS 9309 FOUND/RUNAWAY 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9, (/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9561 DOG BITE 9563 DOG AT LARGE Page R~n: 1-Jm-93 10:/,6 CFS08 Primary lSN's only: No Oate Reported range: 04/26/93 - 05/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Hog Received: AiL Activity Resutted: ALL Dispositions: ALt Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: AlL Days of the week: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CalLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 2 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 2 9730 MEDICALS 15 9731 MEDICALS/DX 1 9732 MEDICALS/Cl 1 9735 lO0 INJURY 2 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 2 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 3 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 2 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 3 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 2 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 25 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 8 9944 UNWANTED GUEST 1 9980 WARRANTS 6 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 2 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 1 ~3 MUTUAL AID/6500 5 9994 MUTUAL AIO/ ALL OTHER 1 9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS 1 A5332 ASLT 5-1NFLT BOOILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACO 1 A53§1 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 1 Page Run: 1-flun-93 10:46 CFS08 Primary ISN's onty: No DpZeReported range: 04/26/9~ - 05/25/9~ 'ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Oispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: ALL Days of the week: ALL ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ Bl164 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK UEAP-COM THEFT B4090 BURG 4-AT FRC NRES-U-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT D3550 DRUGS-SCH 2 NARCOTIC-POSSESS-COCAIN-OTH CHAR J2r' TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR JZEO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH K6004 DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK WEAP-CHLD-FAM L4072 CSC 2 WEAP-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 13-M L5177 CSC 3-NO FRC-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F H3001 M3005 ~5350 ~5532 g3060 N3190 P2130 ~3110 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO JUVENILE-RUNAWAY HEALTH-SAFETY-HAZ ~ASTE-UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL DISTURB PEACE-MS-CONCEALING IDENTITY DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS ROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-GM-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 9 1 1 9 Page o31 Run: 1 -Ju~-93 10:46 CFS08 Primary lSN's onty: No Date Reported range: 04/26/93 - 05/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 2~:59 How Received: Al[ Activity Resulted: Oispositions: Officers/Badges: Grids: Ali Patrol Areas: AIl Days of the week: AIl ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS P3120 P3600 01217 T4159 TG021 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS STLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-PREC METAL-501-2500 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP TG059 TG159 U1497 U3288 U3498 V1029 V8021 ~3190 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VEH THEFT-FE-OVER 2500-80AT-SLF PROPEL MTRIZ VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO WEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR **** Report Totals: 297 Page Run: 1-Jun-93 10:24 OFF01 Primary [SN's onty: No Oate Reported range: 04/26/93 - 05/25/93 T" ~ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- COOE DESCRIPTION PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED A5332 ASLT 5-1NFLT BOOILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 I 100.0 A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.0 A5355 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 81164 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B4090 BURG 4-AT FRC NRES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 D3~gn DRUGS-SCH 2 NARCOTIC-POSSESS-COCAIN-OTH CHAR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 J25uo TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 K6004 DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK ~EAP-CHLD-FAM 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 L4072 CSC 2 UEAP-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 13-M 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 L5177 CSC 3-NO FRC-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0 M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 5 0 5 0 0 2 3 5 100.0 ~3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 Pl130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 P2' ~ROP DAMAGE-GM-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 8 0 8 7 1 0 0 1 12.5 P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 1-Jun-93 10:24 OFF01 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 04/26/93 - 05/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Oispositions: All Activity codes: Officers/Badges: A[~ Grids: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS Q1217 STLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-PREC METAL-501-2500 T4159 TG021 TG029 TG059 TG159 U1497 U3288 U3498 V1029 VB021 W3190 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP THEFT'LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY THEFT-LESS 200'GM'BUILDING'OTH PROP THEFT'LESS 200'GM'YARDS'OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-§O0 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS THEFT'MS'BICYCLE'NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VEH THEFT'FE'OVER 2500-BOAT-SLF PROPEL MTRIZ VEH'501-2500-FE-THEFT'AUTO WEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR PENDING **** Report Totats: 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 74 1 73 41 Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX' PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO 0 0 1 I 100.0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 1 1 100,0 0 0 0 0 0,0 15 11 6 32 43.8 BOARD MEMBERS Dawd H. Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Penn. Vice Cha,r Tonka Bay Dcugias E. Babcock. Secretary Spring Park Scoff. Car!son. Treasurer Minnetrista M:ke Bloom Minnetonka Beach A!bert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Exceisior JoE!len L. Hurr Orono W4;,am A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Rouen Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound Rcbert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 · WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612'473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REC'D JUN 2 1993 TO: MOUND C1TY COUNCIL DATE: JUNE 1, 1993 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: MAY REPORT- LMCD 1.0 Eurasion Watermilfoii Task Force. 1.1 The weed control crow for the 1993 season has all been hired. Much stress has been placed on getting persons who will be able to return in future years. This year as part of the program, chemical and manual clean up weed control at the 8 public accesses will be undertaken. There has been concern that the weed is spread from Minnetonka by trailered beats where weeds are picked up when the boats are loaded. 1.2 Enclosures will be placed in St Alban's Bay as part of the Sonar effectiveness assessment. The LMCD will assist in this effort. 1.3 Some weevils similar to those found to feed on milfoil have been located in Gideon's and Smith's Bays. This is a very preliminary, positive sign that they might propagate in Minnetonka. 1.4 The 1993 Budget has been established at $133,900. 2.0 Lake Management Plan 2.1 Lake Access. 7 potential new access sites have been designated. The chances of these being needed at this time is slight. Agreements with the cities on guaranteed parking are proceeding, slowly. The investigation of the potential for free launching at existing marinas remains to be done. This would be financed by an annual grant from the DNR. 2.2 The Environmental Committee has concluded that the Management Plan is too vague on measureab!e advancements in environmental matters and recommends that a consultant be retained to further define attainable, measureable goals in tiffs area. 2.3 The proposal for staggered LMCD board members' terms included in the Lake Management Plan continues to be held up in application Now some opposition from Orono's mayor to the staggered terms has surfaced 3.0 Other General Items 3.1 A well attended mayors' meeting was held May i 8. There was no pr. es.sure of any kind to proceed to an elected board. In view of the unamm~ty of the Mound Council on this issue, it might have been well if Mound had been represenled at the breakfast. The emergence of a strong presentation from an elected person, might have encouraged other like minded cities to speak o.p. I hesitated to bring the item up more than just the passing ~ferenee made to it. The meeting lasted quite a while as discussion on the lengthy agenda carried on. It was agreed that future meetings should be more closely focussed on a single issue of joint interest to the cities and the LMCD. 3.2 The troublesome multiple dock license renewal (w/changes) for the Gideon's Bay development is still current, and has been re-referred to the Water Structures Committee, 3.4 Some empirical decibel level testing was done May 25th as the start on the program for noise reduction on the lake. Several different styles of boats were tested both at idle and at speed. It was quite easy to differentiate the noisy boats from the those that meet the 82 Dba requirements. 3.5 A new LMCD administrative assistant and a bookeeper have been hired to replace persons who retired or left In addition Gene Strommen has been on Jury Duty. This has put a severe strain on the office in terms of getting the usual work out. 3.6 The LMCD 1994 Budget almost identical in amount to the 1993 budget is about ready to go out to the cities for comment If, when you receive it, you wish to discuss, give me a call. 4.0 Mound Specific Items 4.1 The Stocks have applied for a variance to allow them to put a dock on their 20 ft frontage property on Halstead's bay. A public hearing was held last Wednesday. No adverse testimony was presented. They are selling the property. With a dock, vs no dock has a great impact on the value of the property. They bought it when it had a dock, and they obviously thought it was legal. It was not. As their representative, I would like to help them, but I am troubled by this, because the hardship is primarily f'mancial, and for persons who will no longer be Mound residents. Mound Representative - LMCD cc. Gene Strommen ! ! 1, i J Ii, I I REC'D JUN 1.. 1993 LAKE MINNETONKACONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata MN 55391 473'9708 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE JUNE 1993 Tuesday Friday Saturday Tuesday Friday Wednesday 8 11 Z2 15 18 23 Fee Study Subcommittee 4:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Administration Subcommittee Meeting 5:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Water Structures Lake Inspection Tour 5:00 - 9:00 PM Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Commt'ttee 7:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Lake Access Committee 8:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Eurasian Water Milfotl Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Adm~nistrative Committee Meeting 6:00 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall 05/26/93 Emmy Peter'son May 26, 1993. Dear Mr. Harrell: While this true incident of last Sunday re- flects no great calamity, it nonetheless does convey the care and concern of our area police officers. Lasf Sunday while visiting at our local nursing Home my tire "exploded"! Firestone being closed I attempted to reach the park- ing lot of Bayview Condos where I live. Upon turning in I noted a police car behind me. Never was more pleased at being followed by an officer! He assured me that he would summon help. His concern and courteous manner deeply impressed me. I learned his name was Mr. Huggett. He called Orono Police who arr- ived promptly. Again courtesy and effic- iency! Wish I'd gotten his name! He told me a tow service would arrive in "1o min- utes'', It did! He also promised to "follow up". Fine action from the tow company. "How can we improve?" Sunday,s incident tells me there's "little~room for improve- ment!" Glad I live in an area of caring land efficient police officers! EP Z Gratefully, E~my~~e~so~ I · 1, I · II, I HOW WERE YOU SERVED? 1. [] I called to report an incident. 5. [] I was cited or arrested. 2. [] I was a victim of an offense. 6. ~ was involved in another way: 3. [] I was witness to a crime or incident ./4'~,¢~ w'~,w2, ~-'" ,/~.¢~', '~'¢"' 4. [] I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. PLEASE MARK US ON THE SERVICES WE PROVIDED YOU WITH. Dispatch Services 7. Speed in answering 8. Accuracy in registering your report V/ 9. Taking appropriate action -,//10. Courtesy EXCF. LL~NT GOOD AVG, FAIR POOR Patrol Officer Services Officer #: i / ~ j Complete this section if you requested police services. 11. Response time to your call [] [] 12. Concern [] [] 13. Knowledge [] [] 14. Solving the problem /.S [] [] 15 Professional conduct ? [] 16. Listening [] [] 17. Telling you the disposition [] [] 18. Overall demeanor [] [] Complete this section if you were cited or arrested. 19. Courtesy [] [] 20. Explanation of actions ~,. 1'~.... [] [] 21. Professional conduct I~" [] [] 22. Putting you at ease ....... [] [] 23. Respectful treatment ........ [] [] Investigation Services Officer #: i' ] Complete this section if follow up was necessary. 24. Timeliness of investigation [] [] 25 Thoroughness L~ [] 26. Telling you the disposition ' v q [] 27. Concern [] [] 28. Professional conduct [] [] Overall Evaluation 29. ~A?erall, how would you rate our services? [] [] 30. L~ Yes [] No Did our staff respond with an attitude that ~qnveyed desire to provide you with the best possible service? 31. k/1 Yes [] No Would you feel comfortable in dealing with our department in the future? ,/,/ . Please name any, o~our sta,ff,y,/ho served you/espe~ci,clly well: ,¢ t d MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 Those present were: Planning Commissioners Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Bill Voss was absent and excused. The following were also in attendance: Park Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Shirley Andersen, and Tom Casey; and Neil Weber. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 1993 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Michael seconded by Hanus to approve the Plannlng Commission Minutes of April 26, 1993 as written· Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission Minutes of May 10, 1993 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 10, 1993 with the inclusion that Frank Weiland be listed as present. Motion carried unanimously. REVIEW AND COMMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT BY BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, displayed a flow chart depicting the EAW Process, and he read from the EAW Guidelines the four major steps involved in processing an EAW, as follows: The proposer of the project supplies data necessary for the completion of the EAW to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU). The RGU prepares the EAW. 3. Thirty (30) day public comment period. The RGU responds to the comments received and makes a decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on the EAW, comments received, and the responses to the comments. The RGU and other units of government may require modifications to the project to mitigate environmental impacts as disclosed through the EAW process. Koegler displayed the Teal Pointe EAW Schedule on the overhead, as follows: June 8, 1993 June IO, 1993 June 14, 1993 June 15, 1993 June 28, I993 July 28, 1993 August I0, I993 City Council approval of the EAW for distribution. City Of Mound sends EAW to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and distribution list. EAW received by EQB (assumed). City of Mound submits required press release to "The Laker" for publication on June 2I, 1993. Publication of EAW in "EQB Monitor" - start of 30 day comment period. End of comment period. Mound City Council Meeting - EAW decision on need for an EIS. August I2, I993 City of Mound distributes notice of EAW decision. August 23, 1993 Notice of decision published in "EQB Monitor". The only other EAW the City of Mound has been involved with was for the proposed Pelican Point Development, and that EAW was never formally submitted to the EQB. Koegler noted two typos within the "Attachments to the EAW" as follows: , #9 should read that "all" of this site was a single family residential lot. #14, second paragraph, the setback from the top of the bluff shall be 30' for principal structures and 10' for accessory structures. (NOTE: Further investigation of the ordinance reveals the required setback to all structures from the top of a bluff is 10 feet.) Koegler reviewed the reason for the EAW. The City Council ordered, by resolution, an EAW be completed for the proposed Teal Pointe subdivision due to findings that the proposed subdivision may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission now have the opportunity to comment on the EAW prior to the City Council sending it to the EQB for review. Koegler stated that the results of this EAW are well under the threshold for a mandatory EIS. Staff confirmed that the cost of the EAW is being paid by the developer through and escrow account at the City. Clapsaddle questioned the source of the information in the report. Koegler commented Bruce Chamberlain of his office compiled the information, and most of it was supplied by the developer. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 Concern was expressed relating to lots 1, 2, and 3, and the related variances. Koegler confirmed that the Shoreland Management Ordinance regulations will not apply to this PDA, however, must meet the requirements outlined in the Preliminary Plat Resolution #93-20. The Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission made comments on the following questions. For the purpose of organization, the questions are listed in numerical order, however, were not necessarily discussed in this order. Q. #6 Description. See Exhibit 6, Site Tabulatlon It was questioned how the Building Footprint square footage was calculated. Staff confirmed that the houses which are to be elevated with open space underneath were calculated at 75% hardcover. What is type of surface going to be under house? Both Koegler and Neil Weber agreed that the calculation could be changed to 100% coverage because it will not change the impact of the hardcover. Q. #9 Land Use. The answer to this question in the "Attachments to the EAW" should be corrected to reflect a "public" sewer system with one private lift station. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. b. Are there any state-listed endangered, threatened, or special concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nest colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? The answer listed is no. Comments in the "Attachments to the EAW" states "According to the Natural Heritage Program of the MN/DNR there are no designated rare natural species or features on the site or within a mile of the site (see Exhibit 11 for Natural Heritage Program listing of rare natural features). Casey requested that this answer be confirmed by conducting an on-site survey. The Natural Heritage Program listing indicates that an on-site survey of this area has not been conducted, so how do we really know if there are any rare species on the property? Mueller commented that rare species were located in Hardscrabble Point Woods which is not too far from this site, and he questioned if it is within one mile of Teal Pointe. He also remarked that he would hate to learn a species was lost to the world because the development was approved. Chamberlain confirmed that Hardscrabble Point Woods is more than 1 mile from Teal Pointe. Johnson suggested that the verbiage in the "Attachments to the EAW" be amended as follows: "According to the . . . there are no ~ designated rare . . ." It was also suggested that the verbiage fu~ clarify that no on-site survey has been conducted on the subject property. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 Chair Meyer took a poll: Those in favor of requesting an on-site survey were: Casey. Those not in favor of a survey, but in favor of modifying the language were: Johnson, Byrnes, Weiland, Meyer Jensen, Hanus, Michael. ' Clapsaddle and Mueller stated they are in favor of changing the language, however, they would like the City to investigate the cost of a survey. Andersen was not present for the poll. Q #15 water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? (Answered "no"). If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. Mueller questioned if the proposed lots will have riparian rights and stated that this property abuts the 929.4, therefore, they have every right to erect a dock and use the lake for watercraft. In his opinion, this project could change the number of watercraft on Lake Minnetonka and this question should be answered "yes". Koegler stated that no dockage is allowed without first obtaining a dock license from the City of Mound because it abuts a City wetland. Koegler agreed that someone could put a canoe in the water. Mueller commented that we have a more pristine wetland now and that the condition of this wetland will change in the future due to the development. Neil Weber commented that the run-off will be better after the development because it will be controlled. Mueller feels that the water surface usage will change. Casey agrees with Mueller and commented that we have no control over the new property owners on their use of herbicides or other actions affecting the water quality. Chair Meyer took a poll. The results were 3 in favor and 8 opposed to changing the answer to "yes", as follows: Those in favor were Casey, Clapsaddle and Mueller, and those opposed were Byrnes, Andersen, Meyer, Michael, Hanus, Johnson, Weiland, and Jensen were opposed. Q #17 Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 0.75 .; cubic yards 900 . Mueller questioned how Chamberlain arrived at this figure. Neil Weber commented that he supplied the figures to Chamberlain, and then he confirmed them to be accurate. The fill is for the two access roads, and the construction of the retaining walls as requested by the neighbors has reduced the amount of fill needed. Chamberlain will reconfirm the grading quantity. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 #18 Water Quality - surface water Runoff. Mueller noted that there were no comments made in the EAW regarding water run-off/retention for Drummond Road and Outlet A, only for Windsor Road and five of the lots. Casey commented that it is important to reflect the impact of all the land. Q $19 water Quality - wastewaters. Language should be added to this answer including mention of the lift station serving lots 1, 2, and 3. Q #21 Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes,; Storage Tanks. b. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). Mueller questioned if the lift station should be mentioned in this answer. Koegler commented that a lift station is not a storage tank. It was determined that reference to the lift station could be mentioned in Question ~19. Q #26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? The answer listed is: "Research underway". Casey questioned the status of the archeological survey. Neil Weber commented that he has seen only a draft of the survey, however, the final draft has been forwarded to the State Archeologist for their review. He explained that the required process is for the State Archeologist to respond in writing to the RGU after he reviews the archeological survey. Koegler requested that the City receive a copy of the survey, along with the Letter as soon as possible, prior to the June 8 1993 City Council meeting. ' Q #32 SUMMARY OF ISSUES. Johnson questioned the meaning of "Careful Construction Methods". Koegler commented that this means to take care when constructing, to trees, vegetation, and other natural resources. Casey asked what assurances does the City have that these methods will be used? Staff suggested that restrictions could be established to regulate vegetation removal on the bluffs. General Comments and Conclusion Staff noted that private covenants and restrictions can be required with final plat approval and restrictions can be listed in this document to help control concerns. Conditions in final plat approval can still be added. 5 I · I i · ii, I Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 Clapsaddle questioned the number of vehicles allowed to be stored on each lot. He commented that it will degrade the property if they are allowed to store 7 recreational vehicles in their yards, especially considering the topography of the lots. Meyer suggested that something be put in the covenants to help control this situation. This concluded the review and comments session on the EAW. minutes will be forwarded to the City Council for the June 8, meeting. These 1993 TRUTH IN HOUSING UPDATE. Mueller reviewed figures he obtained from the MLS, as follows: Figures for 1-1-92 through 1-1-93: 111 Houses 280 Houses 391 Houses left on the market came off the market total Mueller estimated that there were 350 houses offered for sale in Mound in 1992. This figure does not include houses for sale by owner (the national average of houses sold by the owner is 6 percent of total sales). The percent of current house sales that have independent inspections was discussed. Mueller commented that the average cost for an independent inspection is $250 to $300, but for inspections regulated by a City the cost ranges from $75 to $125. FOR YOUR REVIEW, MINUTES OF THE RENTAL TASK FORCE MEETINGS OF MAY 10 AND MAY 17t 1993. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the status of the proposed rental ordinance. A recommendation from the Rental Task Force along with the proposed ordinance as amended by them, will be forwarded to the City Council for their review at the May 25, 1993 meeting. The Building Official reviewed the changes made to the proposed ordinance by the task force. MINUTES Mueller referred to the May 10, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes, pages 3 and 4 relating to the Ritenour Subdivision, and asked why the reason for dissention was not stated for Meyer and himself. Mueller apologized for being late and not being present for the initial vote on the minutes. Motion made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to reconsider the vote approving the Minutes of the May 10, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve the Minutes of the May 10, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting with the following amendments: Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 1. Include Weiland as present at the meeting. Amend page 4 to include the following: "Both Mueller and Meyer agreed that they will not vote in favor of the motion to approve the subdivision because of the front yard setback variance. One of the reasons they were in favor of granting the variance when it was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission, was because of the amount of open space on the lot. If they had known a lot split was planned, they would have viewed the variance differently, they may have recommended the house be moved back. In addition, the proposed hardcover is at its limit and does not allow for future expansion, such as a deck. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission requested that this change be forwarded to the City Council at their meeting the following evening. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT The City Council Minutes of May 11, 1993, and the agenda for May 25 1993 were reviewed by Liz Jensen. ' MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - MAY 20, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Mark Brewer, Councilmember Ken Smith, Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Jerry Pietrowski, Stan Drahos, Fred Guttormson, Marge Friederichs. Absent and excused: Paul Meisel. Also absent: Jerry Longpre. Also present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Bruce Chan%berlain, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.; Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Pietrowski, and carried unanimously, the minutes of the April 15, 1993 meeting were approved. Bruce Chamberlain indicated that he would like to have participants of the Mound Visions program kept up to date on the redevelopment of downtown. He suggested a meeting with the participants within the next month and asked for persons from the EDC to attend. A meeting will be scheduled soon. City Manager Ed Shukle and Bruce Chamberlain updated the EDC on the Community Services feasibility report. Cha~erlain distributed a memorandum dated May 6, 1993 which brings the issues regarding redevelopment of the community center site into perspective. Lost Lake and public works outdoor storage was discussed. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Guttormson and carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council the following sites for alternatives for Lost Lake: 1. City hall, both east and west sides 2. East of the Public Works Building 3. The Bickman property. It is the recommendation of the EDC to have the Council to direct city staff to reopen the file on the city hall site both east and west ends. This would be the $1 site, to be re-examined. If this site did not appear to be feasible, then the file on the property east of the Public Works building should be re-examined. Finally, if the second option did not appear to be feasible, the Bickman property file should be re-examined. Ed Shukle and Marge Friederichs updated the EDC on the Duck Stamp Event, set for July 1, 1993. The EDC will be working with the Chan%ber of Commerce in selling the t-shirts, sweatshirts and the Bruce Miller Loon Print. Material regarding the Mound Visions program and Chamber will be distributed from the booth in the Pond Arena on July 1st. Bruce Chamberlain presented some information in regard to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The consensus was to pursue looking into this possible grant for trails. Other business discussed was meetings with developers concerning downtown Mound, possible school referendum, and school district survey. The next meeting of the EDC will be Thursday, June 17, 1993, 7 AM, Mound City Hall. Jerry Pietrowski will bring the rolls. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 AM. HENNEPIN IL ASSESSOR A-2'103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-02'13 June 2, 1993 JUN 4 Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed, Re: Request From Mound City Council for Statistical Data on the JanuarY 2, 1993 Assessment There were 177 residential sales in Mound during our study period for the 1993 assessment. Our median ratio on those sales was 93.7%. The residential property type had a total growth of 2.0%, excluding improvements and property type changes. Further stratification of the ratio study follows. Number Of Sales Ratio Total Growth Off Lake 133 93.7 2.4% Lakeshore 44 93.8 1.3% Lakeshore Breakdown On Lake 27 On Commons 10 Channel and Deeded Access 7 I hope this information is helpful. there are any questions. Very truly yours, · Mo ~4-~ Principal Appraiser KMR: jb 94.0 94.5 94.0 Not Available Not Available Not Available Please call me at 348-3046 if HENNEPIN COUNTY an ~qual opportunity ~mploy~r ii, I I HENNEPIN iL ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 June 2, 1993 JUN 4 ~ Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed, Re: Request From Mound City Council for Statistical Data on the JanuarY 2, 1993 Assessment There were 177 residential sales in Mound during our study period for the 1993 assessment. Our median ratio on those sales was 93.7%. The residential property type had a total growth of 2.0%, excluding improvements and property type changes. Further stratification of the ratio study follows. Number Of Sales Ratio Total Growth Off Lake 133 93.7 2.4% Lakeshore 44 93.8 1.3% Lakeshore Breakdown On Lake 27 On Commons 10 Channel and Deeded Access 7 I hope this information is helpful. there are any questions. Very truly yours, Principal Appraiser KMR: jb 94.0 94.5 94.0 Not Available Not Available Not Available Please call me at 348-3046 if HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer I~1. uuz/uuz June 8, 1993 Mr. Jon Sutherland, Building Inspector City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon: SUBJECT: Request for Variance at 5335 Baywood Shores Drive I am aware of the Mound City Council,s action denying my request for a variance. We would like to ask the council to send the variance request back to the Planning Commission so we may submit a modified proposal. Thank you for hearing this request. Sincerely, Gary Spaulding 5335 Baywood Shores Drive Mound, MN 55364 I1 JUN ? LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Public I/earing: To consider a variance aPplication from Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane. Hound, Halsteds Pay, to reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a dock and a boat. Meeting: 7 PM, Wednesday. May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood: 5like Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Bert Foster, Deep- haven; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; George Owen, Victoria; Robert Rascop. Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound. Robert Slocum, Woodland and Duane Markus, Wayzata arrived during the discussion. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administra- tive Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The Public Hearing was convened at 7 P~ by Chair Cochran. The Board received a report from the staff with site draw- ings, a copy of The Bluffs plat, and a survey of the Stocks' lot. Thibault explained the Stocks' lot was platted on 12/3/74 with 20' of shoreline. The L~CD Code requires 10' side setbacks for a dock use area unless the owners have permission from the neighbors to adjust the side setbacks. There is a code provi- sion, Sect. 2.01, Subd. 2, b) 3), which to allows 5' side set- backs if the lot was platted before 2/2/70. That provision does not apply in this case because of the date of platting. Thibault said the previous owner, Robert Humphrey, had a dock with a boat at this site since 1975. In purchasing the property, the Stocks understood they could have a similar ar- rangement. When Stocks started to sell the property the neigh- bors informed them that they had limited dock rights and they were not willing to give unconditional approval for a reduced side setback. The Stocks have applied for a variance to reduce the side setbacks to 5' so they can sell the property with dock rights. Roma Stocks presented additional historical facts. She submitted a copy of the advertisement which appeared when they purchased the property. After purchasing the property in 198~, an immediate neighbor, blrs. Kathren Olson, 6385 Bayridge Road, advised them they could not have a dock. After checking w/th the previous owner, Humphrey, and gaining assurance from him that they could have a dock, they proceeded with the installation. complaint was filed with the L~ICD. Mr. ~lelony, the L~ICD (lock inspector at that time, met with Hr. Humphrey and Hrs. Olson. :\ri arrangement between Humphrey and Olson was arrived at to allow Stocks to keep the dock. Owen asked if Mound has indicated any interest. Hrs. Stocks replied the City approved the lot with a 20' shoreline and citsr records do not indicate anything about dock rights. [turf said Mound must have had in mind giving dockage access in allowing the 20' lakeshore on the Stocks' lot and 20' on another lot at the west end of the plat. I,[ PUBLIC IlI';ARING, Thomas Stocks May 26, lO93 Patrick Kelly, attorney representing .~lr. and ~drs. Stocks. stressed there has been a clock on the property for 10 vcar~q. There was a problem with the previous owner of the Stock'4 ty because his dock e~croached on the neighbor's. Since the Stocks have owned the property there was no problem unt i I the Stocks prepared to sell the property. The neighbors h;:x-e been unwilling to give written authorization that can be communicated to a buyer saying there are dock ri~°hts. Kelly said one of thc neighbors indicated they have no object ion to thedock but 4~t'e not willing to put it in writing. Kelly pointed out that there are no deed restrictions in The Bluffs plat on this property. There is an outiot in the centc'r of the development shoreline which is used as a beach for tile non-riparian owners and has restrictions about using it for boat dockage · q Thibault called attention to a letter d~ted ./2{~/o3 dressed to the LS1CD from ltarry and charlotte Reynolds. 63'°'5 Bayridge Road, (formerly owned by Kathren Olson) indicatin~ th,:~y have no objection to the Stocks having a dock on their property as long as they do not encroach upon the Reynolds' i~r,,pcrtx' lake frontage rights. Kelly said there was a problem when thc previous owner moved the dock over to avoid a storm sewer outlet. That created an encroachment on the Reynolds property. Robert llumphrey, the previous owner, said he purcha:~ed the property in 1975 with the express purpose of havin'2 a dock for, his 25' cabin cruiser, tle had various other larger ho,:.tts at the. dock over the vears and there were no objections from He said the Reynolds, at one time, kept a fishing bo,~t on his dock. There were no objections when he sold the property to thc Stocks · throu_oh conx'ersa- }lumphrey said it was his understanding, tions with the developer, that the platting was arran~zcd to ~ix'e dock rights to the two identical lots on either end of the plat through the 20' lake access, lte said another issue is the Code itself. He can understand restricting small lots lined up on:2 by one. In this case there is no congestion because there are larger lake frontages on either side of the two lots. Bob Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane. owner of the 20' lot to the west, said he was sold the property in 1977 with the understand- lng that he had dockage rights. He does not feel he has a prol,- leto at this time because he shares a dock with a nei°-hbor' Responding to a question from }lurr, Floeder said he can foresee- a problem if he were to sell his property. Slocum and 5iarkus arrived. Rascop asked what the significance is of thc 10'~1 pl~tt date. LeFevere responded that is the effective date ~*f the ordinance which limits dockage rights on lots this small. Bloom asked Kelly if, in his review of the public he found any mention of the intent to allow a dock on this property. Kelly said he did not find any discussion of the dockage itl thc public record. PUBLIC ItEARING - Stocks May 26, i993 Roma Stocks said the Hennepin County Assessor reduced the value of the land from $73,000 to $50 000 for tax purposes when this problem was explained. ' Humphrey said he has talked to Dick Smith, the developer. Smith said platting documents do not address dock rights. Smith did not have to discuss dockage with the neighbors when building and a (lock existed on the property when Humphrey purchased it. There is nothing in the covenants restricting dockage on the lot. A title search did not show anything about setbacks. Kelly asked for prompt action by the Board because of the Stocks' desire to sell. Roma Stocks asked if a variance is granted would there be any restriction on a canopy or a large boat. Cochran responded that the LMCD staff will prepare findings for consideration bY the Water Structures Committee at its meeting on June 12. ' Cochran asked for the neighbors' names. Roma Stocks re- sponded the Reynolds are on the east and Lauries on the west. She said the Lauries have no objection to the variance. Floeder gave the names of his adjacent property owners as Palen and Benz. Carlson wants the variance request reviewed against the L~ICD criteria for granting variances. It was noted that if Floeder needs a variance there will have to be a separate variance application and public hearing on his request. Cochran declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:38 PM with written testimony to be accepted up to ten days prior to the Water Structures Committee meeting of June 12. FINDINGS: Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, have submitted a variance application t'o reduce the side setback requirements from 10' to 5' to allow a dock and boat at their property on Halsteds Bay. The Stocks' lot, with 20.5' of lakeshore, was platted on 12/3/74. The Code provision allowing 5' setbacks applies to lots in existence on (platted by) 2/2/70. Therefore, the code provision does not apply to the Stocks' lot. Robert Humphrey, the previous owner of the lot, maintained a dock with a boat since he purchased the property in 1975. Stocks bought the property in 1987 with the seller a(tvertis- ing that the site had dock rights. They purchased the dock with the property. A complaint from Kathren Olson, 6385 Bayridge Road, previ- ous neighbor to the east, was filed with the LNtCD in 1987 shortly after Stocks purchased the property. The former LMCD Inspector, Charles Melony, provided Olson and Humphrey with LMCD Code information regarding dock rights at the PUBLIC IiEARING - Stocks bla~ 26, 1903 Stocks' property. Olson, while aware of the dock use area restrictions at the Stocks' property, did not press her objections further with the Stocks. The Stocks became aware of the dock restrictions when they prepared to sell the property in 1992. There is no mention of dock rights in the platting docu- ments. There is another lot with 20' of lakeshore in the same development. The owner, Robert J. Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, currently does not have a conflict with the neighbors because he shares a dock with one of his adjoinin~ neigh- bors· If a variance is required for that lot, it must t?e on a separate application. Harry and Charlotte Reynolds, 6385 Bayridge Road, a(ljoinin~ neighbors to the east, submitted a letter indicating that they have no objection to a side setback varia~cc 1)cin~ granted to the Stocks, as long as it does not encroach upon their property or lake frontage rights. I I ~"ll JUN ? 19~ LA/~E MINNETONI(A CONSERVATION DISTRICT CHECK LIST FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIOI~I REVIEW Applicant's name and address:Thomas and Ro~a Stocks 3032 Highview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Properly is Iocaled in the city of: Mound Bay/oreo' Halsted's #1 Section 1.07, Subd. 1. (;enerol Statement. Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access lo the handicapped, lhe Board may permit a variance from requirements of this Code or may require o variance from what is otherwise permilled by lhis Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does adversely affed the purposes .of [his ordinance, the public health, safely and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners. 1. Type of variance being applied for: side setback variance from lO' to 5' 2. Practical difficulties and/or hardship requiring variance: S~aZZ Zakeshore frontage (20') 3. Decision standards for variance as observed by staff: _~esA. The proposed use is reasonable. _YesB. It would be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance. ..~oC. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique , to the property. ~ D. The problem is no[ one creeled by opplican[. No E. The veri0nce, if granted, will not oiler the essential ch0racter of the locality. COMMENTS: 3A. Proposed use of a 40' long dock for one s~all boat (not to exceed a 7' beam) with 5' setbacks is reasonable, without a full canopy, except for a modified canopy on a boat lift. 3B.' It is unreasonable to conform to the ordinance in that with 10' setbacks, there is no dock use area. 3C. The small lot shoreline width is not unique to this property. There are many similarly-sized lots around the lake, including another 20' lot in the same development. 3D. The problem was not created by the applicant, in fact, the applicants purchased the property with the understanding that they had dock rights. The developer subdivided the lot in 1974 after the LMCD ordinance for Dock Use Areas (DUA) was adopted, apparently unaware of the DUA restriction. The City of Mound approved the development without bringing the LMCD DUA restriction to the developer's attention. 3E. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character, as there has been a dock at this location for 19 years. Date: Stocks side Setback Variance, Application Review, Page 2 options as recommended by staff: 1. Deny the variance because the ordinance creating dock use areas was, in part, designed to limit docks on small lots. The hardship is that the lot was platted with only 20' of shoreline after the ordinance for 10' setbacks was adopted, which makes it subject to the ordinance's limitations. 2. Grant the variance for 5' side setbacks because this use is reasonable, a dock has existed at this site for 19 years, and would not encroach on the neighboring dock use areas. Limitations could be imposed restricting use to one 40' long ,,stick" dock, with no canopy slip structure (except the small canopy type used on boat lifts), for one restricted watercraft with maximum 7' beam, to stay within a 10' dock use area. I I I 'i STOCKS PROPERTY SURVEY ~At_%TEAD- CREST I MAY 4= 1993 " , L..M.C.D. WO hu~,,by ce~ity lha~ this is a lrue aqd coffee! reDrosenl~lion o[ a survoy ol ~he bnundanes ol Ihe land d~scr~bed n~ove 'he Iocnhun ol all buildings thereon, anO nil visible enc~oacR~enl~, il any, Irom oi on ~id I~nd, Ihal this su~e7 prep;deal by me or undor my direct ~upe~i bndn! that t ;.~ n duly Heg,stered Land Surveyor u~d[r.lhe I~ws of the and ~ufve ed b me this ~z oay ol ~ECE~ . . ... 19 ]~ .: .n.C. b,':x , ,)sseo, minnesota 55369 ' (6121 425-21Fit Rf~"Ll JUN ? 1~93 ' ' c) ~" ~( · ! Z 0 z Z JUN ? 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM, Saturday, June 12, 1993 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) ¸3. Se Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; Findings and Order for new multiple dock license and variance applications, with memorandum as directed by the Board, plus revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license for the entire development and the variance on the west Stocks Si4e Setback Variance application, Mound, Halsteds Bay; Public hearing report and findings Joseph Zwak, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; boat storage at outlot, staff report Unrestricted Watercraft storage concept and affected ordinances, discussion and consideration for amending ordinances Multiple dock license inspections; staff report on procedure Annual June InspectiOn Tour, discussion Additional business 6/3/93