The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-08-24CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ME~G 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1993 CITY COUNCIl. CHAMBERS Se e PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 10, 1993, REGULAR MEETING AND THE AUGUST 17, 1993, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING PG. 2825-2830 CASE ~93-036: JEFFREY & NICOLE SVEM, 5809 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 92, MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-24 14 0031. ~, REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. PG. 2831-2842 CASE ~93-037: RICHARD JOSTROM, 3021 BRIGHTON BLVD., LOTS 6 & 31, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, PID #24-117-24 43 0007. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. PG. 2843-2857 CASE ~93-038: JOHN & DARLENE MAXWELL, 3040 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOT 12, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 44 0004. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. PG. 2858-2874 CASE ~93-039: JOSEPH RICE, 1725 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOT 20, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0048. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 2875-2891 CASE ~93-042: STAN MIERZEJEWSKI, 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 AND PART OF LOT 11, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 33 0014. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. PG. 2892-2912 2822 ti ! 1, ! i, I~ I ~ DISCUSSION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) - TEAL POINTE. PG. 2913-3029 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: UPDATES OF PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS (WAURIKA COMMONS). PG. 3030-3091 01600 DAVID KUNZ 01900 CHUCK CHAMPINE 01920 VERA FRAHM 01940 & 01960 N.A. 02000 D. BOLICK & 02020 02060 02100 02180 D. WATSON STAIRWAY MICHAEL FREEMAN GILBERT SCHRUPP HELEN EISS RALPH MCFALL 02200 02250 STAIRWAY STAIRWAY, ELECTRIC STAIRWAY STAIRWAY STAIRWAY STAIRWAY STAIRWAY STAIRWAY (SHARED 02180 & 02200) WILLIAM TOSIER STAIRWAY (SHARED 02180 & 02200) STEVE WELCH STAIRWAY, WALKWAY PG. 3030-3038 PG. 3039-3047 PG. 3048-3054 PG. 3064-3067 PG. 3055-3059 PG. 3068-3076 PG. 3077-3083 PG. 3060-3063 PG. 3088-3091 PG. 3084-3087 11. REQUEST FOR USE OF THE DEPOT EVERY SUNDAY EVENING UNTIL THE END OF 1993 BY MOUND FREE CHURCH/MOUND ASSEMBLY - FOR WEEKLY YOUTH GATHERING AND CONCERT. REQUEST TO WAIVE FEE FOR LIVE MUSICAL CONCERT ($200·00 ANNUAL) . 12. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD PARKING) - UNPAID MOWING - UNPAID SEWER & WATER SUGGESTED DATE - OCTOBER 26, 1993 13. APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1993 SEAL COAT PROJECT - ALLIED BLACKTOP - $37,755.72. PG. 3092-3093 14. APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN - HAROLD J. POND ARENA - HOCKEY REGISTRATION. PG. 3094 15. 16. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR & CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR YEAR 19. PG. 3095 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE ADDING SUBD. 5 TO SECTION 800:40 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND ADDING SUBD. 8 TO SECTION 810:50 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR OR BEER. PG. 3096-3098 2823 in · 1, I i, ~ I i 17. PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3099-3108 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ae Financial Report for July 1993 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. PG. 3109-3110 Be Announcement from the West Hennepin Recycling Commission regarding Household Hazardous Waste Days scheduled for Friday, September 17 and Saturday, September 18 at Hennepin County Public Works Site - Orono. PG. 3111-3113 Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 1993· PG. 3114-3124 De Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of August 12, 1993. PG. 3125-3139 Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 15, 1993 and August 19, 1993. PG. 3140-3141 REMINDER: City Offices closed, Monday, September 6, 1993, for Labor Day Holiday. REMINDER: Next meeting of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at Eisenhower Community Center, 10011 Highway 7, Hopkins, Room 328. Councilmember Jensen is to attend this meeting. He Letter and related information dated, August 17, 1993, from Nancy Nordstrom, Citizens Concerned for Dutch Lake (CCDL) in response to the City Council's action in June. PG. 3142-3145 Letter dated August 18, 1993, from Emily Ann Staples RE: Hennepin County Solid Waste Program and related information. RE: proposed service fee ordinances on solid waste mangement. Do we want to submit any comments a the public hearing? PG. 3146-3171 2824 17. PAYMENT OF BILLS. 18. ~NFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS PG. 3099-3108 ae Ce Ee Ge Financial Report for July 1993 as prepared by Gin. Businaro, Finance Director. PG. 3109-3110 Announcement from the West Hennepin Recycling Commission regarding Household Hazardous Waste Days scheduled for Friday, September 17 and Saturday, September 18 at Hennepin County Public Works Site - Or.no. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9 1993. ' Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of August 12, 1993. Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 15, 1993 and August 19, 1993. REMINDER: City Offices closed, Monday, September 6, 1993, for Labor Day Holiday. REMINDER: Next meeting of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at Eisenhower Community Center, 10011 Highway 7, Hopkins, Room 328. Councilmember Jensen is to attend this meeting. PG. 3111-3113 PG. 3114-3124 PG. 3125-3139 PG. 3140-3141 He Letter and related information dated, August 17, 1993, from Nancy Nordstrom, Citizens Concerned for Dutch Lake (CCDL) in response to the City Council's action in June. PG. 3142-3145 Letter dated August 18, 1993, from Emily Ann Staples RE: Hennepin County Solid Waste Program and related information. RE: proposed service fee ordinances on solid waste mangement. Do we want to submit any comments a the public hearing? PG. 3146-3171 2824 Mound City Council Minutes August 10, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 10, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, regular session on Tuesday, August 10, 1993, in the Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. met in Council Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, and the following interested citizens: Tom Casey, John Edewaard, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Julie Lilledahl, Del Pfeifer, Marilyn Byrnes, Phil & Eva Hasch, Neil Weber, and Vince Forstyke. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the July 27, 1993, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 APPROVAL OF FINAL DRAFT & SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RENTAL ORDINANCE The City Manager explained that the final draft and summary of the proposed housing maintenance regulations for rental housing is ready for the Council's consideration. This ordinance will be enforced on a complaint basis with no fees and no required inspections. The City Attorney stated this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote of approval. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #64-1993 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she has opposed this in the past because from the first time she asked the question "What is the problem?", she has never gotten a sufficient response to if we have an extraordinary number of complaints and she doesn't see what this puts in place that is not already available. She stated it is far too specific. Mound city Council Minutes August 10, 1993 1.2 Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following: SUMMARY ORDINANCE #$4-1993 A SUMMARY OF AN ORDINANCE ~DDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 DISCUSSION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) - TEAL POINTE The city Manager asked that this item be delayed to await the arrival of Bruce Chamberlain, City Planner. 1.4 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED NATURE CONSERVATION AREA (NCA'S) PLAN The city Manager explained that this has been an ongoing matter for some time. The Park & Open Space Commission and the Planner have now put together a Nature Conservation Area Plan and are recommending the Council adopt it. The Council discussed the plan and complimented the POSC for all their work on this project. The Council would like to see 3-5 sites designated NCA as an appropriate start to allow more detailed monitoring. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to accept the ~at~re Conse..rvation Area Plan from the Park & Open Spa~e Commission and direct the POSC to recommend 6-8 properties from the parcels they have surveyed as possible NCA,S for Council review and designation of 3-4. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Julie Lilledahl, 3233 Tuxedo Blvd., stated she and the other landlords were not telling people there would be fees and inspections as was indicated at the July 27th meeting. She gave the Mayor a copy of the letter that was sent to rental property owners. The Mayor stated that there is a line in the letter that could lead people to believe the Council was considering fees and inspections - ,,(Rental licensing? Fees? Multiple inspections?)". Vince Forstyke, 3131 Inverness, asked for a copy of the ordinance and summary. He was given one. Mound City Council Minutes August 10, 1993 John Edewaard, 5125 Hanover, asked for a time frame to be set for designation of nature conservation areas. The Council stated they would like to let the POSC carefully look at the sites they are recommending for NCA designation and therefore would not like to put a deadline on this. 1.3 DISCUSSION: POINTE ~NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) - TEAT, City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, stated that official comments were received from the following: Metropolitan Council, MN. Pollution Control Agency, Dept. of Natural Resources, Mr. Tom Casey and Mr. John Edewaard. He then summarized the issues raised and staff clarification and comments as identified by EAW question numbers in his report. Mr. Casey stated that he was disappointed that his comments were not included in the packet for Council review. He also stated that according to Rule 4410, 1700, subd. 2, there are 30 days from the close of comments for the Council to act on the EAW. He stated he would like to see the Council review all the comments completely before acting. 1.5 1.6 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to continue this item for 2 weeks (August 24, 1993) and have staff prepare all comments received and give them to the City Council for review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION- BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. INVOLVING LANDS SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD. (JOHN'S VARIETk & PETS) AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRAC~ MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to set September 14, 1993, for a public hearing to consider preliminary and final plat for "Dakota Rail Znd Addition,, by Dakota Rail, Inc., involving lands south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (John,s Variety & Pets) and north of the railroad tracks. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. .pAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $598,284.13, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 The City Clerk explained the request. for the permit to be waived. ADD-ON (LIVE MUSICAL CONCERT PERMIT) They have asked for the fee Mound city Council Minutes August 10, 1993 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to approve a Live Musical Concert Permit for local area churches at Mound Bay Park (the Depot) on August 21, 1993. Tentative schedule is: D-J music on the deck of the Depot 3:00 - 7:00 P.M. Live music on the deck of the Depot 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. Fee to be waived. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1993. B. LMCD Representative's Report for July 1993. C. LMCD mailings. D. Next Meeting of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at Eisenhower Community Center, 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins, in Room 328. For new Board Members, there will be a Board orientation on Tuesday, August 24, 1993, 7:00 P.M. at the West Hennepin Human Services office, 4100 Vernon Ave. South, St. Louis Park. Councilmember Jensen is scheduled to attend the September 7, 1993, Meeting. E. REMI_ NDER: Fall National League of cities (NLC) is scheduled for December 2-5 in Orlando, Florida. Fran sent brochures and related information to you last week. She needs to know ASAP who plans to attend. F. Parks & Open Space Commission Minutes of July 8, 1993. G. Letter dated August 3, 1993, from Mayor Jerry Rockvam to Gene Strommen, LMCD re: contribution for fighting eurasion water milfoil. H. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, August 17, 1993, 7:30 P.M. CITY ATTORNEY UPDATES ON LITIGATION DAKOTA RAIL The city Attorney reported that the Dakota Rail Trial is going to start on Monday, August 16, 1993. The City Manager, Mayor and Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen will need to be available. Mound City Council Minutes August 10, 1993 ~UNSON CAS~ The City Attorney reported that the deck is gone on the Munson property. The case against Ms. Munson has been dismissed because she no longer resides in the home. The City is negotiating with the fee owner of the property on the boathouse. HOUSE OF MOY The City Attorney reported that this matter has been resolved. HANUS CAS_____~E The City Attorney reported that this item has been deferred to September 7, 1993. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk H~lqUTES - COI~ITTEE OF THE WHOLE - ~UGUST LT~ L993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen and Smith. Also present: Vel Hessburg and two other representatives of Westonka intervention, and Ed Shukle, city Manager. . ' n addressed the city Council as it related to Westonka interventlo ....... ~ A~ ~o ~ ~ertv of Our Lady .............. t bul£alng £oca~u u. .... ~r~5 the exls~ln9 ~u~,~,, ..-- e has oIIerea of the Lake Church.. O~£~_~f~h~oLra~l to move it off of th~ building t~ We~%~_ ~: ion where it could be used as a b~t[~ property onto anou~[~ ~__ _~ ~o intervention represenna~xv~- women's shelter. ~ P-.P --- ~ ..... , st nublic land that may De being at the Council meeting wa~ uu ,=~_e available to place the building on. The city Manager indicated that there were approximately 255 parcels in the city of Mound that are owned by the City. Most of them are tax forfeit parcels that undersized. For all intents and purposes, ~. ' are un~ul~able ~ .... ~:ble that the city is aware there isn't any..l~u ~¥t~:, ~ t,,~e of use. The City Manage[ recently owns ~nat _ e Cit Council at its nex~ ~s to verify this and report back to th Y · parking meeting. Also discussed were code requirements, zoning, , etc. The city Manager is to direct the Building official to do a cursory review of the convent building to determine the types of code requirements that would have to be addressed as well as zoning and parking issues. Goal setting was briefly discussed. The city council reviewed some information prepared by councilmember Lie Jensen and talked about limit them. The Planning commission is to variances and how we and submit ideas to the City Manager who will brainstorm this issue then arrange a meeting with the city attorney, planning staff and representatives of the Planning Commission and city council. Also discussed was the hardcover issue, Vic Cossette's conditional Use Permit, Public Works outdoor storage, public housing, etc. A brief discussion was held on the possible appointment of an advisory group to serve in the Lake Area Cooperation/Collaboration study. The city Manager pointed out that in the agreement signed by the cities who are involved in the study, a reference was made to an advisory group of elected officials, citizens and staff. The city Council consensus was to proceed to solicit interested persons in serving on the advisory group. Solicitation will take place within the next couple of months. The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole will be Tuesday, October 19, 1993. There will not be a September Committee of the Whole meeting, upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA CONFORMING DECK AT 5809 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 92, MOUND SHORES PID #14-117-24 14 0031 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-036 WHEREAS, the owners, Jeffrey and Nicole Sveum, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to the required 6 feet to allow construction of a conforming deck, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet for lots of record, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the unanimously recommended approval as it is impractical dwelling to a conforming location. request and to move the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: me The City does hereby approve a 1 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a conforming deck at 5809 Grandview Blvd. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 12' x 18' deck at the front of the dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 92, Mound Shores. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case $93-036 Se The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ! I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1993 Case//93-036: Jeffrey and Nicole Sveum, 5809 Grandview Blvd., Lot 92: _Mound Shores, PID #14-117-24 14 0031, VARIANCE FOR DECK~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to the required 6 feet in the R-2 zone in order to construct a conforming front deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance of 1 foot to the required 6 foot side yard setback to the existing dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming deck as it is impractical to move the dwelling to a conforming location. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND 534' L'~YWOOD ROAD MOUND L'',NESOTA5537-1687 6'2 ~T2 0600 F~ 5~2, "72.0623 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning commission Agenda of August 9, 1993 Planning commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official A~ Variance Request Jeffrey and Nicole Sveum 93-036 5809 Grandview Blvd., Lot 92, Mound Shores, PID #14-117-24 14 0031 R-2 Two Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are requesting a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to the required 6 feet in the R-2 zone in order to construct a conforming front deck on the home. Staff has inspected the site and determined it is impractical to move the existing dwelling to a conforming location. RECOMMENDATIO~ · e Planning Commission recommend approval of the staff recommends th .. ' ~ ~ ~ side yard setback to · f 1 foot to the requlreu ~ ~ ~ . varlan~e.~equ~st .~__ ~n order to allow construction of .a c~nfo~lng the existing owell~ng x ..... =~_~.~ e conforming location. deck as it is impractical to move =ne uw=~..~ _o a The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. the City council on August 24, 1993. JS:pj This case will be heard by printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date:_~~--9 Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.--_~~t Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~~r: ,, Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~%Oq- ~HV;~ Owner's Name~Q~¢~ ~i~ 5Ve[~ Day Phone ! Owner's Address ~O~-Gf~4~d~i'~ 61~d Applicant's Name (if other than owner) %ddress ~q~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot q Day Phone Block PID No. Iq- / I"'J-o'~"~ use If and Addition Zoning District ~-~ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (%/) no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration ~size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback re~lations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~/). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) ~O~~. SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S~W ) side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. I ft. ft. ' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~,~existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in)~. e land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 ! ! Case No. ~0~ 6. Was the hardship created ~ any other man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes , No (). If yes, explain such as the e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (%~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. -.pplicant' s Signature Date SCALE: I INCH_ JOHN J. RYAN CO. 1596 SELBY AVENUE, ST. PAUL 56104 FEET PLAT OF SURVEY TELEPHONE: 646-6858 OF PROPERTY OF //l",,~/~,,,~,:?~_.'/!.~. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS ~- . - -- x' ' CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING //' ~ . t9 ..... I hereby certify that on tKie ~urvey. plan. or report wee prepared by me or under my direct supervision .and that ! am · duty Registered [.and .":,ur jr under t~la~sof CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I hereby certify that on 19_~ this ~urvey, plan. or report was prepared by me or under my d~rect supervision and that ! am a dui)' Registered Lane Surveyor under [.he laws of the State of ~Imne~oLa. · n, u I ! HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS fYl o(3 n c/ EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ 1~X30% = I~3~D. SQ ~T X 15% = ]z~z~/~.c~/_c, HOUSE: TOTAL HOUSE ........... GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: TOTAL GARAGE TOTAL DRIVEWAY X TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ OTHER: 6 x, = ~ 72' x I ~' = TOTAL OT..a ........... ') ~ / TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER ' / ~ ~9 / ' MEETS _.LQ.T COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? .......... ~ YES NO I i HO~45~ TOP v~Ew :! 0 GENERAL ZONING I:NFORMATION SHEET t ~-- · ~ ?~dE* R~Q4JI~ED EXISTING ~ ADDRE~z*: ~ ~ ' LOT AIWA: LOT Required ~t W~dth: (frontage oa an ~proved strut) ~,st,ng ~ W,dth ~_ .., Depth .~BACK..EQ~IR.D, SIDE: SIDE: J~AR: ~' [m~&eured from O.N,W,} FRONT SIDEI LA~SHOI~ ~CCS'S~OB¥ BUILDINO EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED 8BTBACKS$ PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT: FRONT: SIDK: SLOE: IS TH~PARO~RTY CO#FOI~ING? YES SO' ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT: N S g FRONT: N S · SIDE: N S g W ~: N S g W DA~/~~ 2605. :~ RES SO-IOOL DIST NO 2T7 (s) GOVT -'LO' '' " I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMSYI~SION ,,"" .~ AUGUST 9, 1993 Case #93-037; Richard .lostrom, 3021 Brighton Blvd., Lots 6 & 31, Bl0c~ 15, Arden, PID #24-117-24 43 0007. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to City Code Section 350:435 that states garages may not exceed the height of the principal building. The dwelling, according to current ordinance, is substandard in area and has a roof slope less than the garage resulting in the variance request. The proposed addition is conforming, however, it limits the ability for future expansion onto the dwelling. The driveway, as shown on the site plan, is green space in the center and represents a difficult enforcement situation for staff. Staff recommended approval of the request for a height variance to allow the garage to exceed the height of the principal dwelling with the following conditions: The garage addition shall not exceed the height of the existing garage. The applicant and the city are aware this approval limits the future expansion area of the dwelling. The 4' x 35' green space in the center of the driveway shall be maintained as permeable surface as defined in the ordinance. Hanus expressed a concern about the driveway as proposed, he does not feel the Planning Commission should promote this type of alternative to help alleviate hardcover; he does not want to see these "cow path" type driveways all over town. Mueller is in favor of the "cow path" type of driveway as he feels nothing will be parked there because things will be parked inside the garage as it is so large. It was noted that the size of the dwelling is substandard to what our ordinance requires. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Johnson commented that #3 in staff's recommendation relating to required maintenance of the green space in the driveway should not be a part of the recommendation as the proposal meets the impervious surface coverage requirements. Hanus agreed and requested the motion be amended not to include condition ~3 of staff's recommendation. Voss and Clapsaddle accepted an amendment to their motion to exclude condition #$ from staff's recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Meyer questioned if the proposed driveway size is realistic as it is only 8 feet wide and there will be a 16 foot wide garage door. He does not feet the garage size is conducive for the lot. Mueller questioned if there is a provision in the ordinance which restricts the size of accessory structures not to exceed the size of the principal building. Sutherland noted that he did not see any restriction of this type in the ordinance. The Building official confirmed that the maximum size for an accessory structure is 1,000 square feet before fire wall separations are required, and this proposed garage will have a firewall separation allowing for a workroom at the lakeside of the structure. The upper level of the garage is for storage and has only a 7 foot high ceiling which is inadequate for habitable space. Mueller commented that he does not like the size of the garage compared to the size of the house and he does not see a hardship. Meyer does not believe the garage is conducive to the neighborhood. It was suggested that reasonable use of the property exists, as stated in Resolution #91-155, #3. MOTION failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus and Johnson. Those opposed were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Michael. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Michael, to deny the request for variance Motion to deny carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mu~ler, Weiland, Jsnsen, and Michael. Those opposed were. Voss, Hanus and Johnson. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. n, # I i CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOCD n~OAZ MOUND MiNNESOT& 5~E-: 'E8- 6~2 472 Z6~'O F&X :6~2~472 362{ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of August 9, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official_~_ Variance Request Richard W. Jostrom CASE NO. 93-037 LOCATION: 3021 Brighton Blvd., Lots 6 & 31, Block 15, Arden, PID #24-117-24 43 0007 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to City Code Section 350:435 that states garages may not exceed the height of the principal building. The dwelling, according to current ordinance, is substandard in area and has a roof slope less than the garage resulting in the variance request. The proposed addition is conforming, however, it limits the ability for future expansion onto the dwelling. The driveway, as shown on the site plan, is green space in the center and represents a difficult enforcement situation for staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a height variance to allow the garage to exceed the height 'of the principal dwelling with the following conditions: The garage addition shall not exceed the height of the existing garage. The applicant and the city are aware this approval limits the future expansion area of the dwelling. The 4' x 35' green space in the center of the driveway shall be maintained as permeable surface as defined in the ordinance. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. the City Council on August 24, 1993. This case will be heard by JS: pj eprinted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 472-1155 Fee Case VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the Following information.) Address oF Subject Property .TC'~Z-I Owner's Name ~,cN Owner's Address Day Phone .~ - ZG I ~-. Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Lot ~ ~ ~J Addition ~'E ~ Existing Use oF Property: Day Phone Block PID No. Z~- I1~ Zoning District Has an application ever been made For zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure For this property? yes (~), no ( ). IF yes, list date(s) oF application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s) (copies oF previous resolutions must accompany this application). VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: direction Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: ( ) Principal Building setback requested setback required 0<) Accessory Building VARIANCE REQUESTED Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. sq ft sq ft sqf -, u I ! VARIANCE APPLICATION Page 2 Case No.~_~~ Reason for request ~ ~'~:r~'~- ;x,l~r,~/c~ "~ ~-~ ~-~' -~/~ ~ /~ / t ~ ~oes the present use or the property conform to all regulations ~or the zoning distric-~--3n which it is located? Yes 0~J No ( ) If no specify each non-conforming use: ' ' ' Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography t°° sinai I too sha ! low I I drainage shape ( / soil ( sub-surface (~) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ), No (>O. If yes, explain Was the hardship created b( any other man-made change, such as the relocatlon of a road? Yes ), No (~). If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship For which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No ( ~. ! no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained any .required papers or plans to be .,,k~:~ . ........ ' . in cura~:e ! ~ f fn ~. ~---,. :_ __~ww,,,,c~.~.u n~r~wll;n are ~rue ano ac- ~ ~ ~,,um,~cu urrmc]a] Or She City Or Mound for th purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and re~vtng such notices as may be required by law. A~ltcant's S lg~ture ~ ~.~ Date Z-Z°-~ o~ 0 O o o '~' o o o CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA ~-~d_.;:oC~ F'7''z- SQ FT X 30% = ~o©c~ SQ FT X 15% HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: LENGTH WIDTH X X TOTAL HOUSE * A~- X X TOTAL GARAGE X X = ~o0 TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** /.7oO DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~) X = TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** OTHER: X X TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY: /x'~~-'~'~' t--~---'r'-::~ DATE: _ ~__YES___NO '' " I i -, u I I I 6 I ST~tlVE TOW~,Ro E~o~ ~:~,E[ 308 October 22, 1991 RESOLUTION #91-155 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AT 3021 BRIGHTON BLVD.t LOTS 6 & 31, BLOCK 15, ARDEN, PID %24-117-24 43 0007 P&M CASE NO. 91-054 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to Zoning Code Section 23.407(2) which states, "No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building.,, A 22 foot high, conforming accessory building is proposed, and the existing dwelling is only 15.5 feet high, resulting in a variance request of 6.5 feet in height, and; WHEREAS, the proposed garage has a storage area above and its height is not excessive, rather it is the house that is low, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 15 foot rear yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "lots of record" and a 20 foot front yard setback, and; ' WHEREAS , conforming, and; all other setbacks and lot area are WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, 9onconforming residential property when the alterations will Improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW~ T~EREFOPE; BE T~ ~R~T.VED by the O~fy Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 6.5 foot building height variance to allow construction of an accessory building to exceed the height of the principal dwelling for the subject property at 3021 Brighton Blvd. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3O9 October 22, 1991 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved bY the authorization of the following alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. Construction of a 32.4' x 20.3' detached garage not to exceed 22 feet in building height. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6 & 31, Block 15, Arden. PID ~24-117-24 43 0007. 5. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (i). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 6. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: city Clerk ~yor ~ , · n, u I I GENERAl. ZONING EN~FORMATION SllEl<r ~ ADDRESS: ZONg: ' ~Z~UI~ZD Survey on file? yes noX ?_ Re~ired ~[ g~d[h: ~ Date of ·urvey Lot of Record? yea,,, (frontage on an I~pzoved public Itt·et) FRONT: [[~OffT: SIDE: SIDE: LAK~SHOP~: ACCESSORy BUILDI~ SO' tmeasured froea O,H.W,{ FRONT: N S · FRONT: W S Je W SIDE: N S t W SIDE: # S { W Rr. AR: R S · W LALr~sHORg: ACCESSORY BUILDI~ q. II ' JO: S, 7 (,~) PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93-~ RESOLUTION TO &PPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK 3040 HIGHLAND BLVD.~ LOT 12, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS PID $23-117-24 44 0004~ P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-038 WHERF2%S, the owners, John and Darlene Maxwell, have applied for a variance for the following existing nonconformities on the property to allow construction of a conforming deck: - Two dwellings on one lot is not a permitted use in the R-1 single family residential zoning district. - Lakeside Dwelling. This is the predominant building on the site, it has a .6 foot setback to the south side yard resulting in a variance of 9.4'. The setbacks to the top of the bluff and to the ordinary high water are conforming. - Street Side Structure. Nonconforming as a dwelling and also to the required setbacks as listed below: Required ~ Variance SETBACKS IF CONSIDERED ACCESSORY BUILDING front 20 ' side 4 ' 21.5' okay 2.5' 1.5' SETBACKS IF CONSIDERED DWELLING front 30' 21.5' $. 5' side 10' 2.5' 7.5' SETBACKS TO CONCRETE ROOF OVER UNDERGROUND GARAGE IF CONSIDERED ACCESSORY BUILDING front 20' 10.8' 9.2' side 4' .5' over 4.5' - stairway mid-landing (deck). This stairway appears to have been constructed within the last three years without a permit, its mid-landing exceeds the maximum 32 square feet allowable in the shoreland management ordinance, Section 350:1225 3.b. WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-038 WHEREAS, the street side structure that was rented in the past is now vacant. There are indications on file at the City offices that it was used as a cottage at least as far back as 1965. The sewer connection permit application in 1969 states two houses with separate billing for sewer. WHEREAS, the Building Official noted possible foundation problems with the street side structure during an inspection on 6-30-93. WHEREAS, the owner, Mr. Maxwell, has stated they have no intentions to use the street side structure as a rental dwelling, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing existing nonconforming setbacks, as listed below, to allow construction of a conforming deck onto the lakeside dwelling upon the condition that the street side accessory structure be recognized as a legal nonconforming use and it shall not be used as a .rental dwelling. a. Lakeside Dwelling: south side yard setback variance of 9.4'. be Street side dwelling: considering this structure as an accessory structure, a 1.5 foot side yard setback variance shall apply. Ce Stairway mid-landing (deck): square footage variance for the mid-landing deck which measures approximately 17' x 6.5' totalling 110.5 square feet resulting in a 78.5 square foot variance to City Code Section 350:1225 3.b. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming deck approximately 9' x 33' on the lakeside of the dwelling. Proposed Resolution Page 3 Case ~93-038 Be This variance is granted for the following legally described property' Lots 12 & 13, Block 2, The Highlands. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the city Clerk. MiNUTF~ OF A MEETING OF TIlE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION AUGUST 9, 1993 Case g93-038: John and Darlene Maxwell, 3040 Highland Blvd., Lot 12, Block 2, The Highlands, PID//23-117-24 44 0004, VARIANCE FOR DECK, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance and an after-the-fact building permit for a conforming deck onto the existing lakeside dwelling. A revised survey and hardcover calculations were received just prior to the meeting and copies were distributed to the Commissioners. The Building Official reviewed the required variances from the setbacks shown on the revised survey. Lakeside Dwellinq. This is the predominant building on the site, it has a .6 foot setback to the south side yard resulting in a variance of 9.4'. The setbacks to the top of the bluff and to the ordinary high water are conforming. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Street Side Structure,. Nonconforming as a dwelling and also t~o the required setbacks as listed below: Reauire~ ~ Variance SETBACKS IF CONSIDERED ACCESSORY BUILDING front 20 ' side 4' 21.5 ' okay 2.5' 1.5' SETBACKS IF CONSIDERED DWELLING front 30' 21.5' 8.5' side 10' 2.5' 7.5' SETBACKS TO CONCRETE ROOF OVER UNDERGROUND GARAGE IF CONSIDERED ACCESSORY BUILDING 9 2v front 20' 10.8' · side 4' .5' over 4.5' 3. Stairway mid-landinq (deck). This stairway appears to have been constructed within the iast three years without a permit, its mid-landing exceeds the maximum 32 square feet allowable in the shoreland management ordinance, Section 350:1225 3.b. The street side structure that was rented in the past is now vacant. After review of the property jacket, there are indications it was used as a cottage at least as far back as 1965. The sewer connection permit application in 1969 states two houses with separate billing for sewer. On my inspection of 6-30-93 I noted possible foundation problems with this unit. The Commission may wish to consider a reasonable amount of time to amortize this structure. Staff recommended approval of the variances to recognize the existing nonconforming lakeside dwelling in order to construct a conforming deck onto the lakeside dwelling with the following conditions: 1. The stairway landing be modified in width to a maximum 36 inches to reduce its impact as a deck, but still allow a walkway between the two stairs, and approve the issuance of an after-the-fact permit. The street side dwelling is a legal nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval of a deck for the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling~ Two (2) houses on the same ~ce~ i~ prohibited _bY our soda,an ~ ...... ~_ =~~r .~4h~ The owners are t City staff, th~ · '' and the city Council will .~ allow any 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 variances~ -~c~k c~r~9~hz~street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conform.~ance with the current codes. There~-~~~n~ an e t Applicant, Mr. Maxwell, stated that he keeps his property and the street side structure well maintained and that the neighbors have been pleased. He stated that he did have the structure rented last year for a time, however, it only caused problems and they had to have the tenants evicted, therefore, he has no intentions to use it as a rental unit again. He uses the structure for a garage and storage. He feels the building is structurally sound. Weiland suggested the owner could remove the second floor of the structure and it would then become a conforming use. Clapsaddle did not agree with this comment as he feels the owner has the right to maintain his property value. Mueller questioned the Building Official if there are not other lots in mound with two houses on one lot where both houses are being rented or occupied. The Building Official commented that when he becomes aware of situations such as this he follows a procedure and notifies the owner that it is illegal. The applicant stated that he has counted 10 lots in Mound that have two houses on one lot and both are being occupied. Clapsaddle questioned the language in condition #2 of staff's recommendation which states, "The owners are further advised that City staff, the current Planning Commission and the City Council will not allow any variances or work . ." Clapsaddle stated that this refers to the "current".commissio~, and if one member resigns it is no longer valid. In addition, the City should not require removal of the structure as it may remain as a cottage or a garage. It was suggested that the applicant should be allowed to work on the street side structure as long as the use remains such as a cottage or garage. Hanus suggested that condition #2 in staff's recommendation be modified by deleting all but the first sentence. Voss agreed. The general intent of condition #2 should be to not allow the street side structure to be used as a rental dwelling. The stairway to the lake was discussed, and the applicant stated he would like it to remain as is. The Planning Commission agreed that the stairway, and landing should be allowed to remain as is. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance recognizing existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a conforming deck onto the lakeside dwelling upon the 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 condition that the street side accessory structure be recognized as a legal nonconforming use and it shall not be used as a rental dwelling. Motion carried S to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Jensen was opposed. Jensen commented that she will go on record as being opposed because she would like language which would let other people know that there is some discomfort with the use of the street side structure. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534' 'dAYWOO~_ ZOAD MOUND ',' 'd',JESOT'~ 5~364 1687 E'2 4-2 CE_'] F,~, 6~2~a72 2{29 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. Planning Commission Agenda of August 9, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff~ Jon Sutherland, Building Official A~~7 ~ Variance Request John E. and Darlene C. Maxwell 93-038 LOCATION: 3040 Highland Blvd., Lot 12, Block 2, The Highlands, PID $23-117-24 44 0004 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking an after-the-fact building permit for a conforming deck onto the existing lakeside dwelling. This results in the following variance requests to recognize existing nonconforming conditions based on the site plan provided; a complete survey has been requested by staff. Lakeside Dwellinq. This is the predominant building on the site, it is nonconforming to the south side yard setback of 10 feet by approximately 6.33'. Street Side Dwelling. Nonconforming as a dwelling and also to the required setbacks as listed below: Required Existing Variance FRONT 30' 22' 8' SIDE 10' 4.25' 5.75' Stairway mid-landinq (deck). This stairway appears to have been constructed within the last three years without a permit, its mid- landing exceeds the maximum 32 square feet allowable in the shoreland management ordinance, Section 350:1225 3.b. pr/nted on recycled paper Staff Report 3040 Highland Blvd. Page 2 Case #93-038 COMM_____ENTS Miscellaneous work was in progress when I visited this site (see inspection notice). The street side dwelling that was rented in the past is now vacant. After review of the property jacket, there are indications it was used as a cottage at least as far back as 1965. The sewer connection permit application in 1969 states two houses with separate billing for sewer. On my inspection of 6-30-93 I noted possible foundation problems with this unit. The Commission may wish to consider a reasonable amount of time to amortize this structure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances to recognize the existing nonconforming lakeside dwelling in order to construct a conforming deck on the lakeshore dwelling with the following conditions: 1. The stairway landing'be modified in width to a maximum 36 inches to reduce its impact as a deck, but still allow a walkway between the two stairs, and approve the issuance of an after-the-fact permit. 2. The street side dwelling is a legal nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval of a deck for the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by our code and the owners are encouraged to remove the street side building at the earliest date possible. The owners are further advised that City staff, the current Planning Commission and the city Council will not allow any variances or work on the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. Therefore, the owner should recognize that at some point the street side dwelling must be removed. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. the City Council on August 24, 1993. JS: pj This case will be heard by I · s, u I ! $o'to ~ 3o,-t.,z (.> x i- I~. ~ Z Z O0 J ~ a:. '~; o o ~o- ~ J o '"~ -~ *~ :~*~ I-z ' ZZZ ~ J ~r ~ --<~ .'-I~ ~ ~ ~1~ / , ~, j Ox -J ujul 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 ~ Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q5-05~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~?~r: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ ~i$~_~Ckhc~, Owner's Name~~ E ~ k~I~e%Re C. ~C~(tle~ Day Owner' s Address ~l~. ~'~[~ ~ ~C,~, Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~~ .ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Addition Zoning District lock Use of Property: ~ (~'~ ~¥(~_C~. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~', No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ( ). If no, specify eachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ~l~ ) topography ) drainage ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing (~) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests ~n t~land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 I Case No. e Was the hardship created by any ~. man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No . If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance p~cu~/ar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ Date ..pplicant's Signat _L~ Date HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ADDRESS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQFrX30% = I '" SQ Fr X 15% = HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X X TOTAL HOUSE ........... GARAGE: TOTAL GARAGE .......... DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... DECK: X = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ OTHER: X = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAl, PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? BY DATE YES NO GILNERAL ?A)NqNG INFORI~L~ION SI[EE~F Required lot Width: ~)0 / Existing Lot Width ~'~ / ~E~BAC%S RF.~UIRED t (front&ge on an t~proved~ i~blic strut) ~CCESSOR¥ B{.I ][ LD I NG FROI~: , SIDE: SIDE: M SIDE: N W 1lISTING ~/OR PROPOSED $ZTBACKB% ~ ~C~S$OaY BUItDI~ F~: N S ~ W FRONT: N S B W F~NT: N S g W SIDE: N S E W SIDe: R S E SIDE: N S g W N S g ~S~: ~SHO~ ~ %S (26) 4 (Z) .,.~',' II ~. ,(3) ~J,~- (4) ~,,, '3 (5) ,% t- l, i, l, I~ I ! PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 1725 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOT 20, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINT PID #13-117-24 11 0048 P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-039 WHEREAS, the owner, Joseph Rice, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 29.3 feet and a nonconforming lot width of 50 feet to allow construction of a conforming addition, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot width and street frontage of 60 feet, a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, conforming, and; lot area, and lot coverage are WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as this property is a lot of record and the proposed work is conforming to the ordinance in all other respects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to lot width of 10 feet and a variance of .7' to the required 30' front yard setback in order to construct a conforming addition at 1725 Resthaven Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 20' x 32' two story addition (walk-out basement and upper floor) and a 10' x 36'+/- deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6 and 20, Block 14, Shadywood Point. 5 This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-039 Se The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the city Clerk. '' # I ! MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1993 Case g93-039; .Ioseph Rice, 1725 Resthaven Lane, Lot 20, Block 14 Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 11 0048. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to lot width of 10 feet and a variance of .7' to the required 30' front yard setback in order to construct a conforming addition onto the home. Staff recommended approval of the request as this property is a lot of record and the proposed work is conforming to the ordinance in all other respects. MOTION made by Ranus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534.1 MAYWOOD ROAD i',,'!C, jND. MiN".~ESOTA 55364 !687 ~612,472-0600 FAX 612', ,4720620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning commission Agenda of August 9, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and staff Jon Sutherland, Building official ~%~1' Variance Request Joseph T. Rice 93-039 1725 Resthaven Lane, Lot 20, Block 14, Shadywood Point, PID ~13-117- 24 ll 0048 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to lot width of 10 feet and a variance of .5' to the required 30' front yard setback in order to construct a conforming addition onto the home. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as this property is a lot of record and the proposed work is conforming to the ordinance in all other respects. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. JS: pj n, u I i 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: .00 Case No. Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed:_~~~ Copy to City Planner:~ Copy to Public Works:____~__~__ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property I~2_Y ~lQ~L~ Owner's Name ~D~t~ '"F- ~IQ (::' Day Phone Owner's Address 1~.2~ ~5~l~e~ t. 6~,' e- Applicant's Name (if other than owner) \ddress 5~fh~ Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District ~--I Use of Property: Block Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 'K) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of propos.ed construction or alteration (size, ruamber of stories, type of use, etc.). / ' .~ x ~ ~4;~ G_C-4~ -V- ~,,,I 0~- lc !~' ~ i_~ t/- Variance Application Case No. Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~). If no, specify each non-conforming u~e (~escri~ re~son i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) ~ for variance request, SETBACKS: Front Yard: Rear Yard: Lake Front: Side Yard: Side Yard: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) (I~N SeW ) ~0 ft. ~i~¢/,~ ft. , ~ ft. ( S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ~ ' ft. E~ . ft. /~; ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Street Frontage: Lot size: Hardcover: Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (y~) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ~Dg~ ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil ()<) existing ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~). If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~~ Se Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~). If no, list so.me other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: x-~Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Date CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOE RICE OF LOTS 6 AND 20, BLOCK 14. SHADYWOOD POINT HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA x~stin.~ Lecal Description and 20, Block 14, "SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEP]N COUNTY MINN." survey shows the location of all existing buildings and [Fikl£ "hardcover". It does not purport to show any other im- rc',,aments or encroachments. Iron marker found Irom marker set !earlngs shown are based oD an assumed datu;q. l hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Mark S Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 ~o~ ~o 9~ - 266' bo, i7,,9~ i$:12 l,'n.i oi~ 472 0620 CITY OF MOUND ~ ~NCHOR SCIENTIFI ~001 CITY OF MOUND HARDC'OVER OALC ULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA /Z, '-,',F'~ ., 8Q FT X 30% = /z/'/'~,:F SQ FT X 15% · =, HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~) OTHER: LENGTH .. , WIDTH f. 7 X ~.o = X TOTAL HOUSE ******************* Fo. z X zz. z = ~' wF. ~ X = TOTAL'GARAGE * * '~ 'i, .'. · · · · · . · * * · * · ' TOTALDPJVEWAY ***************** z/. ~ x /~. 9' = 323. TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50 ********'******* x = X = TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER * * * * *,,.* * ' * UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * ~' * * * * * * * * * * BY: DATE: X YES___NO. .7 l! 1, i I, II] I ! RECEIVED JUL 1 '3 1993 {612) 472-1155 lAX {S12) 472-0520 Dennis Hill Department of Property Tax A-6 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Sir: I hereby request a (separa~/oombine~assessment on the following described land (include leg~'l--~6~ription and P.I.D. numbers): For Tax Year District 85 - City of Mound Name of TAxpayer T~x~yer' s Addr'ess eprJnted on recycled paper Iil11111 'N ~ .~ONSr. ~EVd m · i, i I, i~ I I I · l, I ADDRESS: /~ ~ -..~-.~~L~.~ C~ ~ , - ,~...,~C~uc i ..... ~ ..... ~~__ . .., . Survey on ~lle? yes no Date of survey ~t of Record? ye ~lstinq ~t Width GE.~ERAI. ZONENG LNFOI:CMATION SIrEE'F (me&lured LAJ~SHOR~: (frontage on an l~lproved p~blLc otroeC) ACCESSORY BUILDIN~ 50' Imeilured from O.H.~t! CON~ORMIHG/ YES= FRO~T: FRONT: SIDE: SIDEs LAA~ S HOR, E: ACCESSORY BUILDI~ FRONT FRONT SIDEs ·IDEs ·EARs LAF, ZSHOR~ I t ~ . wilt, ?J~ PROPOSED I~tPROV~NTS PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 AND PART OF LOT 11, BLOCK 2t SHADYWOOD POINTt PID #18-117-23 23 0014, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-42 WHEREAS, the applicant, Stan Mierzejewski, has applied for a variance to recognize a nonconforming setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) from both the existing and proposed decks, and; WHEREAS, the actual setback to the OHW was unknown at time of application, and it appears the shoreline has eroded since the original survey for this property, and; WHEREAS, the proposed deck will not extend further towards the lake than the existing deck, and it will not extend further towards the lake than either of the adjacent neighbor's decks, and; WHEREAS, two other decks at the front and side of the dwelling are proposed, however, conform to all setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the OHW, and; WHEREAS, All other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a lakeside setback variance to the ordinary high water to allow construction of the decks, upon the following conditions: ae The owner/applicant establish the location of the ordinary high water elevation. The lakeside deck shall not be closer than 40 feet to the ordinary high water elevation. The lakeside deck shall not extend closer to the ordinary high water than the existing deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-042 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of three decks, two of which will be conforming. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 11 except the Northwesterly 25 feet thereof, and Lot 12, Block 2, Shadywood Point. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1993 Case//93-042: Stan Mierzejewski, 1942 Shorewood Lane, Lot 12 ~nd part Of 11. Block 2. Shadywood Point, PID #15-117-23 23 0014, VARIANCE Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) from the deck. The proposal is identified in three stages and includes expanding the lakeside deck resulting in a setback variance to the OHW of 42'+/-, note C on the survey. The proposed decks noted on the site plan as A and B are conforming. It is also noted that both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake. The line-up provision of the city Code, Section 350:440, Subd. 6 is only applicable to the street side, not to the lakeshore. The original draft of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained this provision and it is acceptable to the DNR, however, it was deleted at the Planning Commission level and it is not part of the ordinance now. Staff recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that all proposed work be conforming to the 50 foot setback to the OHW. The Planning commission verified with staff that the actual setback to the OHW is unknown. Since the original survey for this property the shoreline has eroded, therefore reducing the setback. The applicant, Stan Mierzejewski, stated that the proposed deck will not extend further towards the lake than the existing deck, and it will not extend further towards the lake than either adjacent neighbor's decks and he considers his request reasonable. The line-up provision was discussed, and it was determined that the setbacks of adjoining properties should not be taken into consideration, however the setback of the existing deck could be used for comparison. Meyer is not in favor of intensifying the existing nonconforming setback of the existing deck. Neighbor to the applicant, Connie Szarke stated she is in favor of the request for the deck. MOTION mads by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a variance to allow construction of the decks, upon the following conditions: 1.The owner/applicant establish the location of the ordinary high water elevation. 2. The lakeside deck shall not bm closer than 40 feet to the ordinary high water elevation. 3. The lakeside deck shall not extend closer to the ordinary high water than the existing deck. Motion carried 9 to 1. Those in favor were~ Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Nsiland, Jensen, Voss, Nanus, and Michael. Meyer was opposed. Meyer questioned the hardship, and he feels the new deck should meet the 50 foot setback. The Building official suggested that the owner could do some shoreline restoration, and he reminded him that permits may be required. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 LIAYWOOB RO&D MCUND L'N~ESOTA553aa ~$- 6:2 472 0600 FAX ,6~2:472 0625 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of August 9, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff. Jon Sutherland, Building Official )~ ~ Variance Request APPLICANT: Stan Mierzejewski CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 93-042 1942 Shorewood Lane, Lot 12 and Lot 11 except NW 25 feet, Block 2, Shadywood Point, PID #18-117-23 23 0014 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) from the deck. The proposal is identified in three stages and includes expanding the lakeside deck resulting in a setback variance to the OHW of 42'+/-, note C on the survey. The proposed decks noted on the site plan as A and B are conforming. It is also noted that both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake. COMMENT The line-up provision of the City Code, Section 350:440, Subd. 6 is only applicable to the street side, not to the lakeshore. The original draft of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained this provision and it is acceptable to the DNR, however, it was deleted at the Planning Commission level and it is not part of the ordinance now (the related minutes are attached). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that all proposed work be conforming to the 50 foot setback to the OHW. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. JS:pj prmted on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEEFING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, l!P)2 SHOREI, AND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE ' REVIEW OF MOUND~8 PIRBT DRAFT. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the first draft of the proposed shoreland management ordinance for the City of Mound. This draft includes all sections except material relating to the su~division ordinance and planned unit developments. Mound's ehoreland ordinance will be adopted as a part of the Zoning Code. Koegler noted the definition (116A) for Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility. Me reported the conclusion of the Council was that the only Water-Oriented Structure allowed to be constructed within the 50 foot setback from the OHWL should be an on-grade deck. Definition (116A) for WOS's was discussed at length. The Commission was deadlocked 3 in favor and 3 opposed to allowing some kind of storage facility near the shoreline. A change was noted in (52A) ". . . controls; the plight of th~ any landowner is due . . ." Page 4, Subd. 2. should read, "The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the City of ~ound affects . . ." Page 9, under "Assembly/Storage" a "C" should also be indicated under Non Shore. On the same page under "Buildings over 35 feet in height" should be all "C'e" in the B-l Zone. Mueller referred to Page 13, Subd. 2. ".. . lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line." Mueller commented that this restriction would create never-ending variances in Mound. Koegler questioned if the Commission wanted to determine a minimum width at the shoreline. It was suggested that this rule should only apply to newly created lots. The Commission agreed to amend this section as follows " Only land above the ordinary high water level of pu~l~J waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards f6r newly created lots must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. Lots of Record must be measured at the building setback line only, It was agreed that the minimum lot width requirement at the ordinary high water level for newly created lots should be 40 feet. Page 13, Subd. 3., the Commission determined that due to the minimal 50 foot setback requirement from the OHWL in Mound, structures should not be allowed to conform to the setback of structures on adjoining sites. Page 14, A.3., the City' Planner is to investigate what is an "accessory facility." Page 15, B.3.f., Koegler ts to investigate the phrasing of this section as information cannot be removed. Page 16, C., it was noted that structures may exceed 35 feet in height in the B-1 zone. Page 17, B.3.a. & b., Weiland questioned if this would allow a person to move 8 cubic yards month after month without a permit. Page 19; C. 5th line, should be amended to read," . . are met. For public and private facilities, the grading and }illing . . ." ti · l, I I, ~ I I MINUTES OF A MEg?lNG OF TRE MOUND ADVZSOR¥ PLANNING COHMISBION XPRZL 27~ ~992 $~0RELA~ MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DISCUSSIOn Gues~ cottages: The Planning Commission agreed that no new guest cottages should be allowed. Controlled Accesses; to "Private Controlled Accesses," to avoid Mound's commons. The Planning Commission Controlled Accesses for private parties. It was suggested that this title be changed any conflict with was in favor of ~iUBJECT v,~lacement of Structures: Mueller referred to 5.21 which states, ". . . Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone." Koegler confirmed that the "shore impact zone" in Mound is 25' from the shoreline which is half the required setback of 50'. Planning C~immion Minutes April 27, 1992 The Commission was concerned about new construction lining up with existing houses which are closer than 50 feet to the shoreline, and as a result houses will eventually creep towards the minimum of 25 feet from the shoreline. Design Criteria for St~uctures~ Structures. Water-oriented Accessory Koegler commented that this is the section which the Planning Commission needs to decide if boat houses or other water-orientated structures should be allowed. Orono has proposed to only allow one lock-box type structure not to exceed 20 square feet or 4 feet in height. Mueller questioned how this will correlate with the proposed zoning code modifications which does not allow any feet of the lake. Mue!!er ~ not ~n favor (4) covenants or' other equally effective legal instruments must be developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching, loading, storage, beaching, mooring, or docking. They must also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the nonsignificant conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total - number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegetation Or topography as much as practical from view from the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. COMMENT: Controlled access lots are commonly known as recreational outlots. They are typically established to provide non-riparian lots within a subdivision with lake access. In Mound, the Pelican Point site is a prime candidate for the future establishment of such an outlot. Under item (2), outlots are required to have additional width in conformance with the chart shown. The ration of lake size to shore length for Lake Minnetonka is 117 (14,200 acre~/121 miles). Correspondingly, the state rules would require controlled access lots in Mound to have a minimum width of 60 feet (50' + 20%). STATE RULE: 5.21 Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows. 3 It · i, I I, o I i A. Structure and On-site Sewage System Setbacks (in feet) from Ordinary High Water Level*. Classes of Public Waters Setbacks* Structures Sewage Treatment Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural Environment 150 150 150 Recreational Development 100 75 75 General Development 75 50 50 *One water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with Section 5.22 of this ordinance may be set back a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. B. Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From: Setback (in feet) (1) top of bluff; 3 0 (2) unplatted cemetery; 50 (3) right-of-way line of 50 federal, state, or county highway; and (4) right-of-way, line of 20 town road, public street, or other roads or streets not classified. C Bluff. Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. 4 D. Uses Without Water-oriented Needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. COMMENT: All land within Mound has sanitary sewer available. Therefore, item A. should identify a 50 foot setback requirement for all lakes. Item B.(3) requires a 50 foot setback from all county roads. A 50 foot setback is unreasonable in Mound, especially since R-2 zoned areas abut county roads. Therefore, Mound may want to consider a 20 foot setback requirement. Item D addresses uses without water-oriented needs. Many of the existing uses in Mound's downtown area fall under this category. Requiring a double setback in such areas is unreasonable, considering the existing development pattern. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURES STATE RULE: A. High Water Elevations. Structures must be placed in accordance with any floodplain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or flood-proofed must be determined as follows: (1) for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level, or three feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; (2) for rivers and streams (not applicable) (3) water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is. anticipated, the 'structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. I ! l, I i, I~ I ii 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY 0g MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 JUL 2.6 l g3 Planning Commission Date: city council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case Site visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to city Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ! .................................... Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property !~?__. <c:~_,'L_%~.l~Tf[~l~ I' '--' Owner' s Name S~%Al Owner' s Address ?~'~(:~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) .ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot t\ ~'CC~i ~4bo L.~/~ / ~J~t~ C~ ~13-~. [~k..~ Block ~ Addition ~P,~x-t.~ P~{~ PID No. Zoning District Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~) yes, ( ) no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) conditional use If and provide copies of resolutions. tailed descri ton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number De P _ . , ~ ~_ ~%~ of stories, type of use, etc. ): /\~_ ~ .q~(~<~ . ~ qD,?x?.~ ~c 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case required Do the existi~s~struct omply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulatiuns-T~yr-the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) k(jl ,~c_~_4~~. Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Fr°nt: ( N S~i Side Yard: ( N S Side Yard: ( N S Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~?_' ~ ft. ~" '~/- ft. ft. I('t ~ ft. - ,~ ~) ft ft. !{ f'5' ft. ~ ft~ ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft ~%(o~ sq ft O~ sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to a3/ regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~), No ( ). If no, specify eachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( (~.) too shallow ( ) shape ( Please describe: ~/~ ) soil ) existing ) other: specify Was the hardship described above ¢reated by the action of anyone having property inter~sts in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~), No (). If yes, explain i · l, · l, la J i 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? "'~ .... -, J / ~, -~, C"K'.C ~/J~3t ~,3~'~j,L~,;:~JC ,,~ ..... ~: ~'..~ I c~rtify that all a~ove statements and the statements contained ~n any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate· I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. - ' ~wner's Signature '~L/~x~_., Applicant's Signature Date ~ LA~ '--,-' ( IbF/(IT-c'P JUL 2 0 1993 ti · 1, i, i, I~ I ,I Gordon R. Coffin Reg.' No. 606~ alvin ~. ~tender R~g. ~o.132~5 Lazd Surveyors and Pla~mer~ Dong 4~ke~ Minneaota *:~::~':'- :I hereby certify that this is a true a~d correct representation of a ,,~::,'?.....>~,~,.~,~eyof ~ ~aries of ~ Il except th~ ~orthwe~rly 25 feet .. ,.,{:.~:"-~~f, and ~2, B~ck 2~. S~dywood Point, a~.d the loc,t!.o~ of a~ f/:~f~[;t~"/~?~,tlng b~ings %he~on. It aoos nob ~i~rt to sho~ o~her improve- .--~ ~ :.-f · i i 1, i ~, Iii I ! ~o% I ! 1, I, ~, I~ I jNovember 13, 1979 Councilmember Polston moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 79 480 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE NONCONFORMING USE WHEREAS, owner oF property described as Lots 11 & 12, Block 2, Shadywood Point, Plat 61980 Parcel 0640 PID #18-117-23 23 0012 located at 1942 Shorewood Lane has requested an 8 ft street front and 4.3 foot side yard variance on a nonconforming use, and WHEREAS, existing garage and boathouse are too close to lot lines making the pro- perty nonconforming, and WHEREAS, variances would allow owne~ to construct a deck and bedroom addition with- in legal setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and does hereby approve the nonconforming use to allow the construction of a deck on the lakeside of home and expand structure for addition of two bedrooms. Be it further noted that the boat house(now used for stor- age) be removed no later than 6 months after completion of addition on home and that if any additions are proposed to the garage, in the fut- ure, that the structure be removed at that time to conform to City's existing setback requirements. Applicant to submit letter of intent also. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Withhart and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Withhart, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolut'ion was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest. 'CMC City Clerk. (JE,'%LRAL ~ONING LNFO~'~L~'I'IO~ SIIEE[ FRONT ILXDI~$ L.AX.K S H~R~: ACCESSORY BUILDXlq~ SO' {meamuFed from O.lq.W.) ELIDEs SIDEs EXXSTXMG A.MDf~OR PROPOSL'D iff 8 E W // FRONT FROlqT: SIDE: ELIDEs I~AAt ACCESSORY BUIL0XN~ , * # ILL TI'IS PROPOSED_I J'~WROVE)I~I(.T~q CONFOlqJ4? ¥ILIL d N o 0 I ! ~j [ ! 1, ! I, I~ I I Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mH PLANNING REPORT FROM: Bruce Chamberlain, City Planning Consultant DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Teal Pointe EAW Review HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37j LOCATION: Property lying immediately east of the termini of Drummond Road and Windsor Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) BACKGROUND: Teal Pointe is a proposed 9 lot residential development located east of the existing termini of Windsor Road and Drummond Road. The applicant proposes unique housing styles and yard characteristics in an attempt to minimize environmental impacts due to development. The applicant has gained Preliminary Plat approval with conditions from the City of Mound and Stormwater Management Plan approval with conditions from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Due to the sensitive nature of the site (steep slopes, adjacency to a wetland and existing mature vegetation) the City of Mound, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit, has required an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to be completed for the Teal Pointe project. The EAW is defined by state statute to be a "brief document which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed action." An EIS is a much more detailed and exacting document which allows review of highly environmentally sensitive projects. The EAW was completed with citizen input and approved for distribution by the Mound City Council on June 28, 1993. Official comments regarding the EAW were invited between July 4 and August 4, 1993 through distribution of the EAW to appropriate agencies and advertisement in the legal section of the official City newspaper and the Environmental Quality Board's "Monitor". ACTION REQUIRED: It is the Mound City Council's responsibility (acting as the RGU) to review all official comments received in regard to the Teal Pointe EAW and take one of the following actions. Land Use/Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Su~:e 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 2 A. Require the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Bo Require conditions and/or modifications to the proposed project based on comments to the EAW. If this action is taken it is recommended that the Council direct staff to investigate areas of concern raised at the August 10 meeting and present project modifications at the August 24 meeting. C. Allow the project to continue as proposed by the applicant. The rules as outlined in the "EAW Guidelines", MN Environmental Quality Board, June, 1990 state that the City of Mound must take action within 5 working days of the close of the comment period and distribute notice of the decision within 21 calendar days of comment period closing. The Mound City Council will be in compliance by taking action at the August 10, 1993 City Council meeting. COMMENTS: Official comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, MN Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Mr. Thomas E. Casey and Mr. John C. Edewaard. The issues raised by these parties and staff clarification and comments are discussed below. Concerns are identified by EAW question numbers. Q. 6 Mr. Casey asks that the EAW describe the species and estimate the approximate number of trees on the site that will be cut and left standing. The EAW describes the types of trees on the site as "upland hardwood varieties" which includes trees such as Basswood, Elm, Oak, Maple, Etc. Estimating the number of trees on the site and the number of trees to be removed through construction is not asked in the EAW guidelines and therefore, has not been completed. Mr. Casey questions the City of Mound's ability to enforce tree preservation and he recommends drafting a conservation easement for the property which would specifically detail and require enforcement of appropriate management techniques. As part of this development, the property will, through conditional use permit, become a Planned Development Area (PDA) which requires a developer to put in place homeowner's covenants defining appropriate management techniques such as building style, landscaping, construction techniques, etc. The City of Mound has approval authority over the covenants prior to the final plat being approved. A self-governing homeowners association could be put in place to enforce the guidelines in the covenant. Il i 1, I I, I]J I I Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 3 Mr. Casey also questions the statement that construction will be done with smaller than normal machinery and that trees and brush will be protected to the extent possible. Lots 1-3 are the most sensitive areas and the area where smaller machinery will be of greatest importance. The homes on these lots will not have basements and will be built on pilings which eliminates the need for heavy excavation equipment in areas other than driveways. Also, the homeowners covenants will discuss identification and subsequent protection of vegetation as homes are built during construction. Mr. Casey also pointed out that the timing and duration of construction was omitted from the EAW. Street construction would last approximately 60 days and would likely begin in the fall of 1993 (if it can be completed before snowfall) or the spring of 1994. Construction timing of the homes will be dependent on sales of the individual lots but the homes will likely take somewhat longer to construct than more typical homes due to their unique nature and custom design (approximately 6-9 months). Q. 9 Mr. Edewaard expresses concern about debris and junk currently on the property. Development of the site will result in the removal of the debris. Q. 10 Mr. Casey questions the cover type calculations. These calculations were provided by the developer and verified by City staff. They are reasonable estimates of what would occur if the development proceeds. Mr. Casey states that through his investigation, the total area of the site is incorrectly stated in the EAW by 8,800 square feet. A certified boundary survey which is intensely accurate has been conducted for the developer by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., Land Surveyors. The methods of calculation used by representatives of Mr. Casey do not approach this level of accuracy. Q. 11 Mr. Casey believes the EAW to be inadequate in regard to determining the natural resources on the site and in identifying rare or endangered plant and animal species. Mr. Casey presents testimony from a resident of the property from 1960 to 1980 who remembers seeing 3 plants and animals (Ginseng, American Bittern and Snapping Turtle) Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 4 which are on the DNR "special concern" list. Also, these species are commonly found in the "Big Woods" ecosystem which is a highly endangered ecosystem. The DNR is the overseeing agency in the state of Minnesota in regard to protection of natural resources including plants, animals and their native ecosystems. The DNR official position is that even though Teal Point contains species of plants and animals found in the Big Woods community, it is much too small of an area to constitute a viable, sustainable ecosystem. The relatively undisturbed portion of the site is approximately 1 acre in size and the DNR does not identify Big Woods ecosystems as worthy of efforts to preserve if under 10 acres. Also, the DNR identifies "special concern" species as those species which are perceived to be decreasing in number. They are not classified as endangered species or protected by law. An on-site ecological survey is not warranted for this property due to its size and level of human disturbance. Mr. Casey and Mr. Edewaard also raise concern over the ability of the City of Mound to enforce protection of ecologically sensitive natural resources such as bluff areas and the wetland. The City of Mound will own the wetland adjacent to the property and have authority over its use. The steep slope areas will be protected through measures in the homeowner covenants and later alterations to the property will be regulated through the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Q. 12 The Metropolitan Council, Mr. Casey and Mr. Edewaard disagree with an assertion made in question 12 of the EAW stating that the adjacent wetland will remain undisturbed by development. Question 12 specifically asks for physical and hydrologic alterations to a wetland. Although the proposed development will inevitably have subtle impacts on the adjacent wetland, the Teal Pointe project would not alter the specific qualities asked for in this question such as filling, dredging, water level fluctuations and nmoff discharge rates. Slight increases in runoff discharge rates in one area of a site does not constitute a hydrologic alteration as defined in the EAW Guidelines. Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 5 Q. 14 & 16 The Metropolitan Council raises serious concern over soil suitability for development on the Teal Pointe Site. Closely associated with the soil issue are the steep slopes on lots 1-3. All of the comment submittals raise this issue as a concern. The Hennepin County Soil Survey states that the soils on the site in areas with greater than 12% slopes "have severe limitations for residential development because of the high cost of installing utilities and grading streets and building sites. Where slopes are more than 18%, these soils are better suited to uses that enhance the natural beauty of the area than to most other uses." Other limitations of the soils on the site are mainly in regard to septic systems which are not part of the Teal Pointe Development. The steep slopes on the site have been and continue to be a significant and legitimate concern about the project. When the Teal Pointe Development was first submitted to the City of Mound in November of 1992, the current Shoreland Management Ordinance (which would have prohibited construction on lots 1-3 because of steep slopes) was being contemplated but was not in effect. At that time, due to the conditional use permit required to make the site a Planned Development Area, the City Council was faced with the question of whether to apply the future ordinance. For various reasons the new Shoreland Management Ordinance was not applied but the City of Mound still has the ability to apply any or all portions of the new Shoreland Management Ordinance as a result of the review of EAW comments. Q. 15 Mr. Casey and Mr. Edewaard express concem about degradation to the wetland due to docks along the shoreline. The wetland which abuts the property is connected by channel to Lake Minnetonka when the water level is high. In dry years the channel is not deep enough to accommodate boats and some years the channel is above the water level. The 1/2 section aerial photo available at Mound City Hall which shows the site was taken in 1989. 1989 was a dry year and the photo shows no channel connection and no docks in the wetland. The issue of docks has been a concern throughout the approval process of the Teal Pointe project. The developer has indicated that docks are not part of this project. The City of Mound reserves the right to prohibit future dock facilities from this development during final plat approval. Q. 17 The DNR and Mr. Casey express concern about negative effects of runoff both during and after construction on the steep slope areas. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the overseeing agency for grading and drainage permits in the area containing Teal Pointe. They have approved the project with conditions Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 6 based on drawings and specifications submitted to them by the developer. Their approval includes measures to control erosion during and after construction. Also, as learned through the EAW process, a stormwater permit from the MPCA may be required for the project. The City of Mound reserves the right to apply the MPCA Best Management Practices regulating erosion control both during and after construction. Q. 18 Mr. Casey expresses concern about nutrient and pesticide runoff into the wetland from the proposed development and states that a nutrient budget analysis should be completed for the project. The proposed development will generate nutrients and pesticides which can mn off if improperly applied. Runoff from existing Windsor Road which includes a number of yards, currently drains through an eroded channel directly into the wetland. Due to the detention basin which is part of the proposed development, Windsor Road runoff will be mechanically treated before entering the wetland and quality will be improved from the existing condition. Pesticide and nutrient runoff from the proposed development should be less than a normal residential setting due to a vegetative buffer and unique yard styles proposed by the developer. The City of Mound reserves the right to require that these elements be included and described in the homeowner covenants. City Staff has had conversations with the Environmental Quality Board regarding the necessity of a nutrient budget analysis. It is there opinion that the numbers derived from the Teal Pointe project, due to its small size and efforts of mitigation, would not even register on a nutrient budget. Therefore, a nutrient budget is not considered necessary. Mr. Casey and Mr. Edewaard express confusion about amounts of runoff from the developed site. Question 18 in the EAW clearly describes runoff characteristics of the site both before and after development. Overall runoff from the site would decrease as a result of development and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed the runoff data in its entirety during approval of the project. Q. 21 Mr. Edewaard is concerned about underground storage tanks in the proposed development. There are no storage tanks of any kind proposed for this development. ! ! 1, i I, I~ I I Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 7 Q. 26 Mr. Casey questions the integrity and findings of the archeological consultants who reviewed the site and believes another archaeological survey should be conducted. Mr. Casey sites affidavits, letters and findings of a second archeological consultant to back up his concerns. In a letter dated February 5, 1993 from Dennis Gimmestad, acting State Archeologist to the Teal Pointe Development Co. Mr. Gimmestad writes that "There are no recorded burial areas or archeological sites within the proposed development area." but goes on to say that "the proposed development area has high potential to contain archeological habitation sites." Because of this letter along with requests from residents, the City of Mound required that the developer conduct a professional archeological survey of the site. The survey was completed by an independent consultant using the guidelines set forth by the State of Minnesota and submitted to the State Archeologist for review. Comments are contained in a letter dated June 5, 1993. In this letter the State Archeologist writes that "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." The letter goes on to say "Please note that a separate consultation with the Indian Affairs Council is necessary." It is the feeling of City Staff that a second survey is not needed. The Indian Affairs Council will review the findings of the initial study and if they have concerns, other actions can be taken such as requiring an archeologist to be on site during clearing of the site, etc. Also, the archeological consultant hired by Mr. Casey was not allowed by the developer to enter the property. Therefore the comments focussed on criticism of methods used by the initial archeologist and referenced historical documentation which describes archeological habitation sites in the area. Also, through discussions with the State Archeology Office, the finding of arrowheads and other Native American artifacts is not enough evidence to indicate a significant archeological site. Q. 27 Mr. Casey expresses concern about adverse visual impacts such as flood lights, street lights and removal of vegetation as a result of the project. EAW guidelines ask for non-routine visual impacts as a result of the project. No non- routine visual impacts are anticipated. Furthermore, the project will retain most of the vegetation around the shoreline area. Q. 28 Mr. Casey states that development on this site is in conflict with the Mound Comprehensive Plan. Teal Pointe EAW Planning Report August 9, 1993 page 8 Teal Pointe is identified by the Mound Comprehensive Plan as residential. The site is not specifically identified as a future acquisition site for recreational activities. Q. 30 Mr. Casey expresses concern that the developer will be allowed to dredge the wetland in the future. The wetland will be dedicated to the City of Mound if this project proceeds. Therefore, the developer would have no authority to dredge or alter the wetland in any way. The Conclusions of each submitting party are as follows. Metropolitan Council: · Lots 1-3 should be considered unbuildable. · The proposed detention basin should be designed according to NURP standards. · MPCA Best Management Practices should be followed. · The Metropolitan Council will take no formal action in regard to the Teal Pointe EAW. Minnesota DNR: · Lots 1-3 are unsuited to construction · Impact to existing vegetation should be kept to a minimum. · MPCA Best Management Practices should be followed during and after construction. · All runoff leaving the site should be treated with retention ponds. Minnesota PCA: · Significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of the project. · An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. Mr. Thomas Casey: · A conservation easement should be applied to the property. · A professional on-site ecological survey should be conducted. · An additional archeological survey should be conducted. · Lots 1-3 should be declared unbuildable. · A decision regarding the EAW should be postponed until additional information can be obtained. Mr. John Edewaard: · The EAW should be reassessed for accuracy and inconsistencies. I · i, I I, I~ IE.C' 3 1993 Environmental Assessment WoAsheet (EAW) NOTE TO PREPARERS This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RCLO or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably access~le data necessary for the workshee% but is not to wmplete the Final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as n__ece~_ sary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult ~_.AW Culdelines," a booklet available from the EQB. NOT~ 1'0 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 ElS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an ElS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness bf the information and suggest issues for investigation in the ElS. 1. Pto]~:tTItle TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 2. Pm~r Teal Pointe Development Co. 3. RGU City of Mound Contact Person Neil Weber Contact person Mark Koegler Address 3952 Louisiana Ave. S. and title City Planner Phone Minneapolis~ NN 55426 926-1156 4. R. son for EAW Preparation 0 ElS scoping [] mandatory EAW D citizen petition If F. AW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category numbeffs) 5, Project Location North½ ~./+ ~ t-/-4 Section ~5 Township Counvy Hennepin Attach copies of mcA of the following to the EA W: Addr~s 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-0600 [] RGU discretion [] Proposer volunteered Not mandatory. 117 P,a~ 24 Ci_~/T~q~ Mound ~- a county map showing the g~neral location of the project; Exhibit 1, Page 12 b. copy(les) of USGS 75 minute, 1'24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; Exhibit 2 ,Page c. a site pla~. show~n~ ~ all significant project and natural features. Exhibit 3, Page 14 d. Citv~ Sectzon. Exhibit 4, Paae 15 . I~crlptlon' Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. 13 See attached, Page 7 Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice: See attached, Page 7 Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 5.7 acres or Length (miles) Number of Residential Units Unattached 9 Attached 0 Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) To~! N.A. ~ feet; b~licate area of spedflc uses: Office N.A. RetaU N.A. Warehouse N_ ¢, Other Commercial (spec~) N.A. Buiidi~$ Heisht(s) Standard residential Manufacturing N.A. Other Industrial _ N.A. In~tutional N. fi. As~iculmr~ N ~, (under ~5') N.A. 8. Permits and Approvals Required List aU kno~rn local, state, and federal permits, approvaLq, and funding required: Unit of Government Ty~e of Application Status City of Hound Preliminary Plat Approved with conditions (see Exhibit 8), Page 35 City of Hound Final Plat Yet to be submitted Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District Stormwater Hanagement Plan (see Exhibit 9), Page 42 Approved with conditions Department of Health Water Utility Plans To be submitted with Final Plat I~ U# Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmtmtal matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage See attached, Page 8 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): in square feet Before After Before After Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 113,996 .113,996 Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 .. 48,043 Wooded/Forest 40 .. NNN 34; f'}NO Landscapln8 Brash/Grassland ~ 97~ ?00 Impervious Surface N __~.~6 Cropland 0 0 Other (descn'be) 11. F~h, Wildlife, and Ecologically SenslUve Resources 8. 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 special-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? ['3 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 2 ii ! i, i I, t I 12. Plqts/cal Irn~cl~ on Waler 8,s0un:~ Will the project involve the physicaJ or hydrologic alteration (dredging, r-dlLr~ stream diversion, outfaIl structure, ~ impoundment) of any surface water Ctal~ pond, wetlar~ ~ drainage ditch)? E3 ~/e. I~ No If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or 611 material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area ~ffected; timi~$ and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Adjacent wetland to remain undisturbed. 13. Water Use !1. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? I~ Yes I-I No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known). There is an existing well on the previous residential site (see Exhibit 10)~ Page 47 Well will be properly sealed before deYelopment. b. Will the project require an appropriation of 8;round or surface water (including dewatering)? 0 Yes I~ No If yes, Indicate the source, quantity, duration, purlx)se of the appropriation, and DNR water appropj'i,'ftion permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the tmpact of the appropriation on g'round water levels. W~theprojectrequireconnection to a public water supplfl [] Y~ 0 No ffyes,~entifythe~pply, the DNRwaterappropriationpermitnumber~thesupp~,amtthequantitytobeused. Development will be supplied by City of ~4ound municipal water service. Useage will be under lO,O00 gallons/day and 1 million gallons/year. 14. Water-related L~nd Use Manapment Dt.trlete Does any pan of the project site involve a shore, land zorn& dLstrict, a delineated 10CLyear flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or somic river land use district? [] Yes I-I No If yes, identi~y the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. See attached, Page 1S. Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or ty~ of watercraft on any water body? [3 Yes INI No : ' If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or cortt'licts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. 16. Solll Approximate depth (in feet) to: Ground water:, minimum 18 ' average 26 ' Bedrock: minimum 88 ' average 120 ' Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need no__~t be attached.) There are two soil classifications on the site (EnC& EnE), both in the Erin 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 !, Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. See attached, Page See attached, Page 9 Describe methods to be used to manage and/or Identify the mute(s) and re,;e, lving wat~ bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. ¢If tt~ nmcff w~y ~ ,, ~ ~'uit "EA W GuJ~Zj~s° ~t m~ a mdr~t Imdset a~dys~ i~ m~d.) See attached, Page 10 19, W. ter ~nllt,/. Wutewaters. ~, Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) o{ 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. ¢I~ tM dlsdter~ m~y ~,~c~ ~ ~z cm~u/~ 'EAW Guidd~° ~t u,~,~,r ~ nufrf~f ~ ,,m~ly~ i~ ~.) N.A. - Treated by municipal system. C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pmtreatment 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. Se~ attmched, Pa? 10 Ground We~r- Potential for Cont.mlm0on B. Approximate de]~ (~ ~ee0 to gm,md water. 18 ' m/nimum; 26 ' average. b. Describe any of the followi~8 site hazards to i~ound water and also ident/h/them on the site map: sh~ole~; shallow limestone formations/~rs! conditions; sous ~th }Qgh immigration rates; abandoned or u~used wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. There is an existing well on the previous residential site (see Exhiblt 10), Page 50 Well will be properly sealed before development. C. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. None 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastu; Storage T~nke a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes. Identib/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. 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). None 4 ~ · l, i I, UJ I i 22. T~a~¢ P~rking spaces added 18 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0 ~ttmated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated ?0 Estimated maximum i~.ak hour tra~qc generated (Lf known) and its timing: 1 ~' r i D/hr eveninq. For eac~ afl.'ted 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 wkich will See attached, Page 10 23. V~hlcle-~elated sir emissions Provide an estimate of the effe~ of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the e~fect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air q, allty impact~. (If the project inoolws 500 or mor~ parking spaces, consult 'EA W Guidelines' abou! whether a d~tail~,d ai~ qualit~ analysis is See attached, Page 10 24. s~tionm .ourc~ ~lr .mlssl0nl Will the pm~ ~volve ~y ~fiona~ ~ of a~ ~ssions (such ~ ~ile~ or ~u~ sU~)? ~ Yes ~ No If y~, d~d~ ~e ~, q~fifi~, and ~mposifion of ~e e~ssions; the p~ air ~llution ~nt~l d~ic~; the qu~flti~ and ~m~sifion of ~e e~ssions after ~tment; and the ~ on a~ quali~. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? ~1 yo /-I 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 vicinity and estimate the impac~ 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 hor~e construction. Are any of the ~ollowing resources on or in proximity to the site: & ~acheotogical, historical, or architectural resources? OYes O No Research underway. Exhibit 12, Page 56 b. prime or unique farmlands? V! Yes ~ No C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? [3 Yes [] No d. scenic views and vistas? ~q Yes [] No e. ~ther unique resources? [~ Y~ E] No wetlands If any items are a~swered Yes, dt~ribe the resource and identify any impacts on t. he ~.,source c~ue: to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to rrt~imize or avoid adverse impacts. See attached, Page ]~l Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from inten~ Eght$; lights vis~ble in wilderness areas; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or ~diaus~ stacks.) [] Yes ~ No If yes, explain. 28. Compatibility with plaM ls the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a~ local, regional, state, or f~cleral 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. Project is compatible with City of Nound's Comprehensive Plan. The current Plan and past Plans have designated the site for residential uses. Imp~t on Infr~s~'u~ure Ind Public Services WLi] new or expanded utilities, toads, other in/Tastructu~, or public services be required to serve the project? [] Yes I-'l No If yes, describe ~e new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a 'connected v-.'tion' with r~x~ct to the project must be assessed in this EA W; s~e 'EA W Guidelines" ~or details.) See attached, Page 30. Related 0evelopment~; Cumulative Impacts a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? 1-1 Yes !~ No If yes, briery describe future stages, theLr timing, and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? I-'1 Yes [] No If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past envLronment~l review. C. ls other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? I-I Yea lit1 No If yes, briery describe the deveJopment and its relationship to the present project. d. If a,b, or c were marked Yea, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts restdting from this project and the other development. 31. Omer Potential Environmental lrnpacte If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None '~2. SUMMARY OF ISSUES (Th/s ~ct/on need not be completed if the EA W is being done for EIS ScaFing; instead, address relevant issues in the draft 5coping Decision document which must accomlmny 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 11 CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU notice in the EQB Monitor) (all 3 codifications must be signed for EOB acceptance of the 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 1 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 poij~ts on the official EQB EAW distribution list. Signature Title of signer Date t i i, i I, I~ i i 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. 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 around 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. Attachments to the EAW: Teal Pointe Residential Development 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. gila 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. All lots will be separated from the wetland with a vegetative buffer. #1lb 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 desienated rare natural species or features on the site. Hardscrabble Point Woods which is a designated rare Maple-Basswood Forest is roughly I 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 #1la 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. ! i i, i I, tt i s 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 furore commitment to build infi-astrucmre. #32 The Teal Pointe residential development is being proposed on a challenging site due to steep slopes, existing mature txees 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~ page l[ i i, I i EXHIBIT 2 page 13 _j_zz~ Y J.O't J.~O EXHIBIT 3 page 1, 'i Ill 1, ! I IJ I I EXHIBIT 4 Z I.~age EXHIBIT 5 page 16 NElL WEBER ARCHITECT/PLANNER page TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PLA2qNED DEVELOPMENT AREA Site Area Tabulation 'SITE ANALYSIS 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. il. 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 lO 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 me 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 1 (.. 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 oR 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 Nell 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 ~ften 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 2 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 ~uite 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 spaeial 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 4. 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 vistds 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. J ! I page 2~ 6. £xtst~ng Condztlone Drawing 6 exhibits the existing condit:ons on this site. Spot elevatlons and topography give you an example of how the topography varies on this site. ~ncZuded are iocat~ons o~ major trees and the marsh grass which ex;mrs asound the water line. The elevat:on S~9.5, vh:ch is the normal high water mark o~ Lake Minnetonka, is illustrated, in addition to the elevation of 932.5, which is the loves~ e~evation of that alloyed for a living floor adjacent to Lake Minnetonka. As stated earlier, the zoning is R2 in the area. The site is located a~ the dead ends o~ Drummond and Windsor Roads. Directly aajacent hones are shown on the exhibit as veil. 7 & 8. Climate Any climate ~s complex and is usually variable. A site planner must be concerne~ particularly with the ~ls~ribution of air temperature, relative humidity, v~nd direction and ~orce, broken down by month and season. These are fundamental data ~or determining the effect o~ temperature in its relationship to the com~ort zone. Zn addition, considerati.on of maximum intensities of rain indicate the need ~or overhead shelter and requirements for adequate drainage. Finally, the hours of sunshine, wind direction, and elevation of the sun indicate measures that must be taken to invite or ward off solar radiation. The chart shows that the outdoor temperatures are ~requently above the comfort zone in Suly and August, and mos~ useful cooling winds are from the southwest. A general analysis coupled with a study of the ways in which local buildings and the habits o~ life are already adjusted to climate, ~urnzsh the ~rst clues for the choice of arrangement on the site. Each in~;vidual site as indicated on the plan would be analyzed, especially ~o~ w;~ ~irec~ion an~ sun access, to take bes~ advantage of these ccndit;o~s. ~iagrams ~ through 12 are showing photographs to and from the site ~ro~ var;ous points of view. Each photo is labeled and shoul~ give you a ~eellng for the kind o~ topography, vegetation, and views that ex;st. The s;~e zs very unique and beautiful. Zt is very unlike the ima§e that is normally given to properties on the island in Mound. ! think that the marketing wi1~ take advantage of thla and will exploit the fact that this is a very unique site, with beaut1~ul surroundings, and that once you are on the s;te you are aware o~ the beautiful natural environmen~ so unique to Lake Minnetonka. page 24 I I I I I I ! // I I Ii, page 2: I I I '/ Z::) page 26 Iii W w _1 · IJJ page 27 I I I I I \\ page 28 ! / / / / / J ! ! · I I I I I I ! ! / ! ! ! ! I i 7~ 0 MJ page 2~ page 30 0 · ~J I ! 1, ! I,, i ~ page 3 1 page 32 SITE TAB~TION EXHIBIT 6 TOTAL HARDCOVER GREENSPACE Lot Area Access tLO.W. Totals 114,900 sf 15,300 sf 99,600 sf 19,859 sf 10,216 sf 9,643 sf 134,759 sf 25,516 sf 109,243 sf Chariot B (Wetland) Total Site Area 113,996 sf 248,755 sf (18.9%) (81.1%) LOT TABULATION Lot Size (sf) I 10,000 2 10,100 3 10,600 4 15,300 5 11,9oo Approx. Bldg. Footprint (sf) Approx. Drives and Walks (sf) Total Greenspace Hardcover (sO (sf) 1,200 12.0% 1,200 11.9% 1,200 11.3% 1,200 7.8% 1,200 10.1% 500 5.0% 500 4.9% 500 4.7% 500 3.2% 500 4.2% 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% 6 14,100 7 10,100 8 16,100 9 16,700 114,900 1,200 8.5% 1,200 11.8% 1,200 7.5% 1,200 7.1% 500 3.5% 500 4.9% 500 3.1% 500 2.9% 10,800 9.4% 4,500 3.9% 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% 15,300 13.3% 99,600 86.7% I '1 I Il EXHIBIT 7 page 33 /' , //-/ /' ~ ~ / / -/ / .I I I I page 34 ! i 1, i, I, I~ i ~ EXHIBIT 8 page 35 F~ruary 9, 19~3 ~LUTION 93-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DF_,VELOP~ AREA, AND LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR TEAL POINTE WITH THE ADDITION OF 17, 18 & 19 & THE CHANGE IN EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called Teal Pointe, pursuant to Section 330 of the City Code, and WHERF~S, applicant's proposal 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 takiag 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 WHEREAS, 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 WHFREAS, the proposed subdivision as'conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable development plans and policies, and' WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met, and WBT~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 propoged page 36 Februal7 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 necessary facilities are being provided, and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with thc existing land use in the asea, 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-5OLVF]) 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 Outlot 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 thc re. teation of Cobden Road and Drummond Road west of Cobden Road as public fight-of-way. The portion of Outlot C lying outside of Cobden Road (as shown on Exhibit "A") shall be dedicaled as public right-of-way. The developer/project owner shall paJ'ticipate in the preparation of aA Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) with the Responsible Governmental Unit in compliance with the Environmental Review program Rules. Minn. Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800 and all other applicable sections. All costs incurred by the City of Mound in the EAW process shall be cha~ged to the developers escrow account. If the completed F. AW 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 thc City Council prior to submission of the final plat application. The developer shall submit to the City of Mound, a copy of a le.~ter 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 bbe~addressed in the manner identified within Minnesota State Statutes. Preliminary 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 Dis~ct, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota De .pa~.ment of Health and all other applicable regional, State and Federal agencies. All lots shall be rectuired 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. 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 Outlol 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 subdivision. 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 acceptable 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 utilities 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 ,thc 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". ,l ! I I page 39 February 9, 1993 16. Thc developer shall maintain a positive cash balance in thc developers escrow account to cover the costs incurred by the City of Mound in reviewing compliance with the conditions of approval. If al any time the funds in the account are depleted, the City shall suspend all review for compliance with the aforementioned conditions until ~uch time as additional funds are deposited. 17. Approval of Title by the City Attorney. 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 licen__~e,d_ 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 Councilmembe~ Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Sensen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: nolle. Councilmember lessen was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk page40 page 41 I I F · I .... ,.,., ,,,,. ,, :,,, · ., :i ~,1. ss ~. ~ - , I " ~ J ,-. i.,,i I ~,~ J. It EXHIBIT Permit Application No. 93-50 Applicant: Teal Pointe Development Co./Neil Weber 3952 Louisiana Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55426 April 15, 1993 page 42 Location: City of Mound, T117, 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: Rule B - Stormwater Management Plan for a residential development Exhibits Reviewed: 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. i MINNEHAHA I;:REEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O, Box Waymsta, Minnesota 55391 I I (,FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Permit Application No .... O~e Received_ Not]ce Sent ,_ Agenda Da;e APPLICATION` .FOR PERMIT '2. 3. Permit Reque~ed For;, (Check All Appropri~-te. Boxes) B. S:ormw~ter M~nagement ~ Ccmmerc~ai ~ Industd~ ~ In~ltu~bn~ Or C. ~ Floodpl~n ;)age 43 (Do Not Write Above TI~[s Une) &o [] L.A. ~ Other D. ~ Wet!~d Alteration E, (~ Oredging F. i-I Shor¢lin~k Impn3vement 5. Describe ~e Project: ~:C~r-''r /'/~x cc4ez/-~3 ' ~' 6. if This Project Requires Muniep~ Approval or Re',4ew, Attach Documenta:~on of Municipal>Review. 7. Body of W~ter, Stream or Wetl~d Aff. ect~8 ~oy Runoff From This Site: ~7-~,~~ ~ ~/y Z~'~ ,~//¢~! zC.,fY ~ OiCamce From Project: ~$I7'~' ;. $. Schedule F~r Conat. ructJcn, Imp;eme,q~t;on of Tempore..rY Erosion Controls, · ~ Ired ~ sub~tt1.lng thlt lorn1, th~,~;Pllc~c.'t ~., page 44 page 45 ........... _/T'._e"xL_. va-aa~'.- ................. ~-rax, a~. /z.. ..?? Y ¢~._~z,. .o 04.'30/93 10:25 FA:~ 61Z 473 6002 ~C]~OR $C1£.~'TI¥I . · q ~ .~ ~ . ' ~g..~ ~ _. ~. . \% page 46 ~:oo~ WE tRDE. TA tL NO. I I i · ~t of Sure, ay for Jo~~. ,'. !Ii!let of Lots 1!., 15, 16, an~ 17, ~.loc'~ 15, Whinple H~."mec: :) County., Mirmesnta EXHIBIT 10 Cese No. 82-15Z~ page 47.,--~ · .,'o?' ;- ..I : I~/IVD30R /~OAD · T hereby ~ert~h~+ th~ ~s a t~ e~ c~ect ~r,r~en~tjnn o~ s~,ey of the ~ndmrSem or bots 14, 15, 16, and )~, ~lock 15, W~dpple. does not ~,ort:to ~ho~ tmprovemr:nts or enercech-~n+s excen% an e~ting house. ' ..... ' $~ale: 1" = 40' : Da%e : 1-g-73 ' o : Iron marker Gordon Land Surveyor ~nd Planner Long In]ce, ::inne~ota page 4~ II II II II Il It · 1, It ~, iii i I page 49 - :lllll: ,, -.~ ii::jll !jlii lli[:,: I1 tlll.dlil::l j ,:..I[~,i:! d+'ithil'' iJ t~i':l II1,1j ::~llllili[ll II [l:;iiililil[ i,tiillgh,l,, DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL' RESOURCES DNR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYE']-rE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155-40 (6~2) 296~6157 O7 EXHIBIT 1 1 October 29, 1990 Niel Weber 511131 Windsor Rd. Mound. lin 55364 Re: Rare natural features in Bennepin Co. Dear Hr. Weber: John Almendinger of the Natural Heritage Program referred your request for information to me. John said that you vere interested in information about natural areas and rare species in Hermepin Co., including the types of natural areas, their significance and knovn locations. ! 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 shovs knovn occurrences of rare natural features in Hennepin Co. Before ! explain the format of the print-out, let me just briefly explain the kind of information ye have in our database. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the Nongame Wildlife ?rogram, units within the Section of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or othervise 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 dravn 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 vhich 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 raye natural features, which is nov underway. Having given you that background tnformat'ion, 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 ?ovnship, 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 tbs NW .1/4 of section 32). Next is listed the managed area in vhich 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 ovnership is u~novn. Next is listed the Class; the class codes are as follovs: GP-geologic feature, SA-animal species, SP-plant species, NC-natural communities, OT-colonial waterbird nesting colonies. Next is listed the state status (MtISTAT), which for plant and animal species is the legal status under the state endangered AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER page 52 species law. Codes for status are as follows: END-endangered, THR-threatened, SPC-special concern, NON-rare, but no legal status. Although natural conuaunittes or habitats have no legal status in Ninnesota, the Natural Heritage program has evaluated and ranked them according to their relative rarity and endangerment in the state (natural couunity status shown in parenthesis in the HNSTA? column). Colonial vaterbird nesting sites are tracked in the database even if 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 vas 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 coaunon names of the natural features. Regarding the types of natural areas found in ltinnesota and their significance, several sources of information come to =ind. I a= enclosing copies of the following: 1) a brochure produced by the DNI~ Division of Eaters 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) ~atural Ve;etatio~ of Minnesota, a brochure produced by our program which describes the original vegetation types found in Minnesota, and 4) ~he Uncom=on One.s., 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 Endangered Flora and Fauna, B. Co££in and L. Pfanmnuller, eds., Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1988. The introduction to this book also contains a detailed discussion of Mirmesota's plant co~nunities. 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.e you some information on this topic. The strongest protection for natural areas on a state-vide basis is designation as a Scientific and Natural Area. I have enclosed a brochure about the program, and a brief description of Eolsield l/oods, the only SNA in ~ennepin Co. I hope you find the enclosed 'information useful. If you have further questions, or =y explanation of the prtn.t-out is not clear, please feel free to call me at 296-8324. Sincerely, Bonita Eliason Endangered Resource/Environmental Review Specialist John Almendinger page 53 page 54 page 55 MINUTES OF A 1VIF G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 REVIEW AND COMMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (E&W) 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). 2. 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 10, 1993 city council approval of the EAW for distribution. City of Mound sends EAW to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and distribution list. June 14, I993 June I5, 1993 June 28, 1993 EAW received by EQB (assumed). City of Mound submits required press release to "The Laker" for publication on June 21, 1993. Publication of EAW in "EQB Monitor' - start of 30 day comment period. July 28, 1993 August 10, 1993 End of comment period. Mound City Council Meeting - EAW decision on need for an EI$. 'August 12, 1993 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: Planning Commission Minutes Teal Point EAW May 24, 1993 $9 should read that "all" of this site was a single family residential lot. ~X4, 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. 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. 2 Plann£ng Commission Minutes May 24, 1993 Teal Point EAW 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~e~~ clarify that no ~n-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 cost of a survey. Andersen was not present for the poll. Q 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. i · i, · · , Ul i Planning Commission Minutes Teal Point EAW Ma~, 24, 1993 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 qraded or excavated and the cubic yards of soll to be moved: acres 0.75 ; cubic yards 9O0 . Mueller questioned how Chamberlain arrived at this figure. Nell 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 .419 Water Quality - wastewaters. Language should be added to this answer including mention of the lift station serving lots 1, 2, and 3. ~ #2~ 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 q7q Plann£ng Co~m[es£on M£nutes May 24, 1993 Teal Po£nt EAW 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 J19. 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. 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. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mear.~ Park Centre, 230 Ea.~t Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 i Ht--Ut::::IVI::D d U I. 1 9 1993 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. 612 291-6359 CC: MARK KOEGLER ( FAXED ) ~DON SUTHERLAND SHUKLE E4X 612 291-6550 UD' 612 291-0904 July 13, 1993 Mark Koegler City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 RE: Teal Pointe Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Metropolitan Council District 13 Dear Mr. Koegler: Council staff has conducted a review of this environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has found a number of problems in the EAW regarding its completeness and accuracy with respect to regional concerns and issues of consistency with Council policies. These concerns are summarized below. EAW item 10 states that the 5.7-acre site contains 2.6 acres of wetland. EAW item 12 states that the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed by the proposed project. The entire 5.7- acre site drains to the wetland. The proposed project site is actually surrounded on the north, east, and south sides by the wetland (unidentified in the EAW), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources protected water 948W. Council Water Resources Management policy 3-4 states that the Council, through its numerous review and approval authorities, will preserve all protected and unprotected natural watercourses -- including associated wetlands, channels, floodplains and shorelands -- to enhance water quantity and quality and to preserve their ecological functions. The EAW inadequately supports its statement that this adjacent wetland will remain undisturbed by the proposed project. EAW item 17 states that the soils on the site are not considered highly erodible. The Hennepin County Soil Survey classifies the soils on site in the Erin loam series. Approximately one third have slopes averaging from 6 to 12 percent, and the remainder average from 18 to 24 percent. The EAW states that slopes on platted lots 1, 2, and 3 exceed 30 percent, with maximum slopes approaching 45 percent on lot 1. The Soil Survey recommends against any construction in Erin soils on slopes exceeding 18 percent, due to their propensity for rapid erosion once disturbed. Stormwater runoff from all of lots 1 through 4, from the rear yards of lots 5 through 9, and from the private road acce~ to lots 1 and 2 will flow overland to the adjacent wetland. While homes on lots 1 through 3 are proposed to be built on stilts to minimize grading, disturbance and increased levels of erosion will be unavoidable during both the construction phase and following construction. Erosion due to the adverse impact upon upland vegetation as a result of die-off of vegetation below the homes on lots 1 through 3 and from increases in stormwater runoff from Recycled Paper Mark Koegler July 13, 1993 Page 2 constructed impervious surfaces will degrade the water quality of stormwater runoff into the wetland if development occurs as proposed. Council staff recommends that lots 1 through 3 be considered unbuildable, as currently proposed in the F_AW, in concert with recommendations of the city's current Shoreland Management Ordinance. EAW item 18 states that a stormwater detention basin is proposed to be constructed to presettle stormwater runoff from the access road and from the front yards of lots 5 through 9 prior to its introduction into the adjoining wetland. The EAW does not indicate what design standards will be followed in the design of the detention basin. Council staff recommends that the proposed stormwater detention basin be designed according to Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) wet detention basin design standards. The Metropolitan Council adopted an Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies in September of 1992. The interim strategy requires local governments to amend their comprehensive plan, land use controls, and stormwater plan to control the quality of stormwater runoff and adopt the revised statewide shoreland regulations. The interim strategy requires local governments to adopt and apply the MPCA's urban best management practices manual titled Water Quality in Urban Areas or its equivalent, and the NURP wet detention basin design standards or their equivalent for the design of new stormwater runoff facilities. Adoption of these measures is required after January 1, 1993. Council staff recommends that these standards be required for any construction that will take place on the proposed site. The city will need to verify its conformity with the Council's interim strategy in conjunction with submission of its next comprehensive plan amendment. This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No formal action on the EAW will be taken by the Council. ff you have any questions or need further information, please contact Barbara Senness, Council staff at 291-6419. Sincerely, / / :' / ..f L~all ~warzko~pf, Director Resea~h and Long Range Plannin~ ........ ~' -" Mary Smith, Metropolitan Council District 13 Lynda Voge, Metropolitan Council Staff Barbara Senness, Metropolitan Council Staff I · I I D STATE OF JUL 2 1 1993 © MOUND PLANNING & INSP. EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD ' ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA DNR INFORMATION (612) 296-6157 July 18, 1993 Mark Koegler, City Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 55~ 55-40 10 CC: ~D SHUKLE MARK KOEGLER JON SUTHERLAND FILE RE: Teal Pointe Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Koegler: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Teal Polnte Residential Development project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The suitability of this site for any residential form of development is highly questionable from a natural resources perspective. Field staff review of the project andthe EAW details the severe building constraints associated with the steep slopes and bluffs found at this site. We agree with the contention in Item 14 that lots 1, 2, and 3are essentially unsuited to residential development. However, we question whether development should occur on any part of the parcel because of the steep slopes present and because some of the homesites lie within the Bluff Impact Zone. It is questionable whether the plat can be approved under existing shoreland standards, and even if the plat is approved, there is no guarantee that lots 1-3 would be buildable; each of these lots would require a variance before building permits can be granted. It also appears that the amount of cutting and filling associated with access and road development will be high to meet the 8%-10% slopes that are typical for city streets. To reduce further impacts to habitat and water quality, we offer the following recommendations: The proposer should use all appropriate erosion control best management practices (BMPs) during and after construct]on to reduce erosion and sedimentation on and off the site. Impacts to existing vegetation should be kept to a minimum. Disturbed soil areas should be reseeded immediately upon project completion with native plant species. All runoff leaving the site should be treated with retention ponds prior to discharge to the neighboring wetlands or Lake Minnetonka. Storm water treatment basins should be sized to adequately detain and treat any water moving offsite. Proper treatment of storm water will help to maintain the existing water quality of nearby basins. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, requires you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mark Koegler July 18, 1993 Page 2 Please contact Don Buckhout of my staff, at (612) 296-8212, if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Natural Resources Environmental Review Section Office of Planning C.' Kathleen Wallace Steve Colvin Pete Otterson Lynn M. Lewis, USFWS Gregg Downing, EQB Neil Weber, Teal Pointe Development Company #930268-01/ ER9.TEAL. DOC It · I, I · ii I I Minnesota Pollution Control Agency JUl_ 2 6 1993 July 22, 1993 Mr. Mark Koegler, City Planner City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 CC: ~R JON SUTHERLAND FILE Dear Mr. Koegler: RE: Teal Pointe Residential Development Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Teal Pointe Residential Development project, to be built in the city of Mound, Mennepin County. Based on the information contained in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the Environmental Analysis Office staff believes that significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not appear warranted. However, we do have the following concerns: The document indicates that there will be no initial direct impacts to the wetlands on site from the proposal. We support and encourage the use of deed restrictions or covenants that will prohibit future lot owners from filling or altering the wetlands that may be within the lot lines. Regarding Item 8 of the EAW, the city may be required to apply for and receive a storm water permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This permit is for control of storm water runoff and erosion control at construction sites. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Scot Thompson of the MPCA Water Ouality Division at (612) 296-7203. Regarding Item 17 of the EAW, the MPCA would like to see finding for erosion control efforts to be a separate listed budget item. The timeliness of erosion control both during and after construction it critical, and should be specifically accounted for. We look forward to receiving your response to our comments and your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Kevin J. Kain of my staff at (612) 296-7432. Sincerely, Paul Hoff, Director Environmental Analysis Office Administrative Services Division PH:ns Ttlcphofl~ Device tot DeJf (TDD): (612) 297-5353 ~ ~ Printed on r~cycled paper containing at letut 10% J~bert from paper recycted by consumers __ '~ 520 Lafayette Rd,; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Marshall ° Rochester Equal OPpodun[tv Empioyer· Printed on Recyc!ed Pape' [QB July 6, 1993 RECEIVED JUL 7 1993 M0hN,q P,.AN,~ilNu & INSP. Mark Koegler, City Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Teal Pointe Residential Development Dear Mr. Koegler: This letter acknowledges receipt of the EAW for the above-named project. The Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1500, item B) require that a press release containing notice of the EAW availability be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the area and that copies of the EAW be distributed to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been met. Notice of the EAW availability will be published in the EOB Monitor on July 5, 1993. The 30-day comment period will begin on that day and will expire on August 4, 1993. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3100, subpart 1, no final governmental decision to grant a permit, approve the project, or begin the project may be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Environmental Review process. My phone number is (612) 296-8253, or you may call toll-free by dialing 1-800-657-3794. Sincerely, Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: Neil Weber release. (': tlVlIIIIIIIA! IIAIIII IIAII 151 l[lll llltll, IT, PAll, IN 55155 112 211-2101 tAX 112 lli-31ll llAif PIOVlOIB Il ET1 PLANNING August 3, 1993 ECl} AU6 4 t 93 Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to make comments relative to this Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It is my belief that any EAW should be the most thorough document possible. Since this EAW was produced and regulated by the City of Mound, I think it should reflect the commitment that the City of Mound has to higher building standards, and it's commitment to protection of the environment. I would like to begin with question//9; in the attachments that deal with land use. It states that to the city's and property owner's knowledge there is no sub surface contamination or other environmental hazards due to previous use on the site. It discusses that there was a single family home that was removed through condemnation proceedings and destroyed in 1982 by controlled fire and the lot was cleared. Yes, the lot was cleared. However the debris was apparently spread out over the site. Now much the debris is slowly leeching into the adjacent wetland. There are barrels, gas cans, fires and garbage. The developer as a condition to final plat approval should be required to clean this up and ensure the citizens of Mound that this style of construction will not be employed for this project. Question #11 deals with fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. The EAW says there are no known designated rare natural species or features on the site. The DNWs County Biological Survey will not finish the survey until 2010. In one survey alone the DNR's survey team documented the existence of 53 plant and animal species not previously recorded. They are consistently identifying tracts of land that are suitable for nature conservation. The Biological Survey team will not be surveying Hennepin County citing the county's state of development. Without a thorough site survey the probability exists for threatened amphibians and reptiles to be on the site, including the 5 lined skink, wood turtle, Blanding's Turtle, Northern Cricket Frog, Snapping Turtles, Timber Rattle Snakes, Rat Snakes, Fox Snakes, Hog Nosed Snakes, Milk Snakes, Pickerel Frog, and Bullfrogs. All these species are endangered, threatened or on a special concern list with the state of Minnesota. It indicates Hardscrabble Point woods that are a privately designated rare maple basswood forest roughly one mile from the site. I submit that what we have here is another rare maple basswood forest. No one has counted the trees or marked them. The possibility exists for bird migration from the Halsteads bay area and Hardscrabble point woods. That being the case there have been Osprey nesting in the Halsteads bay area that could migrate to this wetland area when the Carlson Co. starts their development inside that precious ecosystem. It also states that the lots will be separated from the wetland with a vegetative buffer. I would like to know specifically what this means. Wetlands that have been surveyed show that property owners eventually disregard vegetative buffers, sod and fertilize theft lawns up to the waterline. This practice leads to the eventual destruction of the water body. What conditions will the RGU place on the final plat to ensure this doesn't happen. Nearly all undeveloped land has some wildlife habitat value. The quality and value of the habitat depends on many factors including the degree of disturbance, the nature of the adjoining areas, and the area and type of vegetation and water resources present. There are natural features and features of special significance, threatened and endangered species. There are Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in this wetland. I have seen Snapping turtles laying eggs upland from the wetland. This does not preclude the possibility of blanding's turtles being found on the project site. These two freshwater turtles are on the Minnesota checklist of threatened, endangered and species of special concern. This information alone warrants further investigation. I have spoken to contract employees of the Hennepin County Biological Survey who for a fee would survey the site. Developing without conducting an on-site survey is a hasty act. Anywhere along Tuxedo Blvd. is considered by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to be a spawning area. These areas are posted. Who knows what affect fertilizers and other nutritional supplements applied to lawns will have on water quality. Already the project could detrimentally affect the course and cross of the wetland. After these houses are built, it may never be a spawning area again. On page 8, the last paragraph reads; The wetlands and bluff area are ecologically sensitive and will require special care if the property is developed. Measures discussed in questions 6 and 11A attempt to mitigate impacts on these features. If you go back and read 6 and 11A they do not substantially talk about anything regarding mitigating the impacts. Since the shoreland management ordinances relating to Bluffs and the DNR minimum shore land standards are not being consulted there is no protection for sensitive features or resources. It is my understanding that these guidelines are established to preclude such developments 2 due to the difficult measures necessary to ensure that high quality building techniques and standards are employed. Question # 11A in the attachments, paragraph 6, second sentence says the wetland on the site is connected by channel to Lake Minnetonka. This was established in a City Council meeting that there is no greater lake access, no channel connecting the wetland with the lake. Question #15 deals with water surface use. On the EAW, the box is checked "NO" that the project will not change the number or type of water craft on the water body. I do not agree with this assertion. There will be 9 homes developed and the owners of those homes will want docks. This sub-division is not designated common's property therefore the City of Mound has no power to regulate whether a dock is permitted. The DNR will permit the placement of permanent docks on the wetland. Any spawning and any wildlife down there will be adversely influenced from the use of motorized craft on this wetland. On page 21 of the EAW para., 2 L4 states that the project is accessible by boat, at the Nov. 9, 1993, planning commission meeting the issue of docks was broached and assurances were given by the developer that docks were not contained in the plan. Therefore I feel the City of Mound has reason enough to ensure that this wetland does not see any increased boater traffic by either requiting common's designation of the shoreland as a condition to final plat or impose deed restriction preventing access to the wetland by boat from adjacent plat owners. Question #17 deals with erosion and sedimentation. The EAW states that the site contains very steep slopes. I see no substantive measures being taken to ensure the integrity of the existing homes on the top of the bluff near proposed lot's 1,2, and 3, before, during and after construction. Question # 18 deals with run-off. The developer remarks that the "existing mn-off is greater than the proposed run off." The developer states that the run-off from the front of lots' 5-9 will flow toward the sedimentation pond before entering the wetland. The developer also states that the street nm-off entering the wetland will be improved because of the detention pond. The developer also makes the contradictory statement that the mn-off of lots' 1-4 and the rear yards of lots' 5-9 and the private extension of Drummond Road will flow over land toward the adjacent wetland. The amount of mn-off from these portions of the property will likely increase with the development because the mn-off will not enter a detention pond. This point bears emphasizing because the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules state that The rate of storm water mn-off from the site will not increase as a result of the proposed development. The MCWD has not reviewed these specifics in this context before issuing preliminary approval of this storm water management plan. These findings should be addressed and the storm water management plan should be reviewed again to determine whether it is an effective water management plan and whether it isn't going to deteriorate the quality of the wetland that the existing homes and the homes being built around. This issue is not only the concern of the MCWD but is the responsibility of the RGU to maintain integrity oversight of the project. I would estimate conservatively in 10 years I have lost to erosion 100 yards of soil. The developer states there are going to be heavily wooded lots on a bluff and there is going to be an increase in surface nm off. It is my understanding that this is the whole purpose of having minimum shoreland management standards, and bluff impact zones. The DNR has been liberal with the city of Mound regarding setbacks on bluffs. It is my conclusion that any more construction on the bluff located above wetland # 948w should be strictly prohibited. Question #21 a asks you to 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. The answer to that question is NONE. The EAW guidelines state that; all types of wastes generated by the project which are not waste waters or air emissions should be identified here. This includes any hazardous wastes, all forms of what is termed solid wastes, sludges, any ashes from combustion, animal manures, demolition waste, construction wastes and asbestos. Estimates of the composition and quantity should be given for common types of waste of a fairly uniform composition such as municipal waste and animal manures. The composition need not be identified other than by its type of waste. For other types of wastes, especially if they are hazardous or contain toxic constituents, a chemical analysis should be given. The method and location of all wastes should be provided. This should include information demonstrating that the proposed method and location are environmentally acceptable. There is an enormous amount of waste that is generated when building 9 single family homes. From walking the shore of this wetland, I see remnants of construction debris such as mixed mortar, lumber, masonite, nails, and all kinds of junk. I would like assurances that the developer will act responsibly, enviromnentally conscious in building these houses and that he provides the necessary information for this EAW to be approved as a complete document. Question b is a straightforward question asking for the specific contents of all tanks to be specified. It may be useful to show the location of tanks on a site map or a plan. 4 ,! ! 1, I I, II ! I A development of this size would have on site temporary storage of petroleum. Requiting a plan to deal with and prevent spillage of any kind. This issue was not addressed in the current draft of the EAW. Question//26 asks if there are any of the following resources on or in proximity to this site: Archeological, historical or architectural resources - NO, prime or unique farmlands - NO, designated parks, recreation or trails - NO, scenic views and vistas - YES, other unique resources. What are they? Wetlands. In the attachments it reads the wetlands next to Teal Pointe site are unique and provide scenic views. The proposed development may, in some cases, restrict the views to the wetland from existing homes. Given the great difference between the existing residential area and the proposed development the restricted views will be minimal. There are historical or architectural resources. There is a letter from the Historic Preservation Officer discussing the archeological reconnaissance survey on Teal Pointe. It states that the Minnesota Historical Society feels that the probability of any unrecorded properties being located in the area of potential effect is low. Now, the M.H.S., has knowledge of burial mound sites within a two mile radius of the project area. "Two mound groups on Phelps Island Mound 21 HE 55 which appear to be in the same location as the project area." Twenty- three other mounds are recorded in the vicinity of the project area. You could consider building a house on a grave as desecrating holy ground. I would expect some consideration be given to the Native Americans who buffed their people on this land. Please note that the referenced letter said no unrecorded properties. Question//28 deals with the compatibility of the comprehensive plan. The City of Mound feels that the project is compatible with their comprehensive plan. If the shoreland standards are applied to this project, 45% f this project would not be designated for residential use and that percentage of the site would be unbuildable. Concluding that this is not compatible with the comprehensive plan. I would like to bring exception to the fact that once the development and any subsequent building permits are applied for and built, this project will be regulated by the shoreland management ordinance and newly revised building codes. However before its preliminary approval these standards were not applied to the development. Question//32 - the summary states that there are a number of development techniques being used; houses built on stilts, reduced yard area, storm water detention ponds, vegetative buffers between yards and wetlands and careful construction techniques all being proposed to diminish or eliminate the impacts to the site during construction. Nowhere in the EAW have I seen what type of vegetative buffer or what size this vegetative buffer will be. The City of Mound should place conditions on the final plat outlining exactly what measures will be taken to ensure all statements made by the developer. Not to rely on other agencies to determine what extent measures are taken but to assume the responsibility it has voluntarily undertaken this EAW process (not a petition with 25 signatures). It says that the amount of erosion and sedimentation on this site in the existing wetland should be diminished, but it doesn't say that it WILL be diminished and it doesn't offer any facts supporting that conclusion. It also says that nm-off will be decreased after development, but in this EAW it says that in portions of the project area run-off will decrease, on a greater portion of the project the run-off will increase. In conclusion, I have pointed out several inconsistencies intrinsic to this EAW. I believe that the destruction of habitat and wildlife in general is wrong. I think that the study of biology and wildlife is important for everyone. I think that the City Council has an opportunity to foster the development of an attractive piece of land responsibly and I believe that they are not acting responsibly and not acting in the interests of the existing property owners in the area. There is no question in my mind that there is going to be a development here, but to what extent and to what quality the development will be is really up to the RGU. There are many issues here that need to be addressed and have not been addressed by the developer and the city. Therefore, I do not feel that it is an unreasonable request to have this EAW reassessed. It is critically important for the City of Mound to create a completely thorough EAW with the necessary information in it to determine whether final plat should be approved. Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to make my comments known. I look forward to this city's decision. Thank you. Sincerely, August 4, 1993 Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 HAND DELIVER QNLY RE: Teal Pointe Development - EAW Dear Mr. Shukle, Enclosed please find a 36-page document (including attachments) as my comments to the Teal Pointe Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Please place this document in the City Council agenda packet for the August 10, 1993 meeting. I would appreciate City staff and Council member's specific responses to each item in this document. Thank you. Very truly yours, Thomas E. Cas~ey 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 August 3, 1993 Mark Koegler City Planner city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Comments to Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Teal Pointe Development Dear Mr. Koegler, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Teal Pointe Development. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.1600, I submit the following comments and recommendations concerning said EAW: '. a. the "accuracy" and "completeness" of the EAW; b. potential environmental impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced; c. the need for project modifications; and d. the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project. Please note: the numbering of my comments corresponds to the question number in the EAW. $. Give & complete description of the project ... EAW Guidelines (published by the Environmental Quality Board in June, 1990) states on page 10, "This is the single most important item in the EAW, and care should be taken to ensure that it is completed thorouqhly and accurately." (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the EAW Guidelines, the Teal Pointe EAW's answer to this question is vague and unsubstantiated, as noted below. Page 7 paragraph 1 of the EAW states, "The site contaq~s scattered mature trees of the upland hardwood variety ... This is an incomplete answer. The EAW should describe the~. species and approximate number of trees on the site that will be cut and left standing. Page 7, paragraph 3 of the EAW states, "Yard areas will be kept to a minimum ... and ... a vegetative buffer will be -1- maintained between the yard areas and the adjacent wetland." The EAW fails to describe how the City of Mound and the developer will insure the compliance of future homeowners to these statements. The only legal mechanism that exists to enforce compliance is by requiring the developer to execute and record a Conservation Easement on the property as a condition of final plat approval. Page 7, paragraph 4 of the EAW states, "The lots will have virtually no landscaped areas, leaving the site around the home as natural as possible ... Homes on all the lots will be placed in a way to minimize tree impact.. New homes will have wood exteriors and will be stained in earth tones to insure compatibility with each other and the site." Again, these statements are inaccurate and meaningless without requiring that a Conservation Easement be recorded on the property as a condition of final plat approval. Page 7, paragraph 5 of the EAW states, "Excavation will be done with smaller than normal machinery ..." The EAW fails to state what machinery they are talking about. This paragraph also states, "... trees and brush will be protected to the extent possible ..." The language is too general to provide any real understanding of how many trees and bushes will be protected and what will be lost. This paragraph finally states, "... revegetation will occur as per direction from the Watershed District." The EAW fails to specify what will be required by the Watershed District. The City of Mound is remiss if it did not adopt a revegetation plan of its own, in the event the Watershed District plan is unsatisfactory. The EAW fails to answer this part of question 6: "Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities." 10. Cover Types. The numbers cited in the EAW for wooded/forest, brush/grassland, and lawn landscaping cover types "after development" are entirely speculative. Once again, the City of Mound cannot insure the accuracy of these numbers without a properly drafted Conservation Easement recorded on the final plat. Also note that Dave Crook of DeMars - Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. stated that the total area of the proposed development is 8,800 square feet less than the total figures that are proposed by the developer (see attachment on page 13). -2- 11. Fish, #ildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. a. D~scribe fish and wildlife resources on or_n~ar.~he s~te and discuss how they would be affected ky ~ne project. nGuidelines states on page 12, ,'Nearly all eveloped land has some wildlife habitat value." The answer in the EAW is woefully inadequate. The EAW fails to mention an~ fish or wildlife resources, even though the EA~ Guidelines reminds the RGU that ,,... it is the responsibility of the RGU to determine the nature and significance of any project-related impacts." Obviously, a description of the fish and wildlife resources on or near the site cannot be accomplished unless the RGU undertakes an on-site survey. As an aid to this task, please see the attached Affidavit of Cathy Germain (pP. 14-19). Because Ms. Germain was denied access to the property in 1993 (see attached PP. 20-21), she compiled a ~artial list from memory. In spite of this difficulty, Ms. Germain has identified three species listed as ,,Special Concern" on the Checklist of ~ an_~d Threatened Anima~ an_~d Plant ~ of Minnesota, published by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. These species are the American Bittern, Snapping turtle, and Ginseng. I'm sure you will agree that this affidavit creates a presumption that these species may still exist on the property. It is the responsibility of the City of Mound to find out. Furthermore, Cathy Germain's list contains species of plants that comprise a "Big Woods" or maple- basswood forest ecosystem. (See also page 22 of the EAW for a perfunctory list.) This forest type is, in itself, endangered; less than 1% of the maple- basswood forest remains undisturbed in the entire state. Indeed, it is worth undertaking an on-site survey to look at this ecosystem in careful detail. (See "The Big Woods," attached as pages 22-23.) Finally, the EAW fails to supply any evidence at all about how the natural resources will be affected by the development. b. Are there any state-listed, threatened, or special concern ~pecies; rare plant communities; ..- other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological -3- resources on or near the site? The EAW attempts to.answer the question by stating, "According to the Natural Heritage Program of the MN/DNR, there are no known desiqnated rare natural species or features on the site." This answer is misleading. In fact, Hennepin County was never surveyed by the Natural Heritage Program or the County Biological Survey. I have enclosed a March 23, 1993 letter from Bonita Eliason of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that states, in part, "Because there has not been an on-site survey of the biological resources of the project area, it is possible that ecologically significant features exist for which we have no record." (See attached p. 24.) Cathy Germain was able to identify some of the sensitive resources on the site, including the Big Woods ecosystem. However, the City of Mound has the responsibility to identify all sensitive resources; this can by accomplished only by undertaking a thorough on-site survey. EAW Guidelines (p. 13) states, "Ecologically sensitive resources not in the DNR database should also be identified and described in the EAW." (Emphasis added.) In other words a professional on- site survey should be undertaken. Without an on- site survey, the answer to question ll(b) is inaccurate and incomplete. 11.b. (continued) Describe measures to be taken to avoid adverse impacts. The EAW answers this question by referring to the answers to questions #6 and lla. The answer is candid to the extent that it "attempts to mitigate impacts on these features." (emphasis added.) I agree that they can only be an "attempt" because the mitigation has no legal enforceability without Conservation Easements in favor of the city, other plat owners, and adjoining neighbors. Furthermore, the EAW fails to specify what impacts even exist because an on-site survey has not been undertaken. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physlcal or hydrologic alteration ... of any surface water? ... Incredibly, the EAW states that the wetland will remain undisturbed! -4- EAW Guidelines (p. 13) states, "Hydrologic modifications include all actions which alter the existing water regime." (Emphasis added.) The EAW admits (on page 9) that Lots 1-4, the rear yards of lots 5-9, and the private extension of Drummond Road will not have a storm retention basin. Added runoff from these lots will increase sedimentation and deposition of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc. into the wetland. The EAW fails to quantify the amount of water degradation. Obviously, further study is necessary. ... Does any part project site involve a shoreland zoning dxstrxct ...? If so, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. The EAW answers that the shoreland management ordinance does not apply to the project because it was not in effect at the time the subdivision was approved. If the ordinance did apply, Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be unbuildable. In fact, the City Council has the present power to determine that Lots 1-3 are unbuildable. This power has been admitted by the City on at least two occasions. First, the December 1, 1992 Teal Point Planning Report Supplement states on page 3, "Staff responded that in issuing a conditional use permit, the City of Mound is free to impose any and all restrictions and conditions that are deemed reasonable." Second, City Council Resolution 93-20, paragraph 2, states in part, "If the completed EAW identifies significant environmental issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat ..." Therefore, if the Shoreland Management Ordinance is reasonable in it's designation of Lots 1-3 as unbuildable because of unacceptable environmental impacts, then why isn't it reasonable to declare Lots 1-3 unbuildable as part of the Conditional Use Permit? The City of Mound should exercise it's present power to declare Lots 1-3 as unbuildable as a condition for final plat approval. The EAW is incomplete until it explains why the City of Mound cannot exercise this power. W ater Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Incredibly, the EAW answers no without any explanation! In fact, 9 new lot owners, their families, guests, or tenants (at least 36 people, assuming a 4-person family) will have riparian rights (when the water is high) including but not limited to the right to have a dock and/or haul watercraft in and out of the wetland. Sensitive wetland resources and fish -5- spawning areas may be harmed by this increased use. The EAW is incomplete until this impact can be carefully studied. If it is the developer's and the City of Mound's genuine intention that the wetland will remain undisturbed (see EAW answer to question 12) or that the project will not increase the number and type of watercraft, then the City of Mound must require Conservation Easements on the plat to prevent dredging, docking, boating, etc. from the development property to the wetland. Erosion and Sedimentation .... Describe any steep slopes ... and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. On page 9, the EAW describes the slopes for lots 1-3 as "... exceeding 30% with a maximum slope approaching 45% on portions of Lot 1." The developer has no definite or detailed plans for erosion or sedimentation control on lots 1-4 or the rear yards of lots 5-9 and the private extension of Drummond Road. EAW Guidelines (page 15) states, "... if the proposer has not prepared definite plans for erosion and sedimentation control measures, the requirements of the local government unit should be described." Therefore, the City of Mound should state it's requirements to control sedimentation and erosion on lots 1-4, the rear yards of lots 5-9, and the private extension of Drummond Road, particularly after construction is completed. (Note: the EAW only cites the Watershed District's requirements for erosion and sedimentation control resulting from construction activities, where disturbance occurs. There are no other requirements due to the increase in hardcover, etc.) A better solution is for the City of Mound to declare lots 1- 3 as unbuildable. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. a. Compare the quantity and quality of the site runoff before and after the project. Describe the methods used to manage and treat the runoff. The EAW Guidelines (p. 15) state that even with minor pollutant additions, there should be a qualitative description of the "... extent of the increase ..." and "... a general identification of the types of pollutants involved." Except for the runoff from Windsor Road, the EAW gives no explanation of the impact of the project on -6- the ~ualit¥ of water runoff from the project. No mention is made of the impact of lawn fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on the wetland, even though EAW ~uidelines (page 15) requires that these impacts be described. In addition, the EAW admits that the runoff from lots 1-4, the back yards of lots 5-9, and the private extension of Drummond Road "... is likely to increase." The EAW neglects to state amount of increase from these sources. ... Estimate the impact of runoff on the quality of receiving waters. The EAW states that a "... vegetative buffer will be required between the yards and the wetland." This answer is incomplete because it fails to describe the legal mechanism to enforce this statement. To repeat again, properly drafted Conservation Easements placed on the property will insure legal enforceability. The EAW also states that the "... quality of runoff entering the wetland shoul~ be higher ... due to smaller yards, lower impacts on the natural vegetation and as a result less need for pesticides and fertilizers. Once again, the accuracy of this statement is highly speculative without a Conservation Easement to legally regulate lawn size and the use of pesticides and fertilizers. EAW Guidelines (page 16) states, "It is now the policy of the EQB staff that where stormwater discharges may degrade certain high value/high priority lakes, a numerical nutrient budget analysis should be performed to adequately characterize the extent of the potential impact. The lakes for which this analysis is considered necessary are identified in the appendix, part E." It is important to note that Lake Minnetonka is included in the appendix as a ,,priority lake" for which this nutrient budget analysis is required. Unfortunately, such a nutrient budget analysis has not yet been undertaken for this project. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archaeological, historical, or architectual resources? -7- The answer to the EAW is "No." However, the following information casts severe doubt upon this conclusion: (1) . (2) · (3). Affidavit of Cathy Germain (pp. 14-19) - reports Indian arrowheads and possible mounds on the project site. The letter of Pamela Osgood (p. 25) - reports Indian arrowheads found on the project site. Letter of Christina Harrison, Archaeologist (pp. 26-29) - In summary, Ms. Harrison provides the following comments regarding the errors and omissions of the 106 Group: a. 21 HE 55 (reported by the 106 Group as "appearing to be on the same location as the project area" but "presumed to be destroyed") is not in the project area but is actually in Government Lot 1, approximately 1/2 mile to the east of the Teal Pointe development. Teal Pointe is in Government Lot 2. The 106 Group report completely ignores the two mounds located in Government Lot 2 (described on page 241 of the Winchell Survey) which could be in Teal Pointe. b. The 106 Group report does not specify how "intensive" their survey actually was. The shovel test exceed the recommended maximum of 10-15 meter intervals. c. There is no evidence that the 106 Group consulted the State Burial File, established by the State Archaeologist. This file contains sensitive burial information. d. There is no evidence that the 106 Group consulted the Indian Affairs Council as requested by Britta L. Bloomberg of the State Historic Preservation office. (4) . March 3, 1993 letter written by Neil Weber to archaeologists (page 30) - states, in part, "There appears to be no Indian burial sites on the property. We have been ask to conduct an archaeological survey to verify this." The letter goes on to say, "... we are interested in receiving the minimal amount of services for the initial investigation." Without a doubt, Neil Weber does not want to find an Indian burial site on the property -8- and asks the archaeologists no~ to find one! The 106 Group did what the developer asked; they found no archaeological sites. Furthermore, the archaeological survey was undertaken for the developer at his expense. There is no evidence that the City of Mound was a party to the archaeological contract or had any say about the nature and extent of the survey. This arrangement casts doubt upon the objectivity of the report and violates Rule 4410.1400, "The EAW shall be prepared by the RGU ... The RGU shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of al! information." (5) . Affidavit of Brad and Sara Biermann (page 31) - The 106 Group report concludes that fire-cracked rock "... is not believed to be associated with prehistoric cultural activity for two reasons: ... (2) Mr. Neil Weber informed The 106 Group Ltd. that he used to burn brush and tree branches in this area when he was formerly a neighbor to this property." While the conclusion may be true for another reason, the Affidavit of the Biermanns casts more doubt on Neil Weber's good faith. According to the Biermanns, "... the Weber's kept an ever-increasing brush pile on the Teal Pointe property without ever burning it." (6) . February 5, 1993 letter from Minnesota Historical Society to Neil Weber (page 32) - The letter states that "... the proposed development area has high potential to contain archaeological habitation sites." (7) February 8, 1993 letter from Terri Liestman, U.S. Forest Service (page 33) - The letter states in paragraph 1 that there is a "... high likelihood that sacred or burial sites may be present in the area. As the forgoing documents prove, the State Historic Preservation office may not have changed their opinion from "high probability" to "low probability" if all of the facts stated above were known to them. Therefore, another archaeological survey is necessary to insure objective conclusions. -9- Finally, and most importantly, the view that another archaeological survey is necessary is also shared by the Shakopee Mdewakanton sioux Community, who donated $1,000 to the Land Preservation Society to hold in trust for this purpose. (See pages 34-35.) As the City Council is aware, the Land Preservation society requested permission from the developer to undertake an archaeological survey and was flatly denied. (See attached pages 20-21.) As a result, the donation from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community will be refunded. It is now the City of Mound's responsibility to allocate funds (through the developer's escrow fund) for an archaeological study. Although I do not purport to speak for the Indian community, I can imagine their disappointment if the City of Mound and the developer fail to display the ethnic sensitivity to Minnesota's indigenous people by denying an objective archaeological study of their cultural heritage. Therefore, it is in the best interests of all those concerned to require that the developer allow entry on Teal Pointe to undertake an objective archaeological analysis. 27. Will the project create a4verse visual impacts? (Examples include glare from intense lights ...) Incredibly, the EAW states no! Without conservation easements, the property owners could install floodlights on their houses and the City of Mound could install street lights, all of which can have an adverse effect on property owners across the wetland. Only conservation easements could prevent this from occurring. As to daytime visual impacts, shoreland management ordinances would have no effect on the property owner's right to cut vegetation to gain a view of the wetland. This would have an adverse impact upon anyone in a watercraft in the wetland and sightseers on land who wish to view a relatively pristine wetland. Again, only Conservation Easements could prevent this from happening. 28. Compatibility with plans. Contrary to the conclusion of the EAW, the Teal Pointe development is not compatible with the Park and Recreation Section of Mound's Comprehensive Plan, which states in part, "Natural park-like areas" are the number 1 priority for -10- recreational facilities (p.82); "... more natural open space areas are needed" (p.83); and "Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature areas and open space" (p.85). Therefore, the City of Mound should acquire Teal Pointe to preserve as a nature area. 30. Relate4 Developments; Cumulative Impacts c. Is other development anticipated on &djacent lands or outlots? Although the EAW states no, one of the developer's agents has stated that dredging of the wetland is planned for the development. Neil Weber told me, "He was their problem." By this I did not know if that meant that Weber's agent was telling the truth when he shouldn't have or telling a lie when he shouldn't have. However, when the attached Purchase Agreement Rider (see page 36) is also considered, it is clear that the developer always contemplated a dredge of the wetlands. Paragraph 1 of the Purchase Agreement Rider states, in part, "Buyer's obligation to purchase the property is contingent upon buyers satisfactory investigation of dredging of adjacent wetlands, access to Phelp's Bay, ..." To prevent the possibility of dredging project connecting Teal Pointe to Phelp's Bay, a Conservation Easement should be placed on the plat. 32. Summary of Issues: As I have elaborated above, the EAW is inaccurate and incomplete. Without legally enforceable Conservation Easements, the projected environmental impacts of the project are only speculative. To insure the accuracy of the EAW, the city Attorney should be directed to draft a Conservation Easement to be recorded as a condition of final plat approval. A professional on-site survey of the flora and fauna should be undertaken to describe the natural resources that could be affected by the project. An objective archaeological survey should be accomplished to identify any artifacts that are part of the cultural heritage of the Native American community. To be consistent with the Shoreland Code, the City of Mound -11- I~ · 1, I I, ii i I should exercise its present power to declare Lots 1-3 "unbu i ldable." Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4410.1700 subpart 2a, the city of Mound should postpone the decision in this matter to allow time to obtain the pertinent information outlined above. After this information is gathered and the EAW is completed in its final form, the City of Mound should allow additional time for the public to comment on the need for further project modifications and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Respectfully submitted, Thomas E. Casey 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 TEC:rf cc:file -12- I)EMARS - GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 HARBOR LANE, SUITE 111 Pt.¥.~IOUTH, MN 55447 page Chaska. MfJ 61 2/446.P~33 ~ 61 2/559-09C8 March 25, 1993 Cathy, The total area (as determined by planimeter, the accuracy of which depends on the quality and scale of the drawing or copy) of the proposed development as shown on the copy you provided was approximately 8,800 square feet less than the total of the figures shown on the same copy. Yours tru,~,, Dave Crook DC:mm ~ SL,;~VE'¢S SbEi Ot v'l$lC)q LgE SIGN BOUNDARY I~ · 1, I I, ii I i page 14 THE NATURAL HISTORY AND INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY OF TEAL POINTE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COL~TY OF HENNEPIN) Cathy Germain, being first duly sworn, deposes and states: 1. I lived on 5066 Windsor Road (now known as Teal Pointe), Mound, Minnesota from August, 1960 to March, 1980. 2. I have been a devoted amateur naturalist since I have been a child. 3. Since I last lived on said property, I have made approximately 30 trips to this property. 4. The following is an accurate, but not complete, list of the native plants and animals that I have seen on the Teal Pointe property. I have intentionally omitted listing any non-native species (species introduced after European settlement). 5. I have not specifically inventoried the property to discover the existence of plants or animals listed on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's Checklist of Endanqere~ and Threatened Animal and Plant Species of Minnesota. Thus, there may be other species on the property that may be on this list. However, I recall several species indicated below that are of "SPECIAL CONCERN." That is, the species are "extremely uncommon" and deserve "carefully monitoring of its status." (DNR, p. 2) PLANT KINGDOM Trees and Shrubs Birch (Betula papyriferea) Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) Red Maple (Acer rubrum) Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) Northern Red Oak (Quercus ruba) Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) Pine (Pinus sp.) Staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) Pussy Willow (Salix discolor) Weeping Willow (Salix sp.) -1- oo7 page 15 Spring Ephemerals Bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis) Dutchmen's Breeches (Dicentra cuculuaria) Large-flowered Bellwort (Urularia grandiflora) C. Other forbs: Fall Aster (Aster oblongifolius) Tall Bellflower (Campanula americana) Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta) bunchberry (Cornus canadensis) false hellebore (Veratrum viride) Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) - SPECIAL CONCERN Goldenrod (Solidago) jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) lobed prickly lettuce (Lactuca scariola) wild lettuce (Lactuca candensis) milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens) poison ivy (Rhus radicans) poison oak (Rhus toxicodendron) poison sumac (Rhus vernix) sandwort (Arenaira lateriflora) blue march violet (Viola cucillata) longspur violet (Viola rostrata) white violet (Viola incognita) Yellow violet (Viola pubescens) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) D. Wetland Plants: Bullhead-lily or "lilypads" (Nuphar variegatum) cattails (Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia) duckweed pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) white water lily (Nymphaea odorata) FUNGUS KINGDOM polyporus versicolor many other fungus species ANIMAL KINGDOM MAMMALS - CLASS MA~M~qALIA little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) beaver (Castor canadensis) deer (Odocoileus virginianus) -2- page ! 6 eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) ermine or short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea) mice mole muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) raccoon (Procyon lotor) shrew striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinenesis) red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) B. Birds - CLASS AVES American bittern (Botaurus lentginosus) - SPECIAL CONCERN blackbird black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus) - nesting bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata) - nesting coot (Fulica americana) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) morning dove (Zenaida macrauna) goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) great blue heron (Aread nerodias) killdeer (Charadruis rociferus) mallard (Anas platyrhynchas) - nesting northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) northern oriole (Icterus galbula) - nesting owl - barred or great-horned ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) raven (Corvus corax) red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenieus) robin (Turdus migratonus) - nesting chipping sparrow (Spizalla passerina) song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) house sparrow (Passer domesticus) barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) pine warblers (Dendroica pinus) house wren (Troglodytes aedon) Reptiles - CLASS REPTILIA garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) - SPECIAL CONCERN western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta belli) western spiny softshell (Trionyx spinferus) -3- page 17 D. Amphibians - CLASS AMPHIBIA green frog (Rana clamitans) american toad (Bufo americanus) eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) Molluscs - slugs and snail Insects and other invertebrates bees beetles butterflies comma clouded sulphur cloudless sulphur monarch wooly bear caterpillar dragonfly grasshopper hornet inchworm ladybug mayflies moth cottonwood dagger moth american dagger moth common earworm copper underwing darkside cutworm green cloverworm cabbage looper milkweed tiger moth waved sphinx luna moth buck moth isabella moth fall webworm pale tigermoth spotted-sided cutworm spider wasp yellowjacket I have observed mounds on the property that cannot be explained as buried trash mounds or other non-Indian topographic features. These mounds are denoted as an "X" on the map attached as Exhibit A. My father, brother, two sisters, and I found dozens of arrowheads on the property. -4- page 18 This list was compiled without the cooperation of the landowner, Neil Weber. Mr. Weber REFUSED to allow me to re-visit this property in 1993. Had I received his permission, I'm sure that I could re-identify many other plants and animals that have been lost in memory. In conclusion, the EAW is inaccurate and incomplete. Contrary to the answer in paragraph 11, there are at least three species I have found that are of "special concern." Considering the quality of the site, there is a high probability that other state-listed species are also on the property. Therefore, I strongly recommend that a thorouqh on-site survey be accomplished on the property by an experienced professional naturalist before the plat is approved. Furthermore, the answer to question 26a is wrong. As I explained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this affidavit, there are archaeological resources on the property. The EAW should not be deemed complete until these resources can be confirmed by a professional archaeologist. Ca'hyinG main ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~ day of July, 1993. Notary Public i ~['~ ~1~ HENNEPIN COUN'~ -5- ...... E__XitIBT_T__~L, , page ],9 TEAL POINTE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TEAL POINT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN BLOCKS 10~11~158~16~ WHIPPLE ;E :7 I I I 25 ~4 page 20 page 21 ~.!arch 30, 1993 Neil Weber Schwarz/Weber 3952 Louisiana Ave. S. Minneapolis, ~4 55426 RE: Teal Pointe Dear Mr. Weber, Pursuant to your February 17, 1993 correspondence (see enclosure), I request that on Saturday, May 1, 1993, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the following persons be granted access to the Teal Pointe property: 1. Christina Harrison, Director of Archeological Research Services - to undertake a Phase I Archeological Survey; 2. Cathy Germain, John Edewaard, and Tom Casey - to inventory the native flora and fauna. I have included a release of liability form for your inspection. week. Signed copies will be mailed to you within one Please sign the bottom of this letter and return to the enclosed address by no later than Saturday, April 3, 1993. Thank you for your cooperation. Since.rely yours, Thomas E. Casey 2854 Cambri'dge Lane Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-1099 (612) 472-4771 (fax) TEC:rf In behalf of Teal Pointe Development Co., I consent to -the above proposal, subject to receiving signed releases by April 9, 1993. bell Weber Dated: , · , 1993 . page 22 THE BIG WOODS (C) 1991 Thomas E. Casey 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-1099 HISTORY When early French explorers traveled to Minnesota, they discovered that the central part of the state was composed of dense stands of tall trees, species much different from the adjacent oak savannas and the northern conifers. The French called this forest community "Bois Grand," translated as the "Big Woods." WHAT IS IT? A. Area - a deciduous forest community with an original area of about two million acres B. Trees 1. dominant - sugar maple, basswood, and elm trees are the climax or final species of succession in this forest community 2. others - hackberry, oak, ironwood, black walnut, bitternut hickory, butternut, ash, black cherry, choke cherry; some white pine, C. Shrubs - A partial list includes: Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), a climbing vine; American bittersweet (Celastrus scandens), a climbing vine; red elderberry (Sambucus pubens); canada moonseed (Menispermum canadense); pagoda dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), prickly gooseberry (Ribes cynosbati); northern prickly-ash (Xanthaxylum americanum); .black raspberry (Rhus occidentalis); D. Flowers 1. "Spring Ephemerals" - The distinctive ground layer of flowers consisting of species that bloom in the spring and early summer, before the canopy trees have leafed out. Usually, a bulb or tuber remains underground after the leaves and flowers drop. Examples include: bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), cut-leaf toothwort (Dentaria laciniata), Dutchman's breeches (Dicentra cucullaria), early meadow rue, false rue anemone (Isopyrum biternatum), sharp-lobed hepatica, (Hepatica acutiloba), spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), sweet cicely (Osmorhiza claytoni), trillium (Trillium grandiflorum), -1- page 23 virginia waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginicum); wild leek (Allium tricoccum), white trout lily (Erythronium albidum), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), and wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia) 2. other flowers - are partial list includes baneberry (red and white) (Actaea rubra and A. pachypoda); blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), enchanter's nightshade (Circaea quadrisulcata); ginseng (Panax quinquefolium), jack-in-the-Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum); sarsaparilla (Aralia naudicaulis), white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum), 3. ferns: examples include cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonea), lady fern (Ahtyrium Felix-femina), maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) WHAT ~APPENED TO IT? Over one hundred years of lumbering, grazing, and development have reduced the "Big Woods" by 99.96%, where now only 800 acres in the entire state remain undisturbed. Small remnants can be seen at Wolsfeld Woods, near Long Lake in Orono, and Nerstrand Woods State Park, near Northfield, MN. The City of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka area were once part of the "Big Woods." Mound is now over 90% developed. SOURCES= Daubenmire, Rexford F. 1936 The "Big Woods" of Minnesota: It's Structure and Relation to Climate, Fire, and Soils. Ecological Monographs, 6:233-268. Grim, Eric C. 1984 Fire and Other Factors Controlling The Big Woods Veqetation of Minnesota in the Mid-Nineteenth Centur~ Ecological Monographs, 54(3), pp. 291-311. Rogers, Robert S. 1981 Mature Mesophytic Hardwood Forest: Community Transitions, By Layer, From East-Central Minnesota t__o Southeastern Michigan. Ecology, 62(6), pp. 1634-47. Wendt, Keith 1987 Townsend Woods Scientific and Natural Area Resource Inventory MN Dept. of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program For more information contact: Hannah Dunevitz, DNR Natural Heritage Program (612) 297-7263 or Minnesota Native Plant Society, 220 Biological Science Center, 1445 Gortiner Av., St Paul, MN 55104 -2- page DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES C? 533 L~.FA"E,--TE ROAD 55364 :f any Fare plant cr animal s~e:ies or other significant natural fea:~re~ are ~ncwL cc ~:cur .,..ithin cr.e mile of the ah. owe refmr~nced proSe=t. Tr.~ Na:'~re Conservancy, a private conserve:ion crga~iza:ior.. ~ do not have =n~crma%.cn on corr. cn s~e:les of birds that et:ur in the area, but wc. uld refer :.~ %c 5~r~s in Mint, e~ot~ Dy Robert B. Janssen, UniverslLy of Minnesota Press, 1957. ,. t b~'~ ~-", L~£~ .',_ -.. ?r.e N~%ural Nerita~e ~ataba~e is mm!nra!nad by %he Na%ural Heritage ?regret, ar.O the Non;aha ~i!dlife Program, units within :he Se:Lion of u[ldl:fe, Oepar:~r,: of Natural ~esource~. I: i£ %he m.cst complete source cf sign .... a..~ ~lant and da~a ~n M~nnaso:a's rare, endangered, or otherwise ~'~ anim~l s~ecies, pisn: oom~uni:ies, and o:he: na%ural features, and is uged in fc~l&rir. S heeler under~tar,~ing and protection of :hens rare fen:utes. The ~nfcr~atlcn in the d~ta~ase i9 ~rawn from many parts cf Minnes¢:a, constantly bcit. g up,at,d, but it is not base~ ¢.n a co c..prehensiv~ sur,..ey of the ~:a:e. ?herefcre there o e ¢'Jrrently many signifioan~ natural features ~o~cr.t ~n the slate which are no% represente~ ty the da%ab~se, we are in the proc~ :f aJdre~Lng this problem via the Minne~c%a Coanty Bi:logical Survey, a csur. ty-by-¢ou~ty inventory cf rare natural fEstures, ..~:ch ..ar. neD~n foug~ has not ~een sur~ed, sn~ is nc.~ sche~u%ed for %~rvey of the bislogi~a~ resources of the_Project ar~a, k__t is cJssi~le that '~c~ICgicaily slgnifican~ failures exist for which we :hank you for consul%lng us on thi~ matter, and for your interest in -!nir~zi~.g impaJt~ on M~nne$ota's rare resources. Please ~'/ the Ka:ural I~eritage eno [{or, ga~',e ?rcgra~s focuses only on rare nstura~ featu~e~. I~ dca3 r.~t :c.n~%itJte rev£ew cr approval ~y %he Department of :~!i~J fc.r ~ap an~ ccr~'~ter search ar,! staff SCientist review. ~!lings are d:~%~ q;a~e£1y ~y %ho State D~p~rtmen~ ~ ~imir. istr~ti~n in March, June, page 25 .-b.,.:, ;:..',..t:.t .Li > .j d · page 26 ARCHA~OLO~ICA~ RESEARCH SERVICES 3332 18th Avenue Sou~h MIN~TEAPOLIS, ~ 55407-2325 (612) 721-4145 June 30, 1993 , · , .~-~ =~r-~ Survey Report on an ~rcnaeO=o$s~- R~ ..... =_seance Proposed Teal Point Deve!cpmen5, Mound, HenneDin County, prepared by The ~06 Group Ltd. for !..'~. Neil Weber· for ~ ^, .~o ? above-referenced I ha-ze been asked zo ~r~;~ some ccmr. ents on .... report,~ a copy of "~.~,,-cn' was mailed to me by the Land Preservation Socie5y of Mound, Minnesota. Having read it, i have the following concerns: (i) Jn page one, 5he repor~ indicates 5ha~ a Native ~erican heritage site 'a~ears ~o be in the same location as the projec~ area': 21 HE 55, a group of three conical m~unds that, according to a notation in the Xinnesota Archaeological S~'= File, are 'pres~.ed destroyed" Apart from ~his statement and ano=her b~e~ ._ference, the rep .._ by The 106=.~ ~ ..... does not ~ provide a discuss!on of the informat .~n available for 21 HE 55 and other mounds reported for Phelps Island. Lika many other mound sites in this area, they were first recorded in the !$S0s and described in Winche!l's The Aborigines of Minnesota (1911). According to Winchel!, three mound !ccations have keen described in early survey notes for Lhe island: A group of eleven mounds (21 HE 3~) in Lo~ l, Section 30, Tl17, R23 -- a location more ~han half a rile east of the Teal Pointe project. A group of '~hree other t~T~uli (circular ~ounds) -- on Phe!~s Island", all in Lot 1, Section 25, .1.7 Range 2l (printed as 23 in Winche!l -- ~re~'~rab!y just a t~p.~ograDhic error as that location wcu!d place the mounds 5-6 miles east of Phelps Island). This is ~he group that has been designated as 21 HE 55. Accordin~ to Winche!l, these mounds were located 15 ft. above the lake: two close together, measuring 30 ft. in di~r. eter/2 1/2 ft. ~ · a_~m_te./ 5 in height height .~.nd I~ ft in '~' ° ~ 2 f . 'respectively; one somewhat ~.,~=~.~.~..~_ easn, 40 ft. in diameier and 8 ft. in height. In addition to the above: "5[r. Hill, in '~72, noted two lone mounds on this _s==.,d a quarter of ~ mile, or more, to the west cf (zhe group of eleven mounds), on lot 2, sec 25 Ti17-24 They were 36 =~. aDari, ~he larger one 30 ft. by 5 ft. and the sm~l!er one 20 f~. by 3 1/2 ft. page 27 On digging into the smaller one, he found human bones, the skull resting cn the pelvis, with pottery and some animal bones in the r.enter ---." (Winchell, page 241). To this, Wincke!i adds mhe following note: "These mounds may by some error in definition be dup!icated by two of those next mennioned" -- by which he refers to the three 21 HE 55 mounds (ibid, page 242). Two things are worth noting about the last two items (2! HE 36 is clearly not close enough to Teal Pointe to warrant further discussion): , Se~lon 25 According 5o court house records, Lot ! ~' , Ti17, R24 is located east of Teal Pointe (as well as tke rarsh to its east). This would place 21 HE 55 further east tkan indicated by The 106 Group's report. According to the same records, Lot 2, Section 25, TI17, R24 includes the Teal Pointe development area. If so, the two mounds reported by Hi!l in 1872 may have been located within the proposed development. Winchell's cautious note about possible dupii~ation of description was presuuuably inspired by the vaTae reference, made earlier, to the last two mounds as being located "a quarter of a mile or more to the west of (21 HE 36)" -- Lot 2 is, in fact, located more than half a mile west of that mound group. This cautionary note, however, cannot be interpreted as a fact. The specific descriptions given by Hill regarding all the mound dimensions, as well as his specific reference to Lot 2, also suggest, very strongly, that he was describing five different mounds! (2) Assu~ing, from the above, that 21 HE 55, in fact, is located to the east of the proposed Teal Point development but that another two mounds have been reoorted as located within or i~.-uuediately ' .ese.ts of the recent survey by adjacent to it, could the negative ~ "~ The 106 Group be considered sufficient evidence that any such m. ounds have been destroyed? According =o their report, the results of their ,intensive" pedestrian reconnaissance proved negative. How intensive the , . ' nc~ specified. At the time of survey, the project coverage was ~s . . _ ~ -~ ,,~=~wth .... featuring =~= ,~,~ ~overed with "grass, trees ~,~ ~..~-~ .... . ,,__~=o ~ .r' nt v~s,b~l~ty ~page D;. ~ .......... ze o perce.., i ......... ~=blish whether any mounG u"d seem £al~lY ImDOSSlDI= uu =ou~ _ _ ~_._: ...... was ' ' ~ n un~ess some O: t~e g- re~ants may st~ll De ~rese. t . . ..... ~~nted bv properly c~eared and/or surface reconna~ssan - - a[thorized soil coring (see below). On the assu~ption that no ro~tds existed/had survived in the survey area, The 106 Group did perform some testing, with negati'.'e results, but at intervals that se~w. to have exceeded the recon~T, ended maximum of 10-15 meters. ,! ! ! I page 28 However, even :f the Group.is ri;hr in concluding that there ar: no . , "~ It has been obvious remains of mounds ~n -kY survey area, this does not exclude the pc~s~b;lity that burla~ r~.ains could be o:esent. proven, on a n'~mMer of occasions, that buriai pits hav~ remained ~ -~ ~ iaily intac~ below ground surface even af%er the appare.nt leveling of a mound. ~s Native ~w. erican burials come under the protection of the M~nnesoza Private Cemeteries Act (Minnesota Statu:es 3C7.05), it ?- therefore become required procedure to refer all cases cf rep.~ted cr suspected mound locations to the Stace Arckaeclcgts~ office and the 2ndian Affairs Ccunci! review prior ~o any kind of ground disturbing development. Under the s~me Act, is i~ the responsibility of the State Archaeologist to au%henticate mound locations and assess whether burial remains have bee: preserved or destroyed. At present, the position of Stat~ Archaeo!~;ist is vacant and ~uest±ons of this nature have to b~ · ~n referred ~o ~ , indian Affairs Council. Subsurface. te~gs~ ~_ ~ .' only ~ conducted with their o~rTaZS ~ · poss- ~le mounL ~te s.~ou~d indication in the report ~n the case of this study, there is no -hat any consultation took p!~ce between The 106 Group Ltd. and the dian AffaLrs Council. · should l:e noted that Mr. Nell Weber, who ; m-o~osing the Teal Poin:e residential development, in his let of reques: for archaeological survey bids mentione~ having t .... contact wi:h the ~ast State Archaeologist. According to his re.cfuest, her prelimina-~f observation ,,indicated she did not f,-'Z sites existed on this pro-~rty' According to the same !ette~ .~r,os C',.,'~n had been asked to ~erform a sage burnin~ ceremony on We~er's ~3perty some years ago (apparently in connection with reported mo~d remains). At the time the archaeological reconnaissance survey took place, were atte,.-p, ts made to verify this reported statement or to find whether the prelimina---Y observation and the ceremony had been supp!~v, en~ed with more conclusive authentication efforts? ~= ,. '~ be included in the info_~r..a5ion abou% th~s matter could burial si%e file 5ha~ has been established by the qtate Archaeolcglst -- a file that would contain information cons ~ered toc sensitiva to be included in the standard, more accessible, archaeological s%ate site file. _ · . ,. ~ . --uld ~eco,.n~r~,.end that this issue needs .n v~ew of ~ne aDove~ I ~0 -.. ~, _ ~ iven to deve!cp . . ~ , ~roced~e has a£reacy peen ~ ;.- ; - . ~n=ess such a . - . : ,; ~ -nd -ea-_r~r"~-~-~- ~..~-~ =~n.~d also De contacte~ ,~mea,ate-Y allowed 5o cc~r.e'at. Sincerely, Christina :-'.art:son Director page 29 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES -- PROFILE Archaeological Research Services (ARS) is a full-service consulting firm specializing in cultural resource investigations: archival research, inventory field survey, docu3nentation of National Register eligibility, and data recovery through formal excavation. Since its beginning in 1977, ARS has performed cultural resource investigations for such contracting agencies as USDA-Forest Service, USDI-Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of TransportatiQn, Minnesota Historical Society, as well as for various county and city governments and private engineering and construction firms. A complete listing will be furnished on request. Christina I. Harrison, PrinciDal Investigator M. Phil., University of London: Institute of Archaeology, London, England, 1961 B. Phil., Anthropology/Archaeology and Art History, University of Upsala, Sweden, 1961 British Council Overseas Scholarship, 1964-1965 University of London Central Research Fund Travel Grant, 1967 Teaching Positions (Anthropology/Archaeology) at University of Minnesota, Carleton College, Minnesota, and St. Olaf College, Minnesota, 1970-1976. page 31 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Brad and Sara Biermann, being first duly sworn, depose and state: 1. That we have lived at 5106 Windsor Road, Mound, MN since September of 1884. 2. That our property borders the proposed Teal Pointe Development. 3. That since our move to this residence, Sara has worked only part-time day hours (28 hours per week) as an orthodontist assistant. 4. That the Webers moved into their Windsor Road residence in the Spring of 1985. Since that time, Neil Weber has always worked away from his home during the daytime hours that Sara has worked. 5. That the Webers gave us permission to walk on the Teal Pointe property. This permission was never formally withdrawn until 1993. 6. That the Webers kept an ever-increasing brush pile on the Teal Pointe property without ever burning the pile. 7. That we are aware of what occurred on the Teal Pointe property and, to the best of our knowledge, at no time did the Webers ever burn any brush, tree branches, or material on the property. In fact, brushes and branches were not burned until May 15, 1993, when several children started a fire that burned the entire pile. · 8. Further your affiants sayeth not, except that this affidavit is submitted to rebut the statement of Neil Weber that he "... used to burn brush and tree branches in this ~ara Biermann Subscribed and sworn to be me by Sara and Brad Biermann this /~ day of July, 1993. Notary'PubHb- .! ! i m page 3,12 ~-:: un d. '" ' ' ..... ....... ara. as aU arch&c~!o?.ical £:tas '-'i-' : ' · ..... · n-:.¢atnon cf ar.',- 'c'_=ia! areas on ~ke p=o~er~v wa'eld ccr. e under ~ke - : ..... : ~a:neu~ ...t (Xinneso:a S~a s ~..,,'.C~). ine Office c: ~he pro'zlzlcns of this A:~. ~cu ~r.z~cate ~na~ you have been bock of ~h~se agencies :~-~': - =~a_n~ ~ke ~'-~.~c~ __ you need further .... ~z~ca~i;n. >'~'a shculi ccr.:ac~ :he ln~ian Affairs Ccunci! a~aln. We would ., ~r~..=¢o.o%%$% is cutter, ti-,- vacann. 'Je ','cu!d also no're that the p~oo____~s~d de'.,~lczm~_n.~ area kas hi.th toc~r, tia! to ....... :-..==o--~i s'==-,:',, oz The k ..~t area 7'"'~ec~ i5 under:akan. ~ ~c~ .... reeu:~.~-~-s o~ ,-ca ~c,s ........... or. al Historic ~rase~.'atlon Ac: of !c~ --M ~' ~ · ........ ~C:~,SO0, proscdures -f -~' .......... ~ ~i¢ Preset-zenith f'&r the pro~ec:icn c= hi~t:rlc =rc, oerzies, if this or.:.~ec- is c .... dared f,:= :'doral as , cr r:~uircs a red,roi !itt-use er pa=mi: i= zkculd be s--~-~-zed ~c cur offic~ .~ e$icn page 33 3.1!77 ~;. 'Lb A','-=::..:~ ~-':.: L~ke','ood 'lb ~n~5.0127 Daze: Febz"_'a':y 8, i-~93 %r.~.~a.; C~g=.y ,.,~-t.l,,=~, at Law '2~54 Caubrl,'2~-=_ Lane ..... . ..... , .... I share 7ou,-' concern ab_~u~ ch=_ poss~bil~tv cf a~:ectad by ~k~ ?rnpo~e~ da-,-e!~ .... i:] ~'~ound Since I co:;-21atej ~, .-~ S~ct',e~or's arid ~'f~s~sr's ~_o,~es a~ University of ~fi~xeso~a I am very - r~,n her!tara cf the area and [eel a =rccia] af~'~t7 for indian cu!t~ra~ in wh.ich I did t'e~a,:ch fcc many years, Also, as a pr~':ic~us reslder, t of ~c~:~,], I a:a awar~ of tSe hash probability o{ cultural r~sourca sites b~ir,~ fol.;nd a!r. ost an>x.:here nc~r the [skis and other nat'.;z-~l wa~r~.~5,s i s~ .... ~d also nc~-;t out that ~he ~'acers of *"~ ' ........ i .... Hiz,,.e ...... a were sact'eJ to the Ojibwa and Sioux and tkere is a ~.h li' ~jtes ~y be presen~ in this area. Since I have not done cultu['al rescurca work in L'innesota for a'~-h¢~= I sub,est ~7~at '/OU cr~"~t )'our ~tate u. ~ . . . ........ ,.is~o~ic Preservation Office and solicit tkair ~ .... ~ ;::easur-:~s mx~.,~ De ~ul'sued ro en.;uk'e teat t~e azckeolo~ical sit~s are ........ ~ and Trot~cue~. If i~ is nec~.ssary co h~re sn co:',sulrant I think a reasonable estimato might be about $5,?0 to surv,~y a 5 acre parcel, Fur this ~:c,,.,ld be c,~ntir,=e~e upon ~g~ ~,,.~ ..... ~ taru~a <2 iecated ;-, -~--. .............. i prob:,b!y don't ne~,d to draw to your atCention the in.:rcasins a.,ount - '"~' ,..~n protects Native Americans and their spiritual -,-a~,,~. - - ....~- i refer h~r~ to the ]':.ative American Graves Pro,eot!on a~d Repat~i&tion A:t (25 ';qC ""'~ [!990]) ~:~d the A?erican %ndian Religious Freedom Acc (~2 USC IS~5 ~,,~ r~ n,~;~a c, fe~-. l~:ra in the Rcclq/ ~c,.;ntn~n st.~les we '~?~ ~ii3o S2L, i~I~ .... -~.s a,:areues:~ r,: ~!ncir civil rights' sit~s of Fote:'~rial i;;~portance. ' i have been i~ co~:Act with ccllea~,~es at the Univers[t],. mz ....... :_,.ts ~ko mmv b.~ able ro direc~ you ~o a q'aalific-d professional who can c~.ns'.:!t '.:i~h '.'cu on thi~ :.~a~':~c. If i c;n ~c~ of auy f~lrth~r a.szi>;tanc~ do ;~cn ha;it~:.~ to call. .... " ~ '~ "z' ~ z / ~-::ri'-~-~ :'.'sf.u",'~, :-', .... page 34 ,_t-tAKO, EE MDEWAF~ANTOX SIOUX COi~,'i~'iUNI"I' ~' · ~Y 23¢ 1993 To Whom it may concern: We are pleased to inform you that the Business Council of the Shakopee .'.:de;.,akanton sioux Community has approved partial fun~tng of your request. Enclosed you ;-,'ill find a check for this amount. we recognize the work of your organization and thank you for your work on behalf of others. Sincerely, Laurie A. Shipman Administrative Assistant page .:. '.', :- .,?, ..~ ,.'. '~ ;:35:' -' I ,I 11 pa§e 36 48 HOUR CONTINGENCY RIDER Burnet The undersigned are parties to a purchase agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") dated ~G~/ (~ ~ I~.,'~ dealing with property ("Property") known as '~ltt4~$~K.'~k~') ~:~-{~e~¢.~ I.~'%.~(~ ~l'~e~°~g~.~ and hereby mutually agree to supplement and amend the Purchase Agreement as follows: ("property" address) 1. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property is contingent upon ~.-- :::: ..'ff P..-:y:-r'_; ,h;..~¢ (~B:l;~q!t~ _~; _~: ~i~, , Buyer may, at Buyer's option, not later than ~E~, i~ ~ ~ terminate the Purchase Agreement by written notice to Seller in which event the earnest money paid pursuant to the Purchase Agreement shall be immediately refunded to Buyer. 4. Seller may continue to offer the property for sale unless and until the contingency set forth in this rider has been removed by Buyer. 5. Seller may request the removal of the contingency set forth in this rider at any time by written notice to Buyer, or his Agent. If Buyer does not remove such contingency within 48 hours of receipt of such notice, the Purchase Agreement shall be null and void and the earnest money paid thereunder shall be refunded immediately to Buyer. Delivery or notification to buyers agent constitutes notification to the buyer(s). 6. All notices hereunder shall be delivered to Buyer or Seller, as appropriate, either (a) delivered in person or (b) mailed, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested (in which case the date of the receiving party's receipt shall be the time of receipt) to Seller or Buyer, as appropriate at the addresses set forth below with a copy in all cases to Merrill Lynch Realty. Burnet. Inc.: Seller's Address Buyer's Address 7. In the event of a termination of the Purchase Agreement as a result of this rider, Buyers and Sellers shall execute an appropriate document cancelling the Purchase Agreement. 8. In all other respects, except as hereby amended and supplemented, the Purchase Agreement is in full force and effect. MERRILL LYNCH REALTY/BURNET. INC. By _ ) Buyer i~ ,,.~. ': Seller Buyer This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- , RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIKACOMMON ~BUTTING 1546 BLUEBIRD LANE FOR DAVID KUNZ, OWNER OF 1546 BLUEBIRD LANE DOCK SITE #01600 WHEREAS, and determined corrected, and; WHEREAS, The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; staff has evaluated the stairway servicing this dock site it is not in compliance with code and needs to be WHEREAS, Resolution #85-51 approved by the city Council on April 23, 1985, approved construction of this stairway and stated, "Mr. Kunz has agreed to build the staircase in accordance with all existing regulations. · ." WHEREAS, Mr. Kunz has stated that the stairs are structurally sound, they are treated and painted timbers dug into the hill to allow for minimum impact and to stabilize erosion. He stated that the average rise is 8-1/3" versus the required 8" maximum, and the average run is 8- 3/4" versus the minimum 9" and there is no landing at 12 feet, the , stairway is a maximum of 15 feet long. He does not have a problem with installing a legal handrail, and he noted that the top step has a 9" rise and he can correct this rise, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve a Special Permit Construction on Public Lands Permit for Dave Kunz, Dock Site #01600, as follows: a. The existing stairway shall be modified to include a conforming handrail, and the top step should be corrected to have no more than an 8" rise, and shall be inspected and approved by the Building official. Proposed Resolution Kunz, Dock #01600 Page 2 The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The stairway must be reconstructed to code when it is determined the stairway is in an unsafe condition. The stairway is allowed to remain due to the erosion concerns. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building Official prior to any work being done. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. cOUnc· The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK BITE 101600 DAVID KUNZt 1546 BLUEBIRD LANE BTAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. Staff has evaluated the stairway servicing this dock site and determined it is not in compliance with code and needs to be corrected. Mr. Kunz is not happy about being forced to replace the stair, it is his opinion that the existing location has the least amount of impact and that is what the Parks Commission wanted originally. This area has a steep slope and high erosion potential. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to correct the existing stairway or build a new stairway according to code. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building Official prior to any work being done. This approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Mr. Dave Kunz addressed the Commission and stated that he has always tried and comply with City regulations and he likes the commons concept. He originally submitted plans for the stairway in 1985 that were approved by the City Council. The stairs are structurally sound, they are timbers dug into the hill to allow for minimum impact and to stabilize erosion. He stated that the average rise is 8-1/3" versus the required 8" maximum, and the average run is 8-3/4" versus the minimum 9", and there is no landing at 12 feet, the stairway is a maximum of 15 feet long. He does not have a problem with installing a legal handrail, and he noted that the top step has a 9" rise and he can correct this rise. Anything he changes will adversely affect the hillside, he would. comply with staff's recommendation, but he is not happy about it. The timbers in the stairway are treated and painted and he believes it will 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ! ! August 12, 1993 last a long time. The Commission clarified that none of the Commissioners, with the exception of Tom Casey, visited any sites. Ahrens stated that the stairway was constructed in 1985, therefore, it is fairly new. Casey commented that when he traversed the stairs he felt safe. There was a question of liability for not having a stairway that meets code. Mr. Kunz commented that there is a pathway on the commons that is frequently used and has a deep rut in it which could be very dangerous, and he has notified the Parks Director of this situation. Resolution #85-51 approving the stairway states, "in accordance with all existing regulations." It was questioned if the code has changed since 1985. Schmidt stated that as long as the stairway is safe it should be allowed to remain until it needs to be replaced. Casey agreed, however, he commented that it could be maintained forever by replacing a little here and there. Casey beleives the City has good intentions in bringing these structures up to code, however, it causes a hardship to the users of these structures. He suggested that Mr. Kunz apply for a variance to the code, and that the concern should be for the integrity of the land. Casey is not in favor of requiring the landing as it is only three feet more than the minimum required. MOTION made by Cas.y, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit for Dave Kunz, Dock Site #01600, as follows: The existing stairway shall be modified to include a conforming handrail, and the top step should be corrected to have no more than an 8" rise, and shall be inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The stairway must be reconstructed to code when it is determined the stairway is in an unsafe condition. 4. The stairway is allowed to remain due to the erosion concerns. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND 534~ L{A','WOOD ROAD i'.~OUND M!N?.iESOTA 553~ !6i2~ z-2~0600 FAX ?2 472 0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~O- Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1546 Bluebird Lane, Lots 3, 4, & 5, Block 5, Woodland Point, PID ~12-117-24 43 0055 DOCK SITE HOLDER: David Kunz COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 01600 CLASS: SUBJECT: C Update of Public Land Permit Back~k~ound This application is a result of staff's updating of Public Land Permits. Staff has evaluated the stairway servicing this dock site and determined it is not in compliance with code and needs to be corrected. I have discussed the issues with Mr. Kunz who is not happy about being forced to replace the stair. It is his opinion that the existing location has the least amount of impact and that is what the Parks Commission wanted originally. Other Issues Steep slope. This area has high erosion potential. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lahds Permit to correct the existing stairway or build a new stairway according to code. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building official prior to any work being done. This approval is subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. printed on recycled paper Staff Report David Kunz August 12, 1993 Page 2 The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. 76 April 23, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. ~85'51 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF STAIRS BEHIND 15~6 BLUEBIRD LANE ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, Mr. David Kunz has requested permission to construct a stairway to his dock on Waurika Commons; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kunz has agreed to built the staircase in accordance with all existing regulations, and it will be of sound workmanship and good appearance; and (£XHISIT "A") WHEREAS, the Park Commission has reviewed this request and does recommend approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant permission to Mr. David Kunz, 1546 .Bluebird Lane, to built a stairway on Waurika Commons, adjacent to his dock and according to all correct building standards. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk I 1, ! ,I 11~ STAIRWAYS 1988 UBC Section 3306 Minimum Width: 36 Inches {private stairways serving an occupant load of less than 49 persons - Section B) Minimum Run: 9 Inches Maximum Rise: 8 Inches Headroom: 6 feet 8 inches (measured vertically from a plane parallel and tangent to the stairway tread nosing to the soffit above at all points - Section P) Handrails: Shall be placed not less than 34 inches nor more than 38 inches above the nosing of treads. Rail end shall be returned or terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Note attached handout for acceptable designs. HANDRAILS ON STAIRWAYS AND CONCRETE STEPS MUST BE PROVIDED IF THREE OR MORE RISERS. Also, provide on both sides if open stairway - Section J. Handrails projecting from a wall shall have a space of not less than 1 1/2 inches between the wall and the handrail. The handgrip portion of handrails shall be not less that 1 1/2 inches nor more than 2 inches in cross-sectional dimension and shall have a smooth surface with no sharp corners. Landings: Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of "36 inches. A door swinging over a landing shall not reduce the width of the landing to less than one-half its required width at any position in its swing nor by more than 7 inches when fully open - UBC 3306(g). HANDRAIL Sec, 330~' d~ 34".38 M,.. ,,sE MAX._I_MUM RISE ~ 6'8" MINIMUM MINIMUM RUN OCCUPANT LOAD LESS THAN 10 (Private ' Stairway) MAXIMUM TREAD RUN VARIANCE OF 3/8 INCH. MAXIMUM RISER VARIATION OF 3/8". HANDRAIL MEASURED TO THE TOP OF RAIL. THERE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 12 FEET BETWEEN LANDINGS. VERTICALLY i STAIRWAYS 1988 UBC Section 3306 Minimum Width: 36 Inches (private stairways serving an occupant load of less than 49 persons - Section B) Minimum Rum 9 Inches M~ximum Rise: 8 Inches Headroom: 6 feet 8 inches (measured vertically from a plane parallel and tangent to the stairway tread nosing to the soffit above at all points - Section P) Handrails: Shall be placed not less than 34 inches nor more than 38 inches above the nosing of treads. Rail end shall be returned or terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Note attached handout for acceptable designs. HANDRAILS ON STAIRWAYS AND CONCRETE STEPS MUST BE PROVIDED IF THREE OR MORE RISERS. Also, provide on both sides if open stairway - Section J. Handrails projecting from a wall shall have a space of not less than I 1/2 inches between the wall and the handrail. The handgrip portion of handrails shall be not less that I 1/2 inches nor more than 2 inches in cross-sectional dimension and shall have a smooth surface with no sharp corners. Landings: Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of "36 inches. A door swinging over a landing shall not reduce the width of the landing to less than one-half its required width at any position in its swing nor by more than 7 inches when fully open - UBC 3306(g). 6'8" MINIMUM HANDRAIl. ~ Sec. 330~//~ ' (~34".38' 4" MIN. RISE ~ MINIMUM RUN MAXIMUM 8" L RI OCCUPANT LOAD LESS THAN 10 (Private Stairway) MAXIMUM TREAD RUN VARIANCE OF 3/8 12NCH. MAXIMUM RISER VARIATION OF 3/8". HANDRAIL MEASURED TO THE TOP OF RAIL. SHALL 12 V TICA L¥ BETWEEN LANDINGS. ~ 0 ~ 7 This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO REMOVE PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS, KNOWN AS WAURIKA COMMON, ABUTTING 1550 CANARY LANE, DOCK SITE #01900 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the structures recognized on this portion of Waurika Common include a stairway in need of repair or replacement, a retaining wall in poor condition, electrical, and a light, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Chuck Champine, current resident at 1550 Canary Lane, takes no responsibility for the stairway, but was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988 for this site. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976, and; WHEREAS, this area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity, and; WHEREAS, staff confirmed with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine stated at the Park Commission meeting that the ground fault interrupter which services the electrical on the common was installed on his house a couple years ago, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine states that the light is used to help illuminate a skating rink that has been plowed annually on the lake, and; WHEREAS, Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside on City property, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this issue and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To have City staff remove the stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common abutting 1550 Canary Lane, Dock Site #01900, and that all costs associated with such removal be taken out of the City budget, not including the dock fund. MINUTES OF A M~EETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK SITE #01900, CHUCK CHAMPINE, 1550 CANARY LANE ~TAIRWAY & ELECTRIC Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. Mr. Chuck Champine resides at the property abutting this dock site, however, he no longer has a dock license and takes no responsibility for the stairway, but was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988 for this site. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976. There is no record of a permit for the electrical work and the light pole. It was confirmed with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence. Mr. Champine states he has some electrical knowledge and recognizes this electrical work does not meet the Electrical Code and he would go ahead and correct it. Mr. Champine was notified that approval by the City Council is required prior to any work being done, other than removal work, and furthermore, that a licensed electrical contractor must do the work according to the Electrical Inspector and the State Electrical Code. There are two small retaining walls adjacent to this dock site that are in poor condition. Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside. This area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity. It is the City Council's decision whether to attribute these costs for removal and restoration to the abutting owner or take them out of the City's budget, possibly out of the dock fund. Staff recommended the following: The City Council direct the City Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. 0 The retaining walls may be repaired at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area could be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3. Electrical work: The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply I · i, I · Ii I I Park and 09eh Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. Mr. Champine addressed the Commission and commented that he does not feel the abutting owners to commons should be responsible for retaining walls that retain City property. In reference to the light, he stated that it is used to help illuminate a skating rink that has been plowed annually on the lake. He admitted that he installed the electrical service on the common and that the ground fault interrupter was installed on his house a couple years ago. He suggested that the City be required to obtain the electrical permit. He also stated that some day he hopes to retire and then he hopes get a dock license. He would like to keep the light for the skaters and for the beach. Staff noted that there is a street light which illuminates the beach. Ahrens commented that she has heard a lot of people state that they will not take responsibility for dilapidated retaining walls on the abutting public property. Schmidt and Ahrens agreed that everyone else who has installed electrical services on the commons has been required to have it installed by a licensed contractor and inspected by the State. Mr. Champine objected to getting a permit for work on land that is not his. Casey expressed a concern that the light does not meet the Park and Open Space Commission's Guidelines for Lights. The Parks Director read the guidelines to the Commission. It was noted that there are no safety or security reasons for the light as there is no dock at this site. Casey wants to see the light removed. It was suggested that the City should fix or remove the retaining wall, but that the cost should not come out of the dock fund as there is no dock licensed on this site. Casey is in favor of putting the property back into its natural state. Mr. Champine is not opposed to the removal of structures. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Casey to recommend that City staff remove the stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common abutting 1550 Canary Lane, Dock Site $1900, and that all costs associated with such removal be taken out of the City budget, not including the dock fund. Motion carried unanimously. CITY of MOUND 53z~', MAYWOOD ROAD JND MINNE$O'rA 55364, '68- ;6~ 2, ~72. FAX 6~2~4-2 062t STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING OWNER & DOCK HOLDER: ABUTTING ADDRESS: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and A~plicant Jim F , Park Dir or ,/~ Chuck Champine ~ ~ 1550 Canary Lane, Lots 3, 4, 5, & part of 2, Block 4, Woodland Point, PID #12-117-24 43 0010 Waurika 01900 D Update of Public Land Permit Backqround The current owner at the above address is Mr. Chuck Champine, who no longer has a dock license and takes no responsibility whatsoever for the stairway, however, he was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976. There is no record of a permit for the electrical work and the light pole (note photo attached to application). I did confirm with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence. Mr. Champine states he has some electrical knowledge and recognizes this electrical work does not meet the Electrical Code and he would go ahead and correct it. I notified him that approval by the City Council is required prior to any work being done, other than removal work, and furthermore, that a licensed electrical contractor must do the work according to the Electrical Inspector and the State Electrical Code. Other Issues There are two small retaining walls adjacent to this dock site that are in poor condition. Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside. printed on recycled paper Staff Report 1550 Canary Lane, C'hampine Augus~ 12, 1993 Page ~omments This area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity. The City Council must decide whether to attribute these costs for removal and restoration to the abutting owner or take them out of the City's budget, possibly out of the dock fund. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. The City Council direct the City Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. 2. The retaining walls may be repaired at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area could be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3e 4e Electrical work: a. The owner shall have the option'of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. b. In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. The abutting owners have been notified, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. Councilmember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 78-443 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARK COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE COMMONS MAIN- TENANCE PERMITS AND STAIRS AT [NO OF WOODLAND ROAO BE REMOVED AND HETAL FIRE ESCAPES NOT BE ACCEPTED AS STAIRS ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, the Park Commission must recommend whether Commons Maintenance Permits are to be continued and allowed, and WHEREAS, listed below are the permits and encroachments on commons that must have Council approval: 15q5 Bluebird Lane 1551 Blueblrd Lane 155q Bluebird Lane 1587 Bluebird Lane 1593 Bluebird Lane 1599 B1uebutd Lane 1601 Bluebird Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1555 Oove Lane 1558 Dove Lane 1562 Dove Lane 1559 Eagle Lane 1566 Eagle Lane 1583 Gull Lane 1661 Gull Lane 5000 Enchanted Road ~96q Paradise 1749 Wildhurst 1767 Wildhurst 1733 Gull Lane 1720 Dove Lane 17q9 Bluebird 1737 Canary Lane 1716 Blueblrd 1586 Dove 1600 Heron Posts $ Rope Railing remove fire ring Natural stairway flower bed Picnic Table ~ trash can Stairway (needs 1 handrail, remove metal stakes & general cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Retaining wall (needs repair) Steel stairway (needs 2 handrails) Wooden shed (paint earthtone) Steel stairway Steel shed (remove within 1 yr) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) Concrete steps (needs 2 handrails) Concrete steps Stairway (Remove) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Railroad ties to sod access (General cleanup markers installed & owner billed) Cement stairway (needs 2 handrails cleanup) Storage Bldg (has no foundation) Wooden Shed (needs repair general cleanup) Stairway & retaining wall Birdhouse Stairway (needs 1 handrail) Stairway (needs 2 handrails ~ repair step) 'Sandbox Stairway (needs 2 handrails) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby concur with the recommendation of the Park Commission to approve the commons maintenance permits and stairs at end of Woodland Road be removed and metal fire escapes not be accepted as stairs on the commons. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Polston, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted In favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Withhart, the following voted agalnst the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Hayor and his slgnatur~ttest~pd by the City Clerk. Hay6r '"X. - Att~st~ City Clerk I · ! I DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: 1988 DOCK PERMIT APPLICATION "CITY OF HOUND, HN.' FOR OFFICE USE O~;LY .. Please complete and return BEFORE MARCH 1) 1988) (must be post- marked before March 1). Applications received after are r~- subject to a late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. To share a dock this year, there is an additional $25.00 fee. Also note the 'new L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. Renewals not received by APRIL 1ST. WILL NOT be issued a permit for this year. All information pertaining to you must be'filled in or application, will be ADDRESS WORK P,ONE HOUND ~/' Permanent Resident Summer Resident Renter Owner (paying - ! fee ..... --*'- for renter} HAILING ADDRESS, IF SUMMER RESIDENT 1987 Permit I 0/~0~ ~ Renewal ..____.New Application (Shown on address label on envelope) You may SHAR~ a dock with another MOUND RESIDENT ONLY., (see statement on fee above) [221 I am shJring a dock with Home Phone Address Work Phone List ALL boats to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft Number, make and size of boat."-~'This'includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.H.C.D. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WIIMOUT THIS INFORHATION andDhotocopies of all watercraft licen;es: MN Watercraft Owner Number Make Length Fee Boat 1 · F~_~~r~/~ ~2Z~<-~-~ J-~~ .~ / ? Boat 2 - Boat 3 Boat 4 This is an application only and no dock can be installed until a location is granted. PAYMENT OF ALL FEES MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATION ADD $25.00 FOR SHARED DOCK DOCK SIZE BASIC FEE {CHECK HERE) ~ Straight Dock (2 ft. to 4 ft. wide) F-'l L or T Dock -many width F'") U or Special Size (See Diagram on next page) $ 100.00 $ 150.00 $ 180.00 (SEE OTHER SIDE) ~__..~_____~,,. 1~87 DO~N FER"'T APPLICATIOh CITY OF ML ~, MN. DE,. ...D RESIDENT: Please complete and return BEFORE MARCH 1st. Applications received after Hatch 1st are subject to a late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. To share a dock after March 1st, there is an additional $25.00 fee. Renewals not received by APRIL 1st, WILL NOT be issued a permit for this year. Ali information pertaining to you must be filled in or permit will be delayed. . ~e~n~n~ ~s~den~ ~u~r ~AILING ADDRESS, IF SUHMER RESIDENT 1~86 Permit ~ ~/~ ~ Renewal (Sho~ on address label on envelope) Renter O~ner (paying fee for renter) New Applicatlon NO PERIIIT ~ILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT A PHOTOCOPY OF DNR WATERCRAFT LICENSE or appllcation for transfer of each boat to be kept at your dock. This is required each year and must be enclosed when submit.~ing ~hls application for a dock. Also list type, MN #, and s~z~ on You may SHARE a dock with another MOUND RESIDENT ONLY_, (see statement on late fee above) J--"J I am sharing a dock with Address Phone # NO PEP. HIT WILL BE ISSUEO WITHOUT A PHOTOCOPY OF DNR WATERCRAFT LICENSE or application for transfer of each boat to be kept at,your dock. This is required each year and must be enclosed when submitting this application to share a dock. Also list type, MN #, and size on this line This is an appllcat!on only and no dock can be installed until a location is granted. PAYMENT OF FEE RUST ACCOHPANY APPLICATION DOCK SIZE BASIC FEE J----] Straight Dock (2 ft. to 4 ft. wide) $ 85.00 J~ L or T Dock - any width $135.O0 J-~ U or Special Size (See Diagram on next page) $160.00 Senior citizens (65 or older) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $/42.50, $67.50 or $80.O0. Senior citlzens (65 or older) sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/1t the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $21.25, $33.75 or $qO.OO. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/lt the base permit fee, i.e. S63.50, $101.25 or $120.00. SENIOR CITIZEN BIRTH DATE Any false information given or vlolatlons of Dock Ordinance #332 shall be .reason for denial or revocation of permit. I understand if I allow boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my dock, I violate City of Hound Ordinance #332. (See next page Section 26.9301~, Sub. 13) DATE Applicant's Signature BASIC FEE PAiD ~'~,~/~'~ ADD FOR LATE SHARE ~ LATE PENALTY. --~. /)~ TOTAL :,: :;' ' LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (we) ackno~Jedge that the City of ~und is not responsible for any injury occurring on t~ch Is p~ivate property. ~ Signature J RETURN THIS APPLICATION ONLY. KEEP THE OTHER SHEETS FOR YOUR INFORHATION. ]t · 1, I · ii I I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIKA COMMON, ABUTTING 1555 DOVE LANE FOR OF VERA FRAHM OF 1555 DOVE LANE DOCK SITE #01920 WHEREAS, The city of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution #78-443 on September 19, 1978 issuing a permit for this stairway. The stairway is steel with transition to concrete at the top and bottom. The stair does not meet code which requires a handrail the full length, and mid landing, and a better transition from concrete to steel, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval of the permit, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow modifications of the stairway at Dock Site #01920 for Vera Frahm, subject to the following conditions: ae Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. be The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. Ce A handrail is required the full length of the stairway and a better transition from concrete to steel must be provided. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, or when it is deemed unsafe, whichever comes first. Se The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. nd · 1, I · Ii I I PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIKA COMMON, ABUTTING 1555 DOVE LANE FOR OF VERA FRAHM OF 1555 DOVE LANE DOCK SITE $01920 WHEREAS, The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires city Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution $78-443 on September 19, 1978 issuing a permit for this stairway. The stairway is steel with transition to concrete at the top and bottom. The stair does not meet code which requires a handrail the full length, and mid landing, and a better transition from concrete to steel, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval of the permit, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow modifications of the stairway at Dock Site $01920 for Vera Frahm, subject to the following conditions: ae Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. bo The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. Ce A handrail is required the full length of the stairway and a better transition from concrete to steel must be provided. do The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, or when it is deemed unsafe, whichever comes first. e. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK SITE #01920 VERA FRAHM, 1555 DOVE LANE STAIRWAy Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. The original stairway permit was issued in 1976. The stairway is steel with transition to concrete at the top and bottom. The stair does not meet code which requires a handrail the full length, and mid landing, and a better transition from concrete to steel. Staff met with the owner's son on site who is not opposed to modifying the stair to code as long as the application of the code is uniform to all dock site holders. Staff recommended approval of a permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building Official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Casey commented that this is another stairway that he considered safe when traversing, and feels it is erroneous to require a mid-landing. He suggested that the stairway be allowed to remain until such a time that it becomes unsafe. It was noted that Frahm's stairway length is shorter than the Kunz stairway. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Anderson to recommend approval of a permit for Vera Frahm, Dock Site #01920, to modify the stairway to require a handrall the full length of tho stairway and to provide a better transition from concrete to steel, but not require a mid-landing and proper stair run and rise. The Stairway must conform to code when it becomes unsafe or in five years, whichever comes first· Notion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. 7 I · I, I · ii I I CITY of MOUND 5~-:'~ L4AYWOOD ROAD M©UN~ L',iNNESOTA5536-' 6'2, ,;-2 0600 r-,%X ~612 ~72 0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: ABUTTING OWNER & DOCK HOLDER: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1555 Dove Lane, Lot 1, 27 & part of 2 & 6, Block 4, Woodland Point, PID #12-117-24 43 0059 Vera Frahm Waurika 01920 D Update of Public Land Permit Backqround The original stairway permit was issued in 1976. The stairway is steel with transition to concrete at the top and bottom. The stair does not meet code which requires a handrail the full length, and mid landing, and a better transition from concrete to steel. Staff has met with the owner's son on site who is not opposed to modifying the stair to code as long as the application of the code is uniform to all dock site holders. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Staff Report 1555 Dove Lane, August 12, 1993 Frahm Page 2 The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutting owners have been notified, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. JS: pj I · 1, I I Councilmember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 78-443 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARK COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE COMMONS MAIN- TENANCE PERMITS AND STAIRS AT END OF WOODLAND ROAD BE REMOVEO AND METAL FIRE ESCAPES NOT BE ACCEPTED AS STAIRS ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, the Park Commission must recommend whether Con~)ns Maintenance Permits are to be continued and allowed, and WHEREAS, listed belo~ are the permits and encroachments on commons that must have Council approval: 1545 Bluebird Lane 1551 Bluebird Lane 1554 Bluebird Lane 1587 Bluebird Lane 1593 Blueblrd Lane 1599 B1uebuld Lane 1601 Blueblrd Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1555 Dove Lane 1558 Dove Lane 1562 Dove Lane 1559 Eagle Lane 1566 Eagle Lane 1583 Gull Lane 1661 Gull Lane 5000 Enchanted Road 4964 Paradise 1749 Wildhurst 1767 Wildhurst 1733 Gull Lane 1720 Dove Lane 1749 Bluebird 1737 Canary Lane 1716 Bluebird 1586 Dove 1600 Heron Posts & Rope Railing remove fire ring & Natural stairway flower bed Plcnlc Table & trash can Stairway (needs 1 handrail, remove metal stakes & general cleanup) Wooden stalrway (needs handrall 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Retaining wall (needs repair) Steel stairway (needs 2 handrails) Wooden shed (paint earthtone) Steel stairway Steel shed (remove within 1 yr) f Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) J Concrete steps (needs 2 handrails) , Concrete steps Stairway (Remove) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Railroad ties to sod access (General cleanup markers installed & owner billed) Cement stairway (needs 2 handrails cleanup) Storage Bldg (has no foundation) Wooden Shed (needs repair general cleanup) Stairway & retaining wall Birdhouse Stairway (needs 1 handrail) . Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair step) Sandbox Stairway (needs 2 handrails) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby concur with the recoranendation of the Park Commission to approve the commons maintenance permits and stairs at end of Woodland Road be removed and metal fire escapes not be accepted as stairs on the commons. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Polston, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Withhart, the followlng voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his slgnatur~ttest~cl by the City Clerk. - ,~..,~'/~/'/~/~ May~r ~ - Attes~ City Cler~ .~ INT,t"AZC £ PERriI't For ,ontinu~ng the Present Use oI' o %:,ructur~' or Improvement on Public Lands or Commons Do you have an imorovement or structure on Public Lands or ConTmon$? -~ yes, list them / ,' '"' ~/A,.E OF COii,'iONS/PUBLIC LAi;D ~,~" ~ , / ~ // 4/ _.. ~BUTTIi:S LOT~ ,~as s Dermit issue5 ~o authorize the construction of t~is improve~ · -:ent or structure? rl'~ If yes, month and year: 7,,~'~' .~PPLICA'_.~T ~'MST FURNISH THE FOLIOWII'G: Copy of permit issued to authorize construction. drawn to scale showing dimensions of t~,, One plot plan structure/improvement and location of same· One set of plsns an~ specificstions of sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the nature and extent of the structure or improve~:ent. Show foundation plan, floor ~lan, front and side elevation, wsl! and roof section detail. Photographs of existing struc~ure/imorovement. DATE OAT" ! J I, I J Iii ! I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC L~ND TOALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIIta% CO~ON, ABUTTING 1559 EAGLE LANE, FOR D. BOLICK & D. WATSON OF L$59 EAGLE LANE, DOCK SITE #02000 WHEREAS, The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires city Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, this stairway is constructed with concrete block and wood, it has an odd rise and run and needs an approved handrail, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands Permit for D. Bolick and D. Watson, Dock Site #02000, to allow reconstruction of the existing stairway on Waurika Common subject to the following conditions: ae Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building official prior to any work being done. bo Ce The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the~, ,,.O.',~~o~t~ and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Se The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within two (2) years of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMI.qSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK HXTB #02000 DAVE BOLXCK & DXANA WATSON, X$59 EAGLE L]~NE ~TAXRW&Y Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves only a stairway, it is constructed with concrete block and wood, it has an odd rise and run and needs an approved handrail. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a new stairway to code. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building Official prior to any work being done. This approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 20 The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Diana Watson stated that she does not dispute the fact that the stairway does not meet code and they are willing to modify the exiting stairway to meet code rather than build a "new" stairway as staff's report states, and they would like to have two years instead of one year to accomplish this. Ms. Watson made the following observations and suggestions to the Park Commission and staff: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Make language clearer in staff reports as to who should be submitting plans. Clarify policy and legal issues. The Commission members should personally visit all sites. Qualified staff should be present at the meetings to answer questions. All language is vague in information she has reviewed relating to structures on public lands. The permit process should be expedited. Exceptions to the rules should be considered. The Park Commission questioned why the applicant needs two years to fix the stairway. Ms. Watson commented that the stairway is not considered hazardous, and that they plan to have it fixed within one year, but in case that does not happen they would like two years. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the permit for D. Bolick and D. Watson, Dock Site $02000 to allow reconstruction of the stairway, and if compliance has not been achieved within two (2) years of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the city Council on August 24, 1993. It · I, I · ii I I CITY of ,r'IO TND 53-'i M~ d.'~'OOD ROAD MOUN£ !,~NNES,~TA55364 ~AX .¢~2 472 062? DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: ABUTTING OWNER & DOCK HOLDER: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ' Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1559 Eagle Lane, Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Woodland Point PID 212-117-24 43 0003 D. Bolick & D. Watson Waurika 02000 D Update of Public Land Permit Backqround This permit update involves only a stairway, it is constructed with concrete block and wood, it has an odd rise and run and needs an approved handrail. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a new stairway to code. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building Official prior to any work being done. This approval is subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutting owners have been notified, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. printed on recycled paper Counciimember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO, 78-443 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARK COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE COMMONS MAIN- TENANCE PERMITS AND STAIRS AT END OF WOODLAND ROAD BE REMOVED AND METAL FIRE ESCAPES NOT BE ACCEPTED AS STAIRS ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, the Park Commission must recommend whether Commons Maintenance Permits are to be continued and allowed, and WHEREAS, listed below are the permits and encroachments on commons that must have Council approval: 1545 Bluebird Lane 1551 Bluebird Lane 1554 Bluebird Lane 1587 Bluebird Lane 1593 Bluebird Lane 1599 Bl~ebutd Lane 1601 Bluebird Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1555 Dove Lane 1558 Dove Lane 1562 Dove Lane 1559 Eagle Lane 1566 Eagle Lane 1583 Gull Lane 1661 Gull Lane 5000 Enchanted Road 4964 Paradise 1749 Wildhurst 1767 Wildhurst 1733 Gull Lane 1720 Dove Lane 1749 Bluebird 1737 Canary Lane 1716 Blueblrd 1586 Dove 1600 Heron Posts & Rope Railing remove fire ring & Natural stairway flower bed Picnic Table & trash can Stairway (needs 1 handrail, remove metal stakes & general cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides cleanup) Wooden stairway (needs handrail 2 sides) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Retaining wall (needs repair) Steel stairway (needs 2 handrails) Wooden shed (paint earthtone) Steel stairway Steel shed (remove within 1 yr) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) Concrete steps (needs 2 handrails) Concrete steps Stairway (Remove) Wooden stairway (needs 2 handrails) Railroad ties to sod access (General cleanup markers installed & owner billed) Cement stairway (needs 2 handrails cleanup) Storage Bldg (has no foundation) Wooden Shed (needs repair general cleanup) Stairway & retaining wall Birdhouse Stairway (needs 1 handrail) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair step) 'Sandbox Stairway (needs 2 handrails) Stairway (needs 2 handrails & repair) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby concur with the recommendation of the Park Co~issJon to approve the commons maintenance permits and stairs at end of Woodland Road be removed and metal fire escapes not be accepted as stairs on the commons. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutlon was duly seconded by Councllmember Polston, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followlng voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Withhart, the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolutlon was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his slgnatur~test~d by the City Clerk. '~1~.~,. May6r '"X. - Attest~ City Clerk ,I ! 1, I I ii I I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR & PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF ~N EXISTING STAIRWAY ON NAURIKA COMMON, ABUTTING 1566 EAGLE LANE FOR OF HELEN EISS OF 1563 EAGLE LANE DOCK SITE #02100 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or ¢om~ons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, staff has noted this stairway is in need of repair or replacement, and; WHEREAS, Ms. Eiss states that the stairway was replaced in about 1979 and feels it is in good safe condition, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the continuation of the stairway in its existing condition for Helen Eiss, Dock Site #02100, upon the following conditions: a. The stairway be allowed to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe. b. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. c. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK BITE $02100 HELEN EIBB, 1563 EAGLE LANE ABUTTING ADDRESS 1566 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Casey commented that this stairway is nice, it has handrails and it is safe and strong, and it appears there is nothing wrong with it. Helen Eiss commented that she already replaced the stairway once, approximately 1979. Ahrens suggested that the Building official specifically indicate what is wrong with each stairway. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of a Continuation of Structure permit for Helen Eiss, Dock Bite $02100 to allow the stairway to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534' MAYWOOD MOUND. %;INNESOTA E~64 '687 612~ 472-060'_ FAX ~612) 4.72 DATE: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official 3~-~7' Jim Fackler, Parks Director ABUTTING 1566 Eagle Lane, Lots 3, 4, & 5, Block 2, Woodland Point ADDRESS: PID 212-117-24 43 0002 ABUTTING OWNER: Steve Welch DOCK SITE HOLDER: Helen Eiss, 1563 Eagle Lane COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 02100 CLASS: D SUBJECT: Update of Public Land Permit Backqround This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutting owner~ have been notified, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. printed on recycled paper I i 1, I I ii I I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO REMOVE ST&IRW~Y FROM PUBLIC LANDS ON WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1555 DOVE LANE, DOCK SITE #01940 & 01960 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, this is an old switchback stairway/path that no one claims ownership to. The stair serves two dock sites, however, this stairway is not needed to access the docks as this area of Waurika Commons is traversable, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this issue and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To direct City staff to remove the stairway, and that the costs incurred not be taken out of the dock fund. m · l, I · ii I I MI3%qJTES OF A/~EETING OF TIIE MOLIND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE CO,%~tlSSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCg SX?l ~'0~.940 i ~f01960 ~BU1'TXNG ~)DRIgS8 1SSS DOVB L~qB 8TAIR~Y Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This is an old switchback stairway/path that no one claims ownership to. The stair serves two dock sites, however, this stairway is not needed access the docks as this area of Waurika Commons is traversable. It is possible a future dock site holder will request a stairway in this location as it is conveniently located to the dock sites. Staff recon~efided the Council direct staff to remove the stair and restore the area with seed and mulch. Removal would be under the direction of the Bulldinq Official and Parks Director with the Parks DepartBent staff. NOTZO~ made by Casey, seconded by Schnidt to recommend City staff remove the stairway, and that the costs incurrsd not be taken out of the dock fund. Xotion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council Auqust 24, 1993. CITY of NIOUND f '-'-:' ' ?-" -'V;,ZGZ ~C ': l BTAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1555 Dove Lane, Lot 1, 27 & part of 2 & 6, Block 4, Woodland Point, PID #12-117-24 43 0059 ABUTTING OWNER: Vera Frahm DOCK SITE HOLDER: Ron Chase, 1567 Canary Lane Wm. Howell, 1562 Dove Lane COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 01960 (Chase), 10940 (Howell) CLASS .' D SUBJECT: Update of Public Land Permit Sackqround This is an old switchback stairway/path that no one claims ownership to. The stair serves two dock sites, however, this stairway is not needed as this area of Waurika Commons is traversable. It is possible a future dock site holder will request a stairway in this location as it is conveniently located to the dock sites. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends to the Council direct staff to remove the stair and restore the area with seed and mulch. Removal would be under the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director with the Parks Department staff. The abutting owner~ have been notified, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Augu~ 24, 1993. ~ printed on recycled ! I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- ,,. RESOLUTION TO ~PPROVE ~ SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR ~ PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC L~ND TO ALLOW REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STaIRWaY ON N2~URIKA CO~ON ~BUTTING 1559 EAGLE L~NE FOR MICHAEL FREEMAN OF 1591 EAGLE L~NE DOCK SITE #02020 WHEREAS, The city of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHERF2%S, City Code Section 320, requires city Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, this permit involves a stairway with a ramp, it is in poor condition and the ramp is not considered a permanent solution as it can be slippery and could be hazardous. A level walkway with additional steps is recommended was staff, and; WHERE~S, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow repairs to a stairway on Waurika Common, Dock site $02020, Abutting 1559 Eagle Lane, for Michael Freeman of 1591 Eagle Lane, subject to the following conditions: a. the stairway be corrected to a safe condition and that it be allowed to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe, whichever comes first. b. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. c. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. d. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of city Council approval. e. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. f. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK SITE $02020 MICHAEL FREEMAN, 1591 EAGLE LANE ABUTTING ADDRESS 1559 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a stairway with a ramp, it is in poor condition and the ramp is not considered a permanent solution as it can be slippery and could be hazardous. A level walkway with additional steps is recommended by staff. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The Park Commission discussed the ramp and considered it necessary and a common answer to traverse the riprap. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of a permit for Michael Freeman, Dock Site $02020 to allow the stairway to be corrected to a safe condition and that it be allowed to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe, the lesser of the two. Motion carried unanimously. This permits will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of ,XlOUND STAFF REPORT z~'~T t.' ','.-_-STTA 553%-.I FAX 6'2 -'-2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~.~- Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1559 Eagle Lane, Lots 1, 2, 3, BloCk 3, Woodland Point PID $12-117-24 43 0003 ABUTTING OWNER: D. Bolick & D. Watson DOCK SITE HOLDER: Michael Freeman, 1591 Eagle Lane COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 02020 CLASS: SUBJECT: D Update of Public Land Permit This permit update involves a stairway with a ramp, it is in poor condition and the ramp is not considered a permanent solution as it can be slippery and could be hazardous. A level walkway with additional steps is recommended by staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutling owners have been notified, and this is ~cheduled to be heard by the City Council on Augusl 24, 1993. ~0~ ~ printed on recycled paper · · u I I Rev£sed 7/22/93 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SHEET City of Mound ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY NON-ABUTTING DOCK SIT~. ~OLDER PHONE (h) (w) NAME OF PUBLIC LAND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: LOT(S) ADDITION PHONE (w) SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO BLOCK PID ~ CONDITION OF ENCROACHMENT ENCROACHMENTS STAFF CO~ENTS ~ R~.CO~ENDATIONS: ~&~&~ 3'M'*n"'nal comeu~ li~te~l on revere side... DATE: ~o73 R-vised 5/17/93 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 55364 Distribut io.n.: Building official MCWD DNR LMCD TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one)~ I I _1 i i_ Date Received Park Meeting Date city Council Date CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE.' NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTEqUATiON OF STRUCTUKE - to a~ow an existing xmprovement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4) .... - ;a;f 2jJ/tJ; Vwork 2ri i; icl iKctu&; like boathouses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the Ci%~ to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits granted are for a limited time, are non-transferable, and the structure must meet State Building Code. ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: LOT(S) OWNER'S DAY PHONE BLOCK PID $ ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND [^_/a,( )~/ ~ DOCK SITE ~__~O ........ SHOREI-~D CLASSIFICATION APPLIC~T'S N~E & ADDRESS (if different) /~/ ~..,,~ - CONTRACTOR pERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR' S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE $ PHONE $ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): . ,- .-,-., ,-~C~J J Date I i I, I I ii I i 5/2?/93 Public Land Information Sheet ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Subject Property: 02O2O Legal Description of Subject Property: Lot(s) Subdivision Name Block PID ~ /~ A ZC~ I K Name of Abutting Public Land Shoreland Classification of Abutting Land ~ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Staff noted encroachment use or improvements on the subject property, as follows: Se If any other issues need to be addressed, please list the items below and return this form with your application. Rovieed 2/18/92 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SIIEET City of Mound ADDRESSOFABUTTINGPROPERTY / .~'_~' ? ! .5'9/ &-,,; G t..~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: OWNER'S PHONE LOT(S) BLOCK ADDITION PID t NAME OF PUBLIC LAND Ld.~.,/2; ~.~ ,(~ 1~/~1 DOCK SITEt ~ ~ ~ .~ S~VEY ON FILE? YES / NO SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION D PHOTOGRAPHS ON FILE? YES / NO AUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE UlqAUTHORIZED ENCROACfLMElqT8 COMPLETED BY: DATE: I · 1, I · ii I I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION $93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING XXXX EAGLE LANE (N. END OF RD.) FOR GILBERT SCHRUPP OF 1661 EAGLE LANE DOCK SITE #02060 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, city Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, this permit involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement to code, as some portions are rotted. WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow repairs to a stairway on Waurika Common located at the north end of Eagle Lane for Gilbert Schrupp of 1661 Eagle Lane, subject to the following conditions: a. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. b. Allow minor repairs including tread replacement, to make the stairway safe. c. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. d. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval or until it is deemed unsafe (the lesser of the two), and safety compliance must be attained in 1 year. e. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. f. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. I HNIYFES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMI qSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK SITE f02060 GILBERT SCHRUPP~ 1661 EAGLE LANE ABUTTING ADDRESS XXXX EAGLE LANE (N. END OF STREET) STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement to code, as some portions are rotted. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building Official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. Se If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Andersen to recommend approval of the permit for Gilbert Schrupp, Dock Site #02060 to allow minor repairs including tread replacement, to make the stairway safe. The stairway should be allowed to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe (the lesser of the two), and safety compliance must be attained in I year. Motion carried unanimously. This permits will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. ! J I, I ! Iii ! I CITY of ,%'IOUND STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official A~' Jim Fackler, Parks Director ABUTTING Eagle Lane north, end of street ADDRESS: DOCK SITE HOLDER: Gilbert Schrupp, 1661 Gull Lane COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 02060 CLASS: D SUBJECT: Update of Public Land Permit Backqround This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement to code, as so~e portions are rotted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building Official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The ~a~ling owrgrs l~v¢ been notified, and this is s~heduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. 4o ~ printed on recycled Revised 7/22/93 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SI~ET City of Mound ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY · ~ , ,, :_~-:~;~ 'PHONE (h) NON-ABUTTING DOCK SITE HOLDER PHONE (w) (w) DOCKSITE, 0 ZO~O SHORELANDCLASSIFICATION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: LOT(S) BLOCK PID , CONDITION OF ENCROACHMENT ADDITION ENCROACHMENTS STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: DATE: 7-Z7-~'~ 2/18/92 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SIIEET City of Mound ADDRESSOF ABUTTING PROPERTY LEGAL ~EfiCRIPTION OF ~U~IN~ PROPERTY: LOT(S) BLOCK ADDITION PID ~ OWNER' S PHONE NAME OF PUBLIC LAND ~.? ~ ~l ~; ~/9 DOCKSITE~ O ~1 6~,~- ~'~ SHORELANDCLASSIFICATION SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO PHOTOGRAPHS ON FILE? YES / NO AUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: COMPLETED BY: DATE: J · 1, J · II1 I CIT ' of XlOLTND ~TAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official A~ · Jim Fackler, Parks Director ABUTTING Eagle Lane north, end of street ADDRESS: DOCK SITE HOLDER: Gilbert Schrupp, 1661 Gull Lane COMMONS: Waurika DOCK SITE: 02060 CLASS: D SUBJECT: Update of Public Land Permit Backqroun4 This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement to code, as some portions are rotted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building Official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutting owners have been notified, and Ibis is scheduled to be heard by Ibc City Council on Augus~ 24, 1993. 4o printed on recycled paper PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC L]tND TO ~LLOW THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON WAURIK~ COMMON ANUTTING 1566 EAGLE LANE FOR STEVE WELCH OF 1566 EAGLE LANE, DOCK SITE #02250 WHEREAS, The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires city Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, this stairway consists of a simple two riser concrete step in good condition and a walkway that traverses the shoreline, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow continuation of the stairway located on Waurika Common, abutting 1566 Eagle Lane, for Steve Welch, Dock Site #02250, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant is responsible for maintenance. b. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. c. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. ii j I, ! ! II1 I I MINUT~ OF A M~EETING OF TItE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMI.qSION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCK SITE $02250 STEVE NELCH~ 1566 EAGLE L~d~E STAIRWAY & WALKWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a simple two riser concrete step in good condition and a walkway that traverses the shoreline. Staff recommended approval of a Permit for Continuation of a Structure, subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for maintenance. 2. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Casey to recommend approval for a permit for Steve Welch, Dock Site $02250, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. STAFF REPORT DATE TO: FROM ABUTT I NG ADDRESS: ABUTTING OWNER & DOCK HOLDER: OOMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official A~~ . Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1566 Eagle Lane, Lots 3, 4, & 5, Block 2, Woodland Point PID 212-117-24 43 0002 Steve Welch Waurika 02250 D Update of Public Land Permit Backqround This permit update involves a simple two riser concrete step in good condition and a walkway that traverses the shoreline. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Permit for Continuation of a Structure, subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for maintenance. 2. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. The aNming owner% have been no6fied, and this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. ~"'~Og~ ~ c' -'ed or~ recycled pape, I ! I, I I Ii ! I This resolution is based upon Park and Open Space Commission recommendation. This resolution does not reflect staff recommendation. Please see attached Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of 8-12-93. PROPOSED RESOLUTION $93- ,. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON NAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1566 EAGLE LANE FOR RALPH MCFALL OF DOCK SITE $02180 ARD WILLIAM TOSIER OF DOCK SITE $02200 WHEREAS, the city of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the subject stairway is located in front of 1566 Eagle Lane and is shared by two dock license holders. The stairway is in need of repair or replacement. WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve a Special Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow an existing stairway to remain on Waurika Common abutting 1566 Eagle Lane, servicing Dock Sites $02180 and ~02200, subject to the following conditions: a. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval or until it is deemed unsafe, or the lesser of the two. b. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. I · I, I · ii I I MINUTES OF A M~EETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMM1F, SION AUGUST 12, 1993 DOCH SITE J02180, RALPH MCFALL DOCH 8ITE J02200t WILLIAH TOSIER ABUTTING ADDRESS 1566 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY (SHARED} Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. The subject stairway is located in front of 1566 Eagle Lane and is shared by two dock license holders. The stairway is in need of repair or replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of the permit for Ralph McFa11, Dock site $02180, and #illiam Tosier, Dock Site $02200, to allow the stairway to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe, the lesser of the two. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: ABUTTING ADDRESS: ABUTTING OWNER: August 12, 1993 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official~5 - Jim Fackler, Parks Director 1566 Eagle Lane, Lots 3, 4, & 5, Block 2, Woodland Point PID #12-117-24 43 0002 Steve Welch DOCK SITE HOLDER: Ralph McFall, 1587 Gull Lane William Tosier, 1583 Gull Lane (shared stairway) COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: Waurika 02180 (McFall), 02200 (Tosier) D Update of Public Land Permit Backqround This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutting owners have been no6fied, and this is scheduled to be heard by 0~e City Council on August 24, 1993. ~0 ~ printedonrecycledpaper I I 1, I I HI I I McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd ~,,enue North, Plymoutr~, Minnesota 56447 Te ephone 6*2. 476-6010 6~ 2 476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors August 16, 1993 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 AUS [ ? 1993 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1993 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Payment Request in the amount of $37,755.72 for the 1993 Seal Coat Program. The contract price for this project was $38,570.50. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with your Street Superintendent and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC: jmk Enclosures '~0~ ,~n Eq,¢a~ 0~. so,1 ~ ~ t¥ Ernplo,., e' Jl · I, II · Ill I CITY OF HOUND QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION cc: CITY COUNCIL 8-24-93 Portable signs used For the purpose oF directing the public used in conJunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public Function, The period oF use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval oF the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises oF the advertised event. A permit is required, however is exempt From all Fees. ADDRESS Of SIGN//~OCATION (if o~her ~han o~ner) ~EASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: PHONE PHONE,/7/ 7,~-/~ ,~/-/ 7 DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, ts it Illuminated, etc.): SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~-[ LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED: high x (4~ wide = Z~ sq. Ft. DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST: Applicant's Signature Date ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CiTY COUEIL ON: ! · 1, I · II1 I I RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR YEAR 19 WHEREAS, the City of Mound has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1993 (Year 19) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a recipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mound City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk A. THOMAS WUI~ST, p A. CurTIS A. PEARSON. R~A ~JAME;S ID. I_~SON. P.A. TI-lOMAS F'. UNDE;RwOOD. [D.A. ROGER ~J. F'E;LLOWS WURST, PEARSON, DARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ ONIr FINANCIAL PLAZA. SUIT[ IIOO I~0 SOUTH 51XTH 5TR[[T MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1803 August 18, 1993 R[C'D AU6 1. 9 1993 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re' City Code Ordinance Amendment - Liquor Ordinance Dear Ed: The City recently had a case with the Headliners Bar concerning the consumption of liquor after hours. The license holder was charged under our ordinance. It then came to our attention that the Supreme Court had changed the law relating to vicarious liability for licensees holding a intoxicating liquor license. Based upon the Supreme Court decision, Mr. Larson dismissed the charges. I have asked Jim to review the ordinances and make some suggested changes. I am enclosing a copy of his memorandum to me, and I have prepared an ordinance amendment relating to intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor. I would appreciate it if you would submit the amendment to the Council for consideration. Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP:ih Enclosure MEMO: TO: CA PEARSON FROM: JD LARSON RE: LIQUOR ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS You asked me to recommend changes to the liquor ordinance to fix the problem we ran into in the recent prosecution of an after hours violation at Headliners. I charged the owner under our ordinance which holds the licensee responsible for the actions of his employees. Our supreme court struck down that concept of vicarious liability of a licensee for the acts of his employees in State v Guminqa, 395 N.W.2d 344 (1986), finding the vicarious liability provision to be a violation of due process. Since I couldn't prove that the Headliners licensee actually knew that there was a violation in progress, I dismissed the charges. First, I think the vicarious liability provision in our ordinance should remain unchanged. I just won't be prosecuting licensees under that provision unless the facts show that they were aware of the violation. But I see nothing wrong with keeping that provision in the ordinance. Guminqa was a criminal case. Suspending a license for a violation of the ordinance is still within the council's purview, even if the licensee was not present or not aware of the actual offending event. Secondly, the actual offense at Headliners involved employees at the bar drinking after hours. That conduct is expressly prohibited in the 3.2 ordinance (810:40, Subd 1 prohibits selling, serving or consuming after hours). Section 800 has no similar prohibition. I would add the following to Section 800:40: Subd. 5. No intoxicating liquor shall be sold, served or consumed on the licensed premises during the times when a sale is prohibited by law. This section would apply to all persons, including employees. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SUBD. 5 TO SECTION 800:40 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND ADDING SUBD. 8 TO SECTION 810:50 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR OR BEER The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 800:40 of the City Code is amended by adding Subd. 5 which shall read as follows: Section 800:40. Subd. 5. No intoxicating liquor shal~ be sold~ served., o_~r conS~me-~-oR,~he licensed premises du~ing the time when ~ sale i_~s ~ by law. Section 810:50 of the City Code is amended by adding Subd. 8 which shall read as follows: Section 810:50. Subd. 8. No non-intoxicating mal~ liquor ~beer) shal____~l b_ge sold~ served, or consume~ on the licensed premises, durinq th~ time when sale. i_~s prohibited b~ law.. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by City Council Published in Official NewspaperL [] · l, I · Ii I I BILLS August 24, 1993 BATCH 3082 Total Bills $142,538.15 $142,538.15 0 t/~ 0 ~ 0 u. ~0 · ,-, o i I I o C~ Z NJ ii g ! ..J ,Il i I, I I 1411:111+1111 00000000000 0~0000~0.0 ,"~ I,- Ok-. ZO I I I o o o o o o .-4 ~-t ! ! o 31o o~ I · I I I Z: bJ Z: Z o Itlllllll 000000~ ~~000 00, O0 ~000~ ~000 ~000 0~0 IIIJ 0oo0 ~o~ till o0oo0oo0oo o0oo0oo0o~ 000000000 Illllllll i . I · l, I · I I ).,.~ Z Z 0 0 . ZZ o ! ! I ~0~ O~ Z Z ~J Z 0 O~Z Z 00 ~J ,( Z O~ Z Z ZZ oO o o Z o oo oo o o I- 0 0 Z bJ Z 0 ,( I o 0oo0O ~.4 o o 0 ~1 oooo ~0oo I I I ,I uJ 0 Z 0 ~r o UJ o Z · 0 uJ Oo ~d 0 O0 Z I0 oo a., 0 0 o ~4 O0 o Oo o oo ~Ioo · , e !o o [ · o 0 .4' ~0 J 0 0 ~J Z UJ CI*O o o '7 ! o ~4 0oo oo~-t oo I ! ,.4,-I oo o ~4 ~o Z 0~o0~ 0 0 ..r- Z Z ~ ~0 0 t.kl ~ t-~ 0 Z uJ [] · l, I I, Ii ! ,I CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT JULY 1993 58.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non- Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments JULY 1993 YTD PER CENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,217,590 553,013 553,013 (664,577) 45.42% 3,260 0 10,004 6,744 306.87% 69,500 10,899 40,636 (28,864) 58.47% 860,500 392,067 427,207 (433,293) 49.65% 48,750 1,251 6,733 (42,017) 13.81% 65,000 4,089 29,061 (35,939) 44.71% 58,500 (4,467) 15,038 (43,462) 25.71% 12,390 1,050 8,997 (3,393) 72.62% TOTAL REVENUE 2 335 490 957,902 1,090,689 {1.244.801) 46.70% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUN D SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 244,200 49,617 197,649 (46,551) 80.94% 113,550 3,341 64,790 (48,760) 57.06% 1,200,000 154,315 762,071 (437,929) 63.51% 350,000 29,617 187,145 (162,855) 53.47% 650,000 54,677 375,964 (274,036) 57.84% 4,200 400 3,675 (525) 87.50% 73,280 663 70,439 (2,841) 96.12% 08/11/93 rev-93 G.B. ;31o7 CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT JULY 1993 58.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL JULY 1993 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE PER CENT EXPENDED 57,500 3,699 33,227 24,273 57.79% 2,000 (3,816) 1,824 176 91.20% 1,380 139 711 669 51.52% 170,380 14,994 97,117 73,263 57.00% 2,140 93 2,138 2 99.91% 46,550 46,615 46,929 (379) 100.81% 145,900 11,010 81,536 64,364 55.88% 24,000 81 17,410 6,590 72.54% 79,000 17,085 54,858 24,142 69.44% 779,200 61,291 423,212 355,988 54.31% 4,000 1,004 2,255 1,745 56.38% 138,440 12,454 72,138 66,302 52.11% 406,750 34,995 202,875 203,875 49.88% 17,1 O0 627 2,662 14,438 15.57% 97,160 8,792 56,559 40,601 58.21% 174,340 16,678 104,927 69,413 60.19% 33,1 O0 0 0 33,1 O0 0.00% 10,000 0 1,090 8,910 10.90% 136,840 10,243 71,703 65,137 52.40% 2,325,780 ~ .1,273,171. 1,052,609 54.74% Area Fire Service Fund Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 244,200 26,512 159,616 84,584 65.36% 99,350 22,086 90,700 8,650 91.29% 194,620 16,798 119,829 74,791 61.57% 358,190 20,726 196,458 161,732 54.85% 761,350 72,411 501,048 260,302 65.81% 4,790 256 2,340 2,450 48.85% 55,440 2,535 29,144 26,296 52.57% exp-9~ 08/11/93 G.B. HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 4'17 North Fifth Street Minneapolis;' Minnesota 5540'1-'1309 Phone: (612) 348-6846 FAX: [6t2) 348-8532 August 3, 1993 AUG .~ ':i.9~ Mr. Ron Moorse, City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse: Hennepin County would like to hold a community household hazardous waste event collection this fall in the City of Orono. The County would like to host its Orono collection on the weekend of September 17th and 18th from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. The County would like to use its Orono site at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The collection would be primarily for the cities around Lake Minnetonka. The County will need the name of the project coordinator for the City. Please have this coordinator contact Louisa Tallman at 348-9939. Like last year, the responsibilities for the event will be divided between the City and the County. Attached is a listing of the City's responsibilities and the County's responsibilities. Details will have to be worked out between the County coordinator and your site coordinator. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. We look forward to working with you on the event collections in the fall of 1993. Sincerely, Director Enclosure c: John Gerhardson, Director of Public Works HENNEPIN COUNTY on ~::iuol oppot~nlh/employer WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION Greenfield-Independence-Long Lake-Loretto-Maple Plain-Medina-Orono 65 Stubbs Bay Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 476-0012 August 12, 1993 The Mayor and City Council City of Mound Household Hazardous Waste Days Friday September 17 & Saturday September 18, 1993 Hennepin County Public Works Site - County Road 15 Hennepin County is holding Household Hazardous Waste collection again this year for cities primarily around Lake Minnetonka (refer to letter copied on opposite side). We have been asked to provide safety officials, 2 forklifts & operators, disposal of non-hazardous waste, food & food service for workers, a local coordinator, and local promotion. Would Mound: Provide two forklift operators on Saturday, September 18 from 8:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.; A coordinator for food & food service (Joyce Nelson); and, if needed, uniformed safety officials? As local coordinator for this event, I would appreciate a call (476-0012) to let me know your decision. If I do not hear from you by the end of August, I will call your city offices. I have included a small two-sided poster to be displayed on a window, door or bulletin board at your City Hall. Thank you and hoping to hear from you shortly regarding your city's participation in this most important environmental protection event. Sincerely, Amelia Kroeger /~ WHRC Recycling Coordinator enclosure Printed on Recucled Pal.~'r ,- · i, I · ii I i HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DAYS Friday Sept. 17 & Saturday Sept. 18, 1993 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. each day Hennepin County Public Works Site 3880 Shoreline Drive ~ County Road 15 Paints and Paint Thinner.s Solvents and Wood Preservatives Pesticides and Garden Chemicals Cleaning Solvents Motor Oil Car Batteries Button & Rechargeable Batteries Rechargeable Stol, Appliances Hobby Chemicals Tires (small fee) Automotive Chemicals Electronic Goods Pool Chemicals Fluorescent · Explosives Radioactive Materials Compressed Gas Unidentified Wastes Infectious (Medical) Wastes Business Ha~rdous Wastes Phone West Hennepin Recycling Commission at 476-0012 for information. Sponsored by Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Printed on RecTcled Paper 3113 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TIHz~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1993 Those present were: chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, city Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: John Royer, Darlene Maxwell, John Maxwell, Peter Goshgarian, Paul Goshgarian, Joseph Rice, Jeff Sveum, Nicole Sveum, Connie Szarka, James Walton, Stan Mierzejewski, Beverly Mierzejewski, and Gregory Keller. The Planning Commission Minutes of July 12, 1993 were presented for approval. Voss noted that on pages 12, 15, and 16 of the minutes, within the motions, Voss is shown as voting, and he was not present. Voss is to be deleted from these motions. It was noted that the count on the votes were correct. Michael noted that the motion approving the June 28, 1993 minutes on page 1 should read "as revised." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of July 12, 1993 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Case//93-036: Jeffrey and Nicole Sveurn, 5809 Grandview Blvd., Lot 92, Mound Shores, PID #14-117-24 14 0031. VARIANCE FOR DECK~ Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to the required 6 feet in the R-2 zone in order to construct a conforming front deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance of 1 foot to the required 6 foot side yard setback to the existing dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming deck as it is impractical to move the dwelling to a conforming location. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Case//93-037: Richard Jostrom, 3021 Brighton Blvd., Lots 6 & 31, Block 15, Arden, PID #24-117-24 43 0007. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to City Code Section 350:435 that states garages may not exceed the height of the principal building. The dwelling, according to current ordinance, is substandard in area and has a roof slope less than the garage resulting in the variance request. The proposed addition is conforming, however, it limits the ability for future expansion onto the dwelling. The driveway, as shown on the site plan, is green space in the center and represents a difficult enforcement situation for staff. Staff recommended approval of the request for a height variance to allow the garage to exceed the height of the principal dwelling with the following conditions: 1. The garage addition shall not exceed the height of the existing garage. 2. The applicant and the city are aware this approval limits the future expansion area of the dwelling. 3. The 4' x 35' green space in the center of the driveway shall be maintained as permeable surface as defined in the ordinance. Hanus expressed a concern about the driveway as proposed, he does not feel the Planning Commission should promote this type of alternative to help alleviate hardcover; he does not want to see these "cow path" type driveways all over town. Mueller is in favor of the "cow path" type of driveway as he feels nothing will be parked there because things will be parked inside the garage as it is so large. It was noted that the size of the dwelling is substandard to what our ordinance requires. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Johnson commented that $3 in staff's recommendation relating to required maintenance of the green space in the driveway should not be a part of the recommendation as the proposal meets the impervious surface coverage requirements. Hanus agreed and requested the motion be amended not to include condition $3 of staff's recommendation. Voss and Clapsaddle accepted an amendment to their motion to exclude condition $3 from staff's recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Meyer questioned if the proposed driveway size is realistic as it is only 8 feet wide and there will be a 16 foot wide garage door. He does not feet the garage size is conducive for the lot. Mueller questioned if there is a provision in the ordinance which restricts the size of accessory structures not to exceed the size of the principal building. Sutherland noted that he did not see any restriction of this type in the ordinance. The Building official confirmed that the maximum size for an accessory structure is 1,000 square feet before fire wall separations are required, and this proposed garage will have a firewall separation allowing for a workroom at the lakeside of the structure. The upper level of the garage is for storage and has only a 7 foot high ceiling which is inadequate for habitable space. Mueller commented that he does not like the size of the garage compared to the size of the house and he does not see a hardship. Meyer does not believe the garage is conducive to the neighborhood. It was suggested that reasonable use of the property exists, as stated in Resolution $91-155, $3. MOTION failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus and Johnson. Those opposed were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Michael. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Michael, to deny the request for variance Motion to deny carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Michael. Those opposed were: Voss, Hanus and Johnson. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. Case g93-038: John and Darlene Maxwell, 3040 Highland Blvd., Lot 12, Block 2, The Highlands, PID #23-117-24 44 0004, VARIANCE FOR DECK, Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance and an after-the-fact building permit for a conforming deck onto the existing lakeside dwelling. A revised survey and hardcover calculations were received just prior to the meeting and copies were distributed to the Commissioners. The Building official reviewed the required variances from the setbacks shown on the revised survey. 1. bakeside Dwellings. This is the predominant building on the site, it has a .6 foot setback to the south side yard resulting in a variance of 9.4'. The setbacks to the top of the bluff and to the ordinary high water are conforming. I · ~, I I, ii I I Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Street Side Structure. Nonconforming as a dwelling and also to the required setbacks as listed below: Require4 Variance SETBACKS IF CONSIDERED ACCESSORY BUILDINO front 2 0 ' side 4 ' 21.5 ' okay 2.5' 1.5' SETBACKS IF CONSIDERED DWELLING front 30' 21.5' 8.5' side 10' 2.5' 7.5' SETBACKS TO CONCRETE ROOF OVER UNDERGROUND GARAGE IF CONSIDERED ACCESSORY BUILDING front 20' 10.8' 9.2' side 4' .5' over 4.5' 3. stairway mid-landinq (deck). This stairway appears to have been constructed within the iast three years without a permit, its mid-landing exceeds the maximum 32 square feet allowable in the shoreland management ordinance, Section 350:1225 3.b. The street side structure that was rented in the past is now vacant. After review of the property jacket, there are indications it was used as a cottage at least as far back as 1965. The sewer connection permit application in 1969 states two houses with separate billing for sewer· On my inspection of 6-30-93 I noted possible foundation problems with this unit. The Commission may wish to consider a reasonable amount of time to amortize this structure. Staff recommended approval of the variances to recognize the existing nonconforming lakeside dwelling in order to construct a conforming deck onto the lakeside dwelling with the following conditions: 1. The stairway landing be modified in width to a maximum 36 inches to reduce its impact as a deck, but still allow a walkway between the two stairs, and approve the issuance of an after-the-fact permit. 2. The street side dwelling is a legal nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval of a deck for the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by our code and the owners are encouraged to remove the street side building at the earliest date possible. The owners are further advised that city staff, the current Planning Commission and the City Council will not allow any Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 variances or work on the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with the current codes. Therefore, the owner should recognize that at some point the street side dwelling must be removed. Applicant, Mr. Maxwell, stated that he keeps his property and the street side structure well maintained and that the neighbors have been pleased. He stated that he did have the structure rented last year for a time, however, it only caused problems and they had to have the tenants evicted, therefore, he has no intentions to use it as a rental unit again. He uses the structure for a garage and storage. He feels the building is structurally sound. Weiland suggested the owner could remove the second floor of the structure and it would then become a conforming use. Clapsaddle did not agree with this comment as he feels the owner has the right to maintain his property value. Mueller questioned the Building official if there are not other lots in mound with two houses on one lot where both houses are being rented or occupied. The Building official commented that when he becomes aware of situations such as this he follows a procedure and notifies the owner that it is illegal. The applicant stated that he has counted 10 lots in Mound that have two houses on one lot and both are being occupied. Clapsaddle questioned the language in condition #2 of staff's recommendation which states, "The owners are further advised that city staff, the current Planning Commission and the City Council will not allow any variances or work . . ." Clapsaddle stated that this refers to the "current" commission, and if one member resigns it is no longer valid. In addition, the City should not require removal of the structure as it may remain as a cottage or a garage. It was suggested that the applicant should be allowed to work on the street side structure as long as the use remains such as a cottage or garage. Hanus suggested that condition #2 in staff's recommendation be modified by deleting all but the first sentence. Voss agreed. The general intent of condition #2 should be to not allow the street side structure to be used as a rental dwelling. The stairway to the lake was discussed, and the applicant stated he would like it to remain as is. The Planning Commission agreed that the stairway and landing should be allowed to remain as is. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance recognizing existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a conforming deck onto the lakeside dwelling upon the 5 t · t, I I, Ii ! ! Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 condition that the street side accessory structure be recognized as a legal nonconforming use and it shall not be used as a rental dwelling. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, V0ss, Hanus, and Michael. Jensen was opposed. Jensen commented that she will go on record as being opposed because she would like language which would let other people know that there is some discomfort with the use of the street side structure. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. Case g93-039; Joseph Rice, 1725 Resthaven Lane, Lot 20, Block 14, Shadywood Point, PID//13-117-24 11 0048. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to lot width of 10 feet and a variance of .7' to the required 30' front yard setback in order to construct a conforming addition onto the home. Staff recommended approval of the request as this property is a lot of record and the proposed work is conforming to the ordinance in all other respects. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. Case ~93-040: Dakota Rail, Inc., Preliminary and Final Plat request for "Dakota Rail 2nd Addition" for lands south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (,Iohn's Variety & Pets). PUBLIC HE~G. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's report. The applicant, Dakota Rail, Inc., is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat for "Dakota Rail 2nd Addition" which involves land just south of John Royer's property known as 2281 Commerce Blvd. The new parcel is proposed to be 5,838 square feet, and it is the intent of the applicant and new owner to combine the new lot with lot 52 which lies immediately to the north. The proposed lot is currently used for parking and it contains a portion of a bituminous surfaced area that houses a portable green house in the summer months. The existing uses are expected to remain on the site. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and does not see any need for drainage or utility easements. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Staff recommended approval of the preliminary and final plats for Dakota Rail 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. A lot variance of 1,662 square feet is hereby granted with the condition that the lot created by Dakota Rail 2nd Addition be combined with and made part of Lot 52 and that it be subject to the same ownership and security interests. 2. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Mueller questioned why staff was requiring that the new lot be combined with Lot 52? Mueller referred to the plat map and explained that Lot 52 includes parcels 31 through 38 and questioned if the intent was that all these parcels be combined, or that only parcel (36) be combined with the new lot. Hanus questioned why they need to approve a lot size variance when after the lots are combined it will be conforming to lot area. Greg Keller, attorney for John Royer, stated that he was not required to pay a variance application fee because it was determined it was not necessary, however, it was previously approved by the Council. Weiland commented, for a point of interest only, that it may be beneficial to include the southeast corner of the proposed parcel in this subdivision. What would happen to this corner of property if the railroad was removed; in his opinion it should become part of the lot being proposed with this application to avoid future complications with developments. Mr. Keller noted that the railroad lights are located in that corner and Dakota Rail would not include that land in the sale. Meyer questioned the right-of-way width requirements for future light rail transit. Greg Keller stated that the dimension dictated by the railroad authority is 8.5' from center line. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Goshgarian of 5965 Lakeview Drive, stated that he represents the property to the west where the apartments are, and he is in favor of good future planning. He would like the City to review how this subdivision interferes or accents the parking area, and questioned if Mr. Royer could now expand his building. It was clarified that the proposed lot extends 20' further west than the parcel to the north. Mr. Royer stated that he needs the additional 20 feet for parking. Mr. Goshgarian expressed a concern of how the 20 foot extension is going to be used. 312 7 ,I · 1, I · ii ! I Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Greg Keller stated that they are not in favor of paying a park dedication fee. He does not feel this proposal will impose more burden on parks in Mound as there will not be any developing, the use will remain the same. He added that in 1990 when this proposed subdivision was originally submitted and approved by the City no park dedication fee was required then, and the recent subdivision for Norwest was not required to pay a park dedication fee either. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. Hanus summarized that there are three questions relating to this proposal, 1) which parcel is the new lot to be combined with, 2) does a variance need to be granted, and 3) the question relating to the corner of the property where the railroad lights are, should this be divided differently considering future development? Johnson commented that he believes staff intent is to combine the lot with parcel (36) and referring to it as Lot 52 was just a mistake. He does not feel a lot area variance needs to be issued if the lots are combined. Mueller questioned why the subdivision should include property 20 feet further west than property to the north, zig zag lines are not clean and how will this jog affect the adjoining property? It was questioned why conditions that were listed in Resolution 90- 153 were not included in this request. MOTION made by Mueller, ·econded by Weiland to table this request for further clarification by staff relating to the following: 1. Should items A. 3, 4 and 5 of Resolution $90- 153 be included as condition· for this proposal? 2. What impact· will the Z0 foot westerly extension of the proposed lot have on this subdivision? 3.What is the new lot to be combined with, Lot 52 or Parcel (36)? 4. Recommend that there be no park dedication fee, as the parcels are being combined and the number of parcels is not changing. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, weiland, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. John·on oppo·ed. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 Johnson commented that he would have liked to move the proposal forward. The Planning Commission agreed that if Mark Koegler writes reports for the Planning Commission, he should be presenting them. Meyer suggested this issue be discussed later in the meeting. Case//93-041: James Walton, 1952 Shorewood Lane, Lot 14, Block 2, Shadywood Point, PID #18-117-23 23 0014. VARIANCE FoR DECK,. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance in order to reconstruct a previously existing deck on the home. Staff is unable to ascertain the setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) and has requested a revised survey as noted on his inspection notice dated 7-20-93. The applicant's hardcover calculations are also incomplete and could be verified by the survey. Staff has scaled the side setback to the east at 7 feet resulting in a 3 foot variance request. The applicant was reluctant to provide a revised survey so staff informed the applicant we would take the information as provided and present it to the Planning Commission. The surveyor, Schoell and Madson, confirmed that he cannot calculate lot area without the OHW elevation being identified. Staff recommended the Planning Commission table this issue until the applicant provides the required information to process the case. Applicant, Mr. Walton, informed the commission that he does not feel a new survey should be required. Both of his neighbors are in favor of the proposed deck. He believes he meets the 50 foot setback to the lake, according to his measurements. He stated that the building official measured to the edge of the water which is now about 1 foot higher than the OHW. He cannot afford $750 for a survey. In addition, he does not agree with the City's hardcover ordinance, he believes driveways of red rock should not be considered hardcover as they are pervious. He also added that the term ,,hardcover" is poorly used. He requested he building permit be issued and the $50 fee for the variance be refunded. Mueller commented that the applicant needs to show the 929.4 location, to verify the deck is 50 feet from the OHW. The applicant stated that he would be willing to locate the 929.4 so the Building official can verify the setback, but he will not spend $750 on a survey. He also stated that he would scale back the size of the deck, if it is required, to meet the 50 foot setback. The Planning Commission noted that hardcover calculations are needed to determine the variance. 9 ,! · 1, I · ii I i Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1993 MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request for a variance until the applicant supplies the Building Official with the following information: & surveyor locate the 929.4 ordinary high water elevation on a survey. A surveyor verify the lot area. The applicant submit hardcover with a sketch plan. calculations Motion carried unanimously. Case//93-042.'. Stan Mierzejewski, 1942 Shorewood Lane, Lot 12 and part of 11, Block 2, Shadywood Point, PID//18-117-23 23 0014. VARIANCE FOR DECK. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) from the deck. The proposal is identified in three stages and includes expanding the lakeside deck resulting in a setback variance to the OHW of 42'+/-, note C on the survey. The proposed decks noted on the site plan as A and B are conforming. It is also noted that both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake. The line-up provision of the City Code, Section 350:440, Subd. 6 is only applicable to the street side, not to the lakeshore. The original draft of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained this provision and it is acceptable to the DNR, however, it was deleted at the Planning Commission level and it is not part of the ordinance now. Staff recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that all proposed work be conforming to the 50 foot setback to the OHW. The Planning Commission verified with staff that the actual setback to the OHW is unknown. Since the original survey for this property the shoreline has eroded, therefore reducing the setback. The applicant, Stan Mierzejewski, stated that the proposed deck will not extend further towards the lake than the existing deck, and it will not extend further towards the lake than either adjacent neighbor's decks and he considers his request reasonable. 10 Planning commission Minutes August 9, 1993 The line-up provision was discussed, and it was determined that the setbacks of adjoining properties should not be taken into consideration, however the setback of the existing deck could be used for comparison. Meyer is not in favor of intensifying the existing nonconforming setback of the existing deck. Neighbor to the applicant, Connie Szarke stated she is in favor of the request for the deck. MOTION made by Muel~er, seconded by Weiland t~ recommend approval of a varxance to allow constructxon of the decks, upon the following conditions: 1. The owner/applicant establish the location of the ordinary high water elevation. 2. The lakeside deck shall not be closer than 40 feet to the ordinary high water elevation. 3. The lakeside deck shall not extend closer to the ordinary high water than the existing deck. Motion carried 9 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Meyer was opposed. Meyer questioned the hardship, and he feels the new deck should meet the 50 foot setback. The Building official suggested that the owner could do some shoreline restoration, and he reminded him that permits may be required. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. CITY COUNCIL REPRF ENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the city Council meeting Minutes from July 1993. She highlighted that at a COW meeting the Council discussed ways to reduce variances. She also noted the need to change the park dedication ordinance as the Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission agree it should be modified. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Attest: Chair, Bill Meyer 11 ! J 1, I J Ill I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1993 Present were: Commissioners Tom Casey, shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, and Carolyn Schmidt; Council Representative, Andrea Ahrens; Parks Director, Jim Fackler; and Secretary, Peggy James. Commissioners Lyndelle Skoglund and Mo Mueller were absent and excused. The following were also in attendance: Charles Champine, Diana Watson, David Bolick, Vera Frahm, Helen Eiss, and Dave Kunz. ELECT TEMPORARY CHAIR Marilyn Byrnes was unanimously elected to be Acting Chair. MINUTES The Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of July 8, 1993 were presented for approval. Ahrens noted a problem on page 7, Anderson was shown as voting both in favor and opposed to the motion, and Schmidt was omitted from the count. Schmidt stated that she vote in favor of the motion. Anderson also believed she voted in favor of the motion. Casey stated that he recalls Andersen voting in opposition. Schmidt noted that Lyndelle Skoglund should be listed as absent and excused. The Commission determined to discuss the minutes later in the meeting, and it was added as item 7.A. on the agenda. AGENDA CHANGES Casey requested the Commission discuss the NCA Plan status later in the meeting, it was added as 7.B. on the agenda. REVIEW 1993 PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM WITH JIM GLASOE, RECREATION COORDINATOR FOR WESTONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND SERVICES Jim Glasoe handed out packets to the Park and Open Space Commission which included miscellaneous promotional information and attendance figures. Also included was a flyer promoting a Celebrate Summer event to be held on Thursday, August 19, 1993, presenting "The Minneapolis Police Band." Jim stated that at this time he has no financial information as the last payroll is tomorrow, however, he believes they have fairly conformed to the budget. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 Glasoe reviewed that Grant Bergstrom, who had been Supervisor for the Parks Program for several years, submitted his resignation two weeks prior to the start of the season, and in turn, Jody Maas was hired. 35% of the staff was retained from the previous year. The attendance figures were reviewed. Attendance at Belmont Park was not as good as expected this year. Mound Bay Park had excellent attendance, and the attendance at Centerview increased. There was a total approximate increase of 20% in attendance from last year, weather is always a factor. Glasoe confirmed that he will have the 1994 budget review ready in September. Schmidt questioned if they had any special environmental education programs this year. Glasoe stated that due to the last minute staff changes, it was difficult to plan, however, they will work on it next year. Glasoe reviewed the Celebrate Summer events and commented that they had good attendance and plan to continue the program next year. UPDATE OF PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS - BATCH ~2 (WAURIKA COMMON) Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the Plan of Action approved by the city Council which resulted from the need to update the permits for private structures located on public lands. About 1-1/2 years ago staff began an inventory of the structures on the commons and other public shoreland. A Plan of Action and Procedure Manual to be utilized by the Parks Department and Planning & Inspections Department were approved by the City Council. The intent is to make these private structures located on public lands safe. City Codes have been amended accordingly to allow for updating of these permits. The Use Plan still needs to be updated. The Parks Director placed the revised flow chart on the overhead and informed the Park and Open Space Commission that they shall use this flow chart when reviewing permit requests. The intent of the procedure manual is to ensure consistency when reviewing applications. Permit renewal notifications were sent with handouts and applications, etc. Casey questioned if variances can be granted to the Uniform Building Code, and how does the Park and Open Space Commission go about deciding? Fackler stated that all recommendations will be that all structures meet code. Casey referred to Section 300:35 of the City Code, which states, "The Council may grant variances from Section 300 as provided in Section 325 hereof." The secretary stated she has heard the Building Official 2 ! J 1, I J, ~ I I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 comment at various times that variances cannot be granted to the Building Code. This issue will need to be clarified with the Building Official and/or City Attorney. DOCK BITE $01600 DAVID KUNZv 1546 BLUEBIRD LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. Staff has evaluated the stairway servicing this dock site and determined it is not in compliance with code and needs to be corrected. Mr. Kunz is not happy about being forced to replace the stair, it is his opinion that the existing location has the least amount of impact and that is what the Parks Commission wanted originally. This area has a steep slope and high erosion potential. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to correct the existing stairway or build a new stairway according to code. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building Official prior to any work being done. This approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. Se If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Mr. Dave Kunz addressed the Commission and stated that he has always tried and comply with City regulations and he likes the commons concept. He originally submitted plans for the stairway in 1985 that were approved by the City Council. The stairs are structurally sound, they are timbers dug into the hill to allow for minimum impact and to stabilize erosion. He stated that the average rise is 8-1/3" versus the required 8" maximum, and the average run is 8-3/4" versus the minimum 9", and there is no landing at 12 feet, the stairway is a maximum of 15 feet long. He does not have a problem with installing a legal handrail, and he noted that the top step has a 9" rise and he can correct this rise. Anything he changes will adversely affect the hillside, he would comply with staff's recommendation, but he is not happy about it. The timbers in the stairway are treated and painted and he believes it will 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 last a long time. The Commission clarified that none of the Commissioners, with the exception of Tom Casey, visited any sites. Ahrens stated that the stairway was constructed in 1985, therefore, it is fairly new. Casey commented that when he traversed the stairs he felt safe. There was a question of liability for not having a stairway that meets code. Mr. Kunz commented that there is a pathway on the commons that is frequently used and has a deep rut in it which could be very dangerous, and he has notified the Parks Director of this situation. Resolution #85-51 approving the stairway states, "in accordance with all existing regulations." It was questioned if the code has changed since 1985. Schmidt stated that as long as the stairway is safe it should be allowed to remain until it needs to be replaced. Casey agreed, however, he commented that it could be maintained forever by replacing a little here and there. Casey beleives the City has good intentions in bringing these structures up to code, however, it causes a hardship to the users of these structures. He suggested that Mr. Kunz apply for a variance to the code, and that the concern should be for the integrity of the land. Casey is not in favor of requiring the landing as it is only three feet more than the minimum required. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit for Dave Kunz, Dock Site $01600, as follows: The existing stairway shall be modified to include a conforming handrail, and the top step should be corrected to have no more than an 8" rise, and shall be inspected and approved by the Buildlng Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The stairway must be reconstructed to code when it is determined the stairway is in an unsafe condition. 4. The stairway is allowed to remain due to the erosion concerns. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the city Council on August 24, 1993. 4 I~ · ~, i · Ii I I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 DOCK SITE #01900, CHUCK CHAMPINE, 1550 CANARY LANE STAIRWAY & ELECTRIC Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. Mr. Chuck Champine resides at the property abutting this dock site, however, he no longer has a dock license and takes no responsibility for the stairway, but was issued a dock license in 1987 and 1988 for this site. The original permit for a stairway was issued to a previous owner, Mr. Ed Meehan, in 1976. There is no record of a permit for the electrical work and the light pole. It was confirmed with Mr. Champine on 7-29-93 that the electrical work adjacent to the stairway on the commons is supplied from his residence. Mr. Champine states he has some electrical knowledge and recognizes this electrical work does not meet the Electrical Code and he would go ahead and correct it. Mr. Champine was notified that approval by the City Council is required prior to any work being done, other than removal work, and furthermore, that a licensed electrical contractor must do the work according to the Electrical Inspector and the State Electrical Code o There are two small retaining walls adjacent to this dock site that are in poor condition. Mr. Champine accepts no responsibility for the retaining walls or other work he feels needs to be done in order to prevent erosion on the hillside. This area of the commons is traversable, therefore, a stairway serving the abutting owner is not a necessity. It is the City Council's decision whether to attribute these costs for removal and restoration to the abutting owner or take them out of the City's budget, possibly out of the dock fund. Staff recommended the following: The City Council direct the City Manager to direct Staff to remove the stairway with Parks Department personnel and assess the cost of such work to the abutting owner or the City's budget. Some minor restoration in the form of seed and mulch will be needed. The retaining walls may be repaired at the direction of the Building Official and Parks Director. This area could be regraded and restored to its original condition in a natural state. 3. Electrical work: The owner shall have the option of removal or correction of the electrical work. A licensed electrical contractor is required to do the work with appropriate inspection by the Building Official and Electrical Inspector in order to verify compliance. In the event the owner is unwilling to comply 5 Park and Open Space Comm£seion Minutes August 12, 1993 with the City Council Resolution within 60 days of the resolution, staff is directed to work with the City Attorney to obtain safe removal and all costs associated with such removal shall be assessed to the abutting owner under the nuisance provisions of State Statutes. be In the event the electrical work is to remain, the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. A dock permit for the abutting address shall not be issued until this matter is resolved. Mr. Champine addressed the Commission and commented that he does not feel the abutting owners to commons should be responsible for retaining walls that retain City property. In reference to the light, he stated that it is used to help illuminate a skating rink that has been plowed annually on the lake. He admitted that he installed the electrical service on the common and that the ground fault interrupter was installed on his house a couple years ago. He suggested that the City be required to obtain the electrical permit. He also stated that some day he hopes to retire and then he hopes get a dock license. He would like to keep the light for the skaters and for the beach. Staff noted that there is a street light which illuminates the beach. Ahrens commented that she has heard a lot of people state that they will not take responsibility for dilapidated retaining walls on the abutting public property. Schmidt and Ahrens agreed that everyone else who has installed electrical services on the commons has been required to have it installed by a licensed contractor and inspected by the State. Mr. Champine objected to getting a permit for work on land that is not his. Casey expressed a concern that the light does not meet the Park and Open Space Commission's Guidelines for Lights. The Parks Director read the guidelines to the Commission. It was noted that there are no safety or security reasons for the light as there is no dock at this site. Casey wants to see the light removed. It was suggested that the City should fix or remove the retaining wall, but that the cost should not come out of the dock fund as there is no dock licensed on this site. Casey is in favor of putting the property back into its natural state. Mr. Champine is not opposed to the removal of structures. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Casey to recommend that City staff remove the stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common abutting 1550 Canary Lane, Dock Site $1900, and that all costs associated with such removal be taken out of the City budget, not including the dock fund. Motion carried unanimously. 6 J J 1, I J, IJ ! I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. DOCK SITE #01920 VERA FRAHN, 1555 DOVE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. The original stairway permit was issued in 1976. The stairway is steel with transition to concrete at the top and bottom. The stair does not meet code which requires a handrail the full length, and mid landing, and a better transition from concrete to steel. Staff met with the owner's son on site who is not opposed to modifying the stair to code as long as the application of the code is uniform to all dock site holders. Staff recommended approval of a permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building Official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieVed. Casey commented that this is another stairway that he considered safe when traversing, and feels it is erroneous to require a mid-landing. He suggested that the stairway be allowed to remain until such a time that it becomes unsafe. It was noted that Frahm's stairway length is shorter than the Kunz stairway. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Anderson to recommend approval of a permit for Vera Frahm, Dock Site $01920, to modify the stairway to require a handrail the full length of the stairway and to provide a better transition from concrete to steel, but not require a mid-landing and proper stair run and rise. The Stairway must conform to code when it becomes unsafe or in five years, whichever comes first· Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 DOCK SITE #02000 DAVE BOLICK & DIANA WATSON, 1559 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves only a stairway, it is constructed with concrete block and wood, it has an odd rise and run and needs an approved handrail. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a new stairway to code. Adequate plans must be submitted and approved by the Building Official prior to any work being done. This approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. Se If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Diana Watson stated that she does not dispute the fact that the stairway does not meet code and they are willing to modify the exiting stairway to meet code rather than build a "new" stairway as staff's report states, and they would like to have two years instead of one year to accomplish this. Ms. Watson made the following observations and suggestions to the Park Commission and staff: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Make language clearer in staff reports as to who should be submitting plans. Clarify policy and legal issues. The Commission members should personally visit all sites. Qualified staff should be present at the meetings to answer questions. All language is vague in information she has reviewed relating to structures on public lands. The permit process should be expedited. Exceptions to the rules should' be considered. The Park Commission questioned why the applicant needs two years to fix the stairway. Ms. Watson commented that the stairway is not considered hazardous, and that they plan to have it fixed within one year, but in 8 ! J 1, I J, II1 I I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 case that does not happen they would like two years. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the permit for D. Bolick and D. Watson, Dock Site $02000 to allow reconstruction of the stairway, and if compliance has not been achieved within two (2) years of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the city Council on August 24, 1993. DOCK SITE $02100 HELEN EISS, 1563 EAGLE LANE /%BUTTING ADDRESS 1566 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Casey commented that this stairway is nice, it has handrails and it is safe and strong, and it appears there is nothing wrong with it. Helen Eiss commented that she already replaced the stairway once, approximately 1979. Ahrens suggested that the Building official specifically indicate what is wrong with each stairway. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of a Continuation of Structure permit for Helen Eiss, Dock Site $02100 to allow the stairway to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the city Council on August 24, 1993. 9 3/33 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 DOCK SITE $01940 & $01960 ABUTTING ADDRESS 1555 DOVE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This is an old switchback stairway/path that no one claims ownership to. The stair serves two dock sites, however, this stairway is not needed access the docks as this area of Waurika Commons is traversable. It is possible a future dock site holder will request a stairway in this location as it is conveniently located to the dock sites. Staff recommended the Council direct staff to remove the stair and restore the area with seed and mulch. Removal would be under the direction of the Building official and Parks Director with the Parks Department staff. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Schmidt to recommend City staff remove the stairway, and that the costs incurred not be taken out of the dock fund. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council August 24, 1993. DOCK SITE $01980, MARVYL O. MCLEOD, 1558 DOVE LANE, STAIRWAY, WALKWAY, ELECTRIC, SHED Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the "revised" staff's report. The original permit issued in 1976 for this site included both the existing stairway and the 4' x 6' accessory structure, and has expired. The stairway is a metal fire escape type and does not meet code. The Structure may have electrical supply or fixtures, and this needs to be verified with the owner on site. Staff has discussed the issues with the property manager, who states the abutting dock site is not used, but they would like to maintain the accessory structure and dock spot. The shed is no longer consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the Public Land Procedure Manual, adopted by City Council, calls for amortization of these structures. Staff recommended approval of a permit to replace the existing stairway to code as required by the Building Official. Plans are required to be submitted and approved prior to any work being done. The stairway permit is subject to the following conditions: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 10 I I 1, I I, ~ I I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder· If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Staff recommended approval of a Continuation of Structure Permit for the accessory structure according to (16) on the Flow Chart: "Grant permit up to 3 years, not renewable. To be checked annually." If there is electrical service, a certification from the State Electrical Inspector is required. Additionally, staff noted that the owner was mailed today the "revised" staff report and that no-one was present to represent this request. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Casey, to table this permit review until the owner has been apprised of the situation· Motion carried unanimously. DOCK SITE #02020 MICHAEL FREEMANv 1591 EAGLE LANE ABUTTING ADDRESS 1559 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a stairway with a ramp, it is in poor condition and the ramp is not considered a permanent solution as it can be slippery and could be hazardous. A level walkway with additional steps is recommended by staff. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. 11 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 The Park Commission discussed the ramp and considered it necessary and a common answer to traverse the riprap. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of a permit for Michael Freeman, Dock Site #02020 to allow the stairway to be corrected to a safe condition and that it be allowed to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe, the lesser of the two. Motion carried unanimously. This permits will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. DOCK SITE #02060 GILBERT SCHRUPP, 1661 EAGLE LANE ABUTTING ADDRESS XXXX EAGLE LANE (N. END OF STREET) STAIRWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a stairway in need of repair or replacement to code, as some portions are rotted. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to modify or replace the stairway to code as required by the Building official. Plans must be provided and approved prior to any work being done. Approval is subject to the following: 1. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 2. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. 3. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of city Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. 5. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Andersen to recommend approval of the permit for Gilbert Schrupp, Dock Site #02060 to allow minor repairs including tread replacement, to make the stairway safe. The stairway should be allowed to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe (the lesser of the two), and safety compliance must be attained in 1 year. Motion carried unanimously. This permits will be reviewed by the city Council on August 24, 1993. 313 12 I · ~, I · ii i I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 DOCK SITE #02250 STEVE WELCH, 1566 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY & WALKWAY Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. This permit update involves a simple two riser concrete step in good condition and a walkway that traverses the shoreline. Staff recommended approval of a Permit for Continuation of a Structure, subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for maintenance. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Casey to recommend approval for a permit for Steve Welch, Dock Site #02250, as recommended by ·tall. Motion carried unanimou·ly. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. DOCK SITE #02180, RALPH MCFALL DOCK SITE #02200, WILLIAM TOSIER ABUTTING ADDRESS 1566 EAGLE LANE STAIRWAY (SHARED) Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed staff's report. The subject stairway is located in front of 1566 Eagle Lane and is shared by two dock license holders. The stairway is in need of repair or replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit subject to the following: The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building official. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 4. The permit must be renewed with change in Dock License holder. If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one (1) year of date of approval of the permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. 13 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 12, 1993 MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of the permit for Ralph McFall, Dock Site #02180, and William Tosier, Dock Site #02200, to allow the stairway to remain for five years or until it is deemed unsafe, the lesser of the two. Motion carried unanimously. This permit will be reviewed by the City Council on August 24, 1993. MINUTES MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt to amend the minutes of July S, 1993, specifically on page 7, paragraph 4, as follows: ,,... Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were Ahrens, Schmidt, Andersen and Byrnes. Casey opposed." Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Casey to approve the July 8, 1993 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes as amended, including the correction that Lyndelle Skoglund should be listed as absent and excused. Motion carried unanimously. NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS PLAN The Park Commission reviewed the City Council Minutes of August 10, 1993, which stated, ". · . direct the Park and Open Space Commission to recommend 6-8 properties from the parcels they have surveyed as possible NCA's for Council review and designation of 3-4." The Commission reviewed the time schedule. Byrnes suggested the Commission notify the Council of their choices by November. Schmidt suggested that the Park Commission think about what parcels they would like to suggest and then place the issue on the September Park Commission Meeting agenda as item #4, then it can be discussed when and if the sites need to be visited. The Commission agreed, and it was determined that everyone should bring one or more suggested parcel. Staff is to notify the absent members as soon as possible. DISCUSS VACANCIES ON PARK COMMISSION The Secretary announced that only two people have expressed an interest and only one person has submitted an application, therefore, the City Manager has determined to publish for vacancies for another month. 14 313 nt · l, I I, ii ! I Park and Open Space Co~mission Minutes August 12, 1993 DISCUSS PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR 1994 - PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE AT MOUND BAY PARK The Park Commission had visited Mound Bay Park as a group with the Parks Director prior to the meeting. They had determined that the swings would take up too much extra space as due to new regulations they cannot be part of the play structure, but have to be placed separately. Schmidt suggested that the playground structure could be one that looks like a boat as she has seen in other parks. She noted that Mound Bay Park is a heavily used and very visible park to the public and asked that the Parks Director look into this possibility. It was also suggested that the Parks Director look into a band shell or a gazebo type structure that could be used for entertainers. city Council Representative's Report. Ahrens noted that discussions on the Teal Pointe Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) have been post-poned by the Council for two weeks, at which time they will determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Andersen to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 11:17 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 15 MINUTE8 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - JULY 15, 1993 The Meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Jerry Pietrowski, Mark Brewer, Ken Smith arrived at 7:55 AM, Jerry Longpre. Absent: Stan Drahos, Fred Guttormson, Sharon McMenamy Cook. Absent and excused: Marge Friederichs. Also present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Brewer, unanimously, the minutes approved. seconded by Pietrowski and carried of the June 17, 1993 meeting were Ed Shukle, City Manager, reported on the Duck Stamp event. He indicated that it was a very positive event for the City and was attended by approximately 500 people. He indicated that sweatshirts, t-shirts and Loon prints were remaining following the Duck Stamp event to be sold at other events. He suggested that the merchandise be sold at Our Lady of the Lake's Incredible Festival and at Crazy Days coming up later this month. He asked for help in selling this merchandise. No one from the EDC appeared to be available for either event. He will work with the Chamber and the Senior Citizens to try to get assistance. Other business discussed was the school district survey and the decision by the school board to go forward with a $14.5 million dollar referendum. The commission expressed its concern and disappointment regarding the school district's refusal to consider the community center project. Ed Shukle, City Manager, stated that the random sample survey that was performed indicated that approximately 67% of the persons surveyed indicated that they were against selling the Community Services building to locate a grocery store, liquor store and bank at that site. Therefore, the school board has decided to delete that from consideration. The EDC wishes to put together the facts on the project and to meet with school officials at a later date to discuss the feasibility of reopening this subject for discussion. The next meeting of the EDC will be held on Thursday, August 19, 1993, 7 AM, Mound city Hall. Paul Meisel will bring the rolls. Upon motion by Longpre, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 AM. city Manager ES:is It · 1, I · ii ! I MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AUGUST 19, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Mark Brewer, Fred Guttormson, Stan Drahos, Jerry Pietrowski and Ken Smith. Absent and excused: Marge Friederichs, Sharon McMenamy-Cook. Absent: Paul Meisel, Jerry Longpre. Also present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Guttormson, seconded by Brewer, and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the July 15, 1993 meeting were approved. Ed Shukle, City Manager, reviewed the background information on the Community Services Building Project. He indicated that the EDC at its last meeting expressed some frustration and disappointment with regard to the survey results of the school district residents surveyed regarding the removal of the Community Services building and construction of a new Community Services Center along with the grocery store, bank and municipal liquor store project. At the last EDC meeting, the Commission had asked to have staff prepare some facts regarding the issue and to perhaps meet with school district officials to discuss why they were not including the removal of the community services building within the proposed referendum. The results of the survey indicated that 63% of the residents surveyed indicated that they were against this idea. In the background information provided by the City Manager, he suggested that the EDC delay any discussions with the school district until the referendum is over. The referendum is tentatively scheduled for November of this year. Discussions regarding the redevelopment of the community services site might be more fruitful depending upon the results of the referendum. The EDC consensus was to accept the suggestion of the City Manager and delay any discussion with the school district. Other business discussed was the possible relocation of the Public Works outdoor storage from the Lost Lake site to the City of Minnetrista. Ken Smith, Councilmember, provided background information regarding how the City of Mound got involved with Minnetrista in discussing this matter. Minnetrista has indicated that they are interested in assisting the City of Mound and working with them on sharing a public works site. The City of Mound is in the process of doing a feasibility study and a site plan on how the Minnetrista site could satisfy both cities needs. Also discussed was the Lost Lake site, should the relocation of the materials be completed. Bruce Chamberlain referred to the Intermodal Transportation Act (ISTEA). Chamberlain will be attending some seminars with regard to the criteria and eligibility of projects in the areas of trails and other public improvements. Also discussed was public housing and the possible need for it in the City of Mound. There being no other business, it was moved by Smith, seconded by Drahos, and carried unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 8 AM. Please note that the next meeting of the EDC is scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 1993, 7 AM, at Mound City Hall. Stan Drahos will bring the rolls. City Manager Ed Shukle, Jr. city Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 EC'D AU8 9 1993 August 17, 1993 RE: Dutch Lake - Milfoil Dear Mr. Shukle: In response to your letter from we have collected to date and what we have found Milfoil infestation in Dutch Lake. June 24th I will summarize what out about the Collections(93): $890.00 from lake residents/users $500.00 pledge from Minnitrista $500.00 pledge from Mound Cost share agreement with DNR(see enclosure) Expenses (93): None Collections(92): $0 from lake residents/users $500.00 pledge from Minnitrista(never collected) $500.00 pledge from Mound(never collected) Cost share agreement with DNR Expenses(92): $2444.45 DNR Coast share $1222.22 Hennepin Conservation District $1222.23 Funds from CCDL - Lake shore residents collected in 1991 CCDL (Dutch lake residents) did not need to collect any funds from the residents or the cities in 1992 to cover expenses. Last month the DNR did a survey of the lake and found eight acres of Milfoil. Since then it has been found in at least one other location. The DNR plans to treat the lake in mid September. If you have any questions please call me during business hours at 342-6118. Thank you, Nancy Nordstrom (CCDL) 5856 Grandview Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 (Enclosures) ,! · 1, I · Iii ! I Eurasian Watermilfoil Control Cooperative Agreement for Herbicide Application Between Depamnent of Natural Resources State of Minnesota Dutch Lake Assoc. (lake) Association TH]S COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, made and entered into, by and between the State of Minnesota (Depamnent of Natural Resources), hereafter referred to as the Commissioner , and the Dutch Lake Association (c/o Gary Nordsuom, 5856 Grandview Blvd., Mound, MN 55364), hereafter referred to as the 'Association", WITNESSE~; ~, the Commissioner has determined that Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophylum spicatum3 is a nuisance plant, detrimental to recreation and native plant species; and WttF. IIEAS, the 1989 Minnesota Legislature appropriated funds to control the spread of Eurasian watermilfoil; and WItEREAS, the Commissioner of Natural Resources has particular responsibilities with regard to the control of aquatic vegetation in protected waters; and WItEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 103G.617, the Commissioner has the authority to coordinate control programs with local units of government, special purpose districts, and lake associations; and WItFIIEAS, the Commissioner, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 84.026 is authorized to enter into contracts with any public or private entity for the provision of statutorily prescribed resource services; and WttERY_3.S, an infestation of Eurasian watermilfoil exists in DUtch Lake (D.O.W. ff27-0181), ltermepin County, NOW, Tllt21EFORE, the Commissioner, and the Association agree as follows: Ao The Commissioner shall: 1. Direct a private contractor currently under contract with the Department of Natural Resoumes to carry out appropriate control of Eurasian watermilfoil ia Dutch lake. 2. Pay the first $2,000 of the treatment cost. Pay 50% of the treatment cost above $2,000 up to a maximum treatment cost of $15,000 (total amount the DNR would pay on a single lake is $8,500). 3. Bill the Association for their costs of the control work. 4. Conduct an aquatic vegetation survey on Dutch Lake. Bo The Association shall: Pay to the State, upon completion of control work, 50% of the cost of control work above $2,000, up to a total treatment cost of $15,000. If the total cost of the control work is greater than $15,000, the Association must pay the balance. This agreement shall be effective from the date of execution by the Commissioner of Finance through November 30, 1993. This agreement may consist of more than one treatment. This agreement may be terminated at any time by either party upon 10 days written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS Ti~REOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last date written below. CO~EVlISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION By Original sJgnecJ Title JUL 1919~3 By Gerald T. Joyce Date STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL Tiffs,--.'~y..:~ ^,,,,, ............ COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE Title JUL 21 1993 Approved as to form and execution by the ATTORNEY G~'ERAL By Title Date 31q Il l, I l, ~ MiNNE£OTA DE?AR?MENT OF I ! NATURAL 1! RESOURCES F rom: Division of Fish & Wildlife Management Box 20, 500 Lafayette Road. St. Paul, M~ 55155-4020 Date: 03-Nov-92 Invoice #: DUT.C}~./{-1 Dutch Lake Association C/O Gary Nordstrom 5856 Grandview Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 State of MN Contract Number: 1-2138 IItem [ ~Description IItem Rate Total Eurasian Watermilfoil Control Herbicide Application - Dutch Lake $4,888.89 50 % $2,444.45 TOTAL $2,444.45 Please make check payable to "Minnesota Department of Natural Resources" Mail check and one copy of the invoice to: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Divison of Fish & Wildlife Management Box 20, 5~ Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4020 For deposit to APID: 31~O~: 79 - 20 A/D: 331918 Program 06 Division 090 Class 360 Billing Prepared By: ~.~~ff~-~~ William C. Schroeder 612-297-4074 EMILY ANN E STAPLES 612- 348" 3084 FAX-348- 8701 COMMISSIONER BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240 Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Dear Ed, August 18, 1993 As you know, Hennepin County has been reviewing its funding sources for the county's solid waste programs. This review was prompted by suggestions from some waste haulers that they would begin taking waste collected in Hennepin County to disposal sites in other counties or even other states in order to avoid the county, tipping fee of $95 a ton. This $95 per ton fee is higher than needed just to process and dispose of a ton of mixed solid waste (MSW). Funds collected over and above costs for disposing of MSW flow into household hazardous waste collection, yard waste disposal and other efforts. These programs have reduced the amount of untreated solid waste going into landfills from 77 percent of the total waste stream in 1984 to just two percent in 1992. In fact, the last operating landfill in Hennepin County is closing next month and no new landfills are planned because we have been so successful in reducing our reliance on landfills. Our efforts at handling solid waste are some of the best in the nation, and the county board is committed to maintaining the programs. However, in the face of downward pressure on our tipping fee that funds the programs, Hennepin County has been discussing a solid waste service fee as an alternative to the higher tipping fee. Revenues from the service fee would replace revenue lost from a lower tipping fee. The key difference, of course, is that the service fee would be paid at the point of collection, rather than at the point of disposal, removing the financial incentive to take solid waste elsewhere. A service fee and a corresponding drop in the county tipping fee should not affect the costs for trash hauling paid by county residents. I know cities are looking for some assurances about their recycling grants for 1994. I feel certain that Hennepin County will continue to fund these efforts, whether through the current tipping fee or with a new service fee. You should have received copies of the proposed service fee ordinances earlier this week. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office, submit written comments, or attend the public hearing on the ordinance on August 26, 10 a.m., in the county board room. Sincerely, EMILY ANNE STAPLES pPHNTED ON ~ECYCLED PAPER ~ · u ! i HENNEPIN IL DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 4'17 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540'1 -'1309 Phone: [6'12] 348-6846 FAX: [6'12] 348-8532 August 16, 1993 REI2'D AU6 1 7 1993 Subject: Proposed Hennepin County Ordinance Fifteen, Solid Waste Management Fee Version A: County Collected Version B: Hauler Collected Public Hearing on August 26, 1993, 10:00 a.m. Hennepin County Board Room, A2400 Government Center To All Interested Parties: A public hearing will be held on August 26, 1993, at I0:00 a.m., in the Hennepin County Board Room, to receive comments on proposed Hennepin County Ordinance Fifteen. The ordinance establishes authority for the collection of a solid waste management fee to fund environmental programs. Two versions of the proposed ordinance are enclosed. Version A contains authority for a County collected solid waste management fee; Version B contains authority to require waste haulers to collect the management fee. County staff is reviewing both versions and will be recommending one of these collection methods at the hearing on August 26. Written comments on the proposed ordinance would be most welcome and will be entered into the hearing record. Testimony will also be taken on August 26. If you have questions regarding the proposed ordinance, feel free to call Tim Goodman, 348- 2863, or Tom Heenan, 3484491. Sincerely, ~D/?r~tol~rick JL:ms Enclosure HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer VERSION B: HAULER COLLECTED HENNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER FIFI~EN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE AND HAULER LICENSE ORDINANCE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO~AL MANAGEMENT August 16, 1993 ffI~qNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER FIIeI'I~;EN · SOLID WASTE MANAG~ FEE AND HAULER LICENSE ORD~~ mo IV. TABI.~ OF CONTEg[~ PURPOSE ...................................................... 1 DEFINITIONS .................................................. 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Subsection 1 Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Subsection 4 Subsection 5 Administration ......................................... 2 Compliance ........................................... 3 Administrative Procedures .................................. 3 Solid Waste Management Fee ................................ 3 Procedures for Establishing and the Amount of Solid Waste Management Fee ....................... 3 SOl.m WASTE MANAGEMENT FF~E - COLLF~CTION AND REMITFANCE POLICIES Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection 1 Collection ............................................ 3 2 Remittance ............................................ 3 3 Statements ............................................ 4 4 Reports .............................................. 4 5 Examination of Records .................................... 4 6 Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ........................ 4 7 l_ate ?ayment .......................................... 4 8 Unpaid Fee ........................................... 5 9 Collection Actions ....................................... 5 LIC~SING Subsection 1 Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Subsection 4 Subsection 5 Subsection 6 Subsection 7 Subsection 8 Sub~tion 9 Sbsection 10 Subsection 11 Subsection 12 & REGISTRATION Requirement ........................................... 5 License Issuance or Denial .................................. 7 License Fee ........................................... 8 Insurance ............................................. 8 Reports .............................................. 9 Compliance with Other Laws ................................ 9 Cleanup Charges ........................................ 9 Dispute Resolution ....................................... 9 Accuracy of Information ................................... 9 Indemnification of County .................................. 9 Administxative Procedures ................................. 10 Vie VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES Subsection 1 Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Subsection 4 Subsection :5 Subsection 6 lviisdemeanor .......................................... Injunctive Relief ....................................... 13 Venue and Prosecution ................................... 13 Costs and Special Assessments ............................... 13 Citations ............................................ 13 Departmental Order ..................................... 14 SEVERAB~ ................................................ 14 14 PROVISIONS ARE ~TIVE .................................... EFFEC~ DATE ......................................... 1:5 315"0 I i 1, I I Il i i The purpose of this ordinance is to establish authority for a ~ County solid waste management fee to fund environmental programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens pursuant to State mandates governing waste management programs. The Ordinance includes: procedures for establishing a solid waste management fee; the fee payment method; reporting requirements; licenxing provisions and penalties for noncompliance with provisions of this Ordinance. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.811, Subd. 3(a) and Subd. 5, Section 400.08 and Section 115A.93. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners does ordain: SF_,CFION I DEFINrFIONS For thc purpose of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Subsection 1 'County' is Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subsection 2 'County Board' is the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Subsection 3 'Department' is the Hennepin County Deparlxnent of Environmental Management. Subsection 4 'Generate" is the act or process of producing waste. Subsection 5 'Generator" is any person who generates mixed municipal solid waste in Hennepin County. Subsection 5a 'Residential Generator" is a Generator who pays for waste collection services for a building with one to four dwelling units. Subsection 5b 'Nonresidential Generator' is a Generator who does not qualify as a Residential Generator. A home operated business will be t~ated as a Nonresidential Generator. If the building has four or less dwelling units, but also has one or more units not used for dwelling purposes, such as a store or a restaurant, then the Generator is considered a Nonresidential Generator. Subsection 6 'Hauler" is a person engaged in the business of collecting, transporting or 1 disposing of mixed municipal solid waste generated in Hennepin Count. Subsection ? *Lkensee~ is the person who has beea giv~ authority by the County Board or the Depamnent to collect, transport and dispose of mixed municipal solid waste generated in Hennepin County. Licensee also includes registered Self-Haulers who dispose of mixed municipal solid waste in excess of five (:5) tons per month. Subsection $ "Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" is garbage, refuse, and other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates for collection, but does not include auto hulks, sueet sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural waste, tires, lead acid batteries, used oil, and other materials collected, proce.xsed and disposed of as separate waste Subsection 9 mOrdlnanc~' is Ordinance 15. Sul~ectlon 10 "Person' includes, but is not limited to: an individual, business, Hauler, Self-Hauler, public or private corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, trust, unincorporated association, government or agency or political subdivision thereof, landfill opex~tor, generator, any other legal entity, and any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent, or other legal representative of any of thc foregoing. Subsection 11 "Serf-Hauler* is a Generator disposing of his or her own Mixed Municipal Solid Waste. Subsection 12 "Solid Waste Managexnent Fee" is the charge payable by Residential and/or Nom'esidential Generators to the County for Solid Waste Management Services as established by the County Board. Subsection 13 *Solid Waste Management Services** includes all activities provided by the County or by Persons under contract with the County which support the preferred waste management responsibilities, described in Minnesota Statutes 11SA.01 et seq, 473 and 400.08 including, but not limited to waste reduction and reuse; waste recycling; composting of yard waste and food waste; resource recovery through Mixed Municipal Solid Waste composting or incineration; land disposal; and management of protficm materials, and household ~,~rdous waste. SECTION H GENERAL PROVISIONS Subsection I Administration: This Ordinance shall be administered by thc Henncpin 2 nd · 1, I I, ii i I County Department of Environmental Management. Subsection 2 Compliance: No Person shall collect, transport or dispose of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste generated in Hennepin County excep~ in full compliance with the provisions herein. 'Fnis shall not prevent the transportation of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste by a collector through He..nnepin County. Subsection 3 Administrative Procedures: All provisions of Hennepin County Ordinance Number 1, County Licenses and Proced~, shall apply as though fully set forth herein. Subsection 4 Solid Waste Management Fee: A Solid Waste Management shall be imposed for Solid Waste Management Services provided by Hennepin County. The Generators (owners, lessees, or occupants of property in Hennepin County, or any or all of them) shall pay the Solid Waste Management Fee imposed in the manner set forth by the County Board. Subsection 5 Procedures for Es~blishin~ ~he Amount of Solid Wsste Man~ement Fee: The County Board shall establish or amend and the amount of the Solid Waste Management Fee following a public hearing, by resolution, and shall state the effective date for the enactment of the Solid Waste Management Fee. S~ON 1II SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ~ - CO!,I,F/~YION AND I~I~fflTANCE POI,IClF, S Subsection 1 A. Subsection 2 Ae Collection: As a condition of license, each HaMer shall bill and collect the Solid Waste Management Fee from every Heam~in County Residential and Nonresidential Generator in the amount established by the County Board. Each Hauler shall make reasonable efforts to collect the Solid Waste Management Fee. Rpmittance: The Solid Waste Management Fee collected by Haulers must be remitted to the County. Failure to remit the Solid Waste Management Fee collected may result in the rtwocation of the Hauler's license. Self-Haulers shall pay the Solid Waste Management Fee imposed directly to the County. 3 3153 If a Gene. s-ator make partial payment to a Haulex, the I-I~uler shall then apply payment to the Solid Waste Management Fee in the saxne lnoportio~ as the Solid Waste Management Fee to the Generator's ~ bill. Ds Each Licensee shall remit the Solid Waste Management Fee by the 20th day of the month following the month in which the Solid Waste Management Fee was collected by Haulers or imposed on Self-Haulers. The Solid Waste Management Fee shall be accompanied by the com~ Solid Waste Management Fee form which will be provided to the Licensee by the Dcpamnent a~d which will be completed in acco~ with instructions provided. Subsection 3 Statements: Consistent with the Haulex's normal billing practices, each Hauler shall ~tely state the Solid Waste Management Fee on each invoice or statement issued to their Residential a~l Nonresidential Generators for payment of waste collection and Subsection 4 Reports: On forms provided by the County, each Hauler shall submit, on a timely basis, written reports to the Department which may include, but not be limited to, total gross billings and receipts for all collection and disposal services performed within Hennepin County, the number of Residential and Nonresidential C, enemmrs within Hennepin County, the number of tons collected within Hermepin County and disposed of within and outside Hennepin County and such other information as requested by the Department. Subsection $ Examination of Records: The Department or its duly authorized agent shall have the right to examine records, including access to computer records which shall be made available by the Hauler, and all Residential and Nom-esidentinl C. nmera~r accounts of the Haulers. The department shall be allowed free access itt all reasonable times to inspect and copy at reasonable cost nil business records related to a Hauler's collection, and disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to the extent necessary to ensure that all charges required to be collected axe remitted to the County. Such records shall be maintained by the Haulers for no less than five (5) ycers. Subsection 6 ]Vlinnesotn Government Data Prllctices Ac~: Records or information L~'_eived, inspected, or copied by the County shall be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statute Section 13.01, et seq. a~! aze classified as private or nonpublic data as defined in Section 13.02, Subd. 9 or 12 of the A~t. The records and information may be used to enforce collection of Solid Waste lvlan~ement Fees. Data becomes public if certified to the County Auditor for unpaid ou~ charges pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 400.08, Subd. 4(b) or where legal actions a_~ commenced. Subsection 7 Late Payment: A late payment penalty of 1.5% per month on the Solid Waste Management Fee, collected but not remitted by the Hauler, shall be charged to the Hauler and/or Self Hauler not making payment by the due date. If a Hauler fails to bill and 4 I · 1, I I, ii i ,I collect the Solid Waste Managem~t Fee from a Generator, the Hauler shrill be responsible for the Solid Waste Managment Fee and a 1.5% per month late payment penalty. The 1.5 % per month late payment penalty shall commence from the date the Solid Waste Management Fee should have been billed. Subsection 8 Unpaid Fee: On or before October 15 each year, the County Board may certify to the County Auditor all unpaid outstanding Solid Waste Management Fees, and a description of the lands against which the Solid Waste Management Fees arose. It shall be the duty of the County Auditor, upon order of the County Board, to extend the a.s.se~ts, with interest not to exceed the interest rate provided for in Sectioo 279.03, Subd. 1, upon the lax rolls of the County for the taxes of the year in which the assessment is filed. For each year ending October 15, the asse~ment with interest shall be carried into the tax becoming due and payable in January of the following year, and shall be enforced and collected in the manner provided for the enforcement and collection of real property taxes in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State. The charges, if not paid, shall become delinquent and be subject to the same penalties and the same rate of interest as the taxes under the general hws of the State. Subsection 9 Collection Actions: Exercise of any remedy under this subsection does not preclude exercise of other remedies. If an owner, lessee, occupant of a He epin co ty or any Person on the~ behalf to pay the Solid Waste Management Fee fails to pay a Hauler the Solid Waste Management Fee in a timely manner, the County may use any available legal remedies to collect the overdue, unpaid Solid Waste Manage~t Fees from any or all of them. If a Hauler has collected Solid Waste Manage~t Fees and failed to remit them to the County in a timely manner, the County may use any available legal remedies to collect the Solid Waste Management Fees from the Hauler. ff a Self-Hauler fails to pay the Solid Waste Management Fee to the County in a timely manner, thc County may use any available legal roncdies to collect the Solid Waste Management Fee from the Self-Hauler. SF.L"IION IV L CENSING & REG TION Subsection 1 Requirement: A. Registrations Required: Each Self-Hauler who disposes of mixed municipal solid waste in excess of five (5) tons per month shall be registered with the County on a form provided by thc Department. B. Licettse Required: Each Hauler shall have a license is.soed by the County. Unless earlier suspended or revoked, each license shall be valid for a twelve-month period. No license is transferable; any attempted transfer of a license shall immediately void such license. Subsection 2 License Procedure: A. Initial Application: An initial license application shall be complet~ and returned to the Department within thirty (~)) days of receipt of the form provided by the Department. The application form shall be deemed received by the applicant three working days after deposit in the mail by the ~t. Fnilure to return the application with complete information or within the time required shall result in a denial of the license. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of this Ordinance pending action by the Department on the license. B. License Renewal: The Department shall provide license renewal forms to the Hauler within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of Hauler's current license. License renewal forms shall be completed and received by the Department thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of I-Iauler's current license. Failure to return the license renewal forms with complete information or within the tim required shall result in a denial of the license renewal. C. Conditional License: The Department may grant a conditional license which shall specify the conditions upon which a permanent license will be granted and the time requirement within which the conditions must be met. Failure to comply with the conditions specified shall result in a revocation of the conditional license and denial of D. Business Operation Change: Every Per,on, Hauler or Self-Hauler who disposes of m/xed municipal solid waste in exce~ of five (5) tons per month shall notify the ~ent in writing of any change in i~ busine~ operation, including the transfer of any truck, conveyance, container or other equipment, prior to the effective date of the change or transfer. E. Transfer of Ownership: No license will be tranted to any Person or for any vehicle, conveyance or equipment which have had a transfer of ownership unk. ss and until all Solid Waste Management F~, Tipping Fee~, Special Fees and other charges due and owing under the previous ownership have been paid. F. Information Required: As a condition of license or registration, each applicant or Licensee shall submit the following information to the Department. It shall be the 6 ! · I, I · ii i i responsibility of each Licensee to report to the Depattnmnt any change to any information previously submitted within thirty days of such change. Name, address, telephone number, social security number, and Minnesota business identification number of applicant or Licensee. Business office, address, telephone number, if different from applicant or Licensee. Name, address, title and telephone number of the boslneas owners, officers and person serving as the business contact person with the County. List of all Hauler's vehicles, conveyances, and other equipment used for the collection, transportation and disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste within the County, their location within the County, and the address where such stored when not in use. Vehicle identification number, license plate number, make, model, year, number of axles, body type, gross vehicle weight, and capacity of each vehicle operating within the County. Summary of the total number of all containers used for the collection of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste within the County, by type and capacity of container. Disclosure of the following information concerning applicant or Licensee, including but not limited to: parent corporations; subsidiary busineasea; partnerships; limited partnerships; corporate or business names used by subsidiary affiliations of applicant or Licensee; identification of all officers, agents, responsible parties or beneficial owners of applicant or Licensee's business. H. Such other information as requested by the Depattmeot. Subsection 3 License Issuance or Denial: A. License Action: The Department shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the license or renewal application to issue or deny the license, license renewal or conditional license. The Depamnent will issue a temporary license valid for thirty days upon its failure to act upon an application. B. Notif'w. ation: The Department shall notify the applicant in writing of its decision. ff issued, the license shall be mailed by first-class mail to the addresa provided in the application. If denied, a written decision shall be served personally or by certified mail upon the applicant at the address provided in the application. 7 C, Lkense Denial: A license denial shall provide written notice stating the bazis for the denial and shall provide notice to the applicant that if an appeal is de.sired, a written request for a hearing must be received by the DepatUnent within fifteen (15) calendar days following service, exclusive of the day of service. Upon receipt of a request for heaxing, the Department shall set a time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures in this Ordinance. Subsectio~ 4 License Fee: A. Payment: License fees shall be set by the County Board. No license fee shall be prorated for a portion of a year and no license fee shall be refunded. Payment of the license fee must accompany the license application or license renewal. B. Late Payment: Payments not _received with the license application or license renewal form shall be considered hte and subject to the following hte payment penalty, in addition to the regolar license fee: One to seven days late, twenty-five percent penalty. Eight to thirty days late, fifty percent penalty. C. Penalty Fee: On the expiration date of the current license, any activity for which the license is required shall cease. No license shall be issued until a new license application is submitted. If a new license is approved, the fee shall be the fee for a new license plus a 10055 penalty fee. D. No Bar to Prosecution: Payment of the license fee together with payment of any late payment penalty shall not bar other enforcement action by the County. Subsection S Insurance: A. Licensee and AppUcants: Thc applicant or Licensee shall furnish the County certificates of insurance containing a thirty-day cancellation notice issued by insurers duly licensed by the State of Minne.~ta. The insurance must include the foUowing: Commercial general liability insurance covering all premises and operations of thc Licensee with limits of not less than $250,000 per person]$500,000 per occurrence'for bodily and personal injury, and $500,000 per occurrence for property damage. If such liability policy includes an aggregate limit, Licensee shall ensure that the unencumbered aggregat~ remains not leas than $500,000. Commercial or busine.~ automobile liability insurance, including non- owned and hired vehicles, with combined single liability limits of not le-s-s than $500,000 per occm'rence. 8 I i 1, I I, ii i i Workers Compensation insurance in accordance with Minn. Stat. 176.182, and including; Employers Liability coverage with limits of not leas than $100,000. B. Municipalities: Municipalities and municipally owned and operated waste collection vehicles may be exempt from insurance requiiv..,ne~ts contained in this section upon presentation of evidence acceptable to the Depamnent of its ability to respond to all financial obligations to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statute Chapter 466. Subsection 6 Reports: On or before lanuary 31 of each year, and on such other dates as the DeparUnent shall request, each Hauler shall submit a written report of its operations during flae previous year covering matters ~lating to this Ordimxnce, as specified by the Depamnent. Subsection 7 Compliance with Other Laws: The obtaining of a license herein shall not be deemed to exclude the nece-_~ity of obtaining other licenses or permits az required by applicable laws or regulations. Hauler or Self-Hauler shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable rules or requirements. Subsection 8 Cleanup Charges: ff in the sole judgement of the County, a Hauler or Self- Hauler is primarily responsible for all or a portion of waste littering roadways, the County may charge such Hauler or Self-Hauler the entire cost of the cleanup, removal and disposal of such waste. Subsection 9 Dispute Resolution: In the eveat a dispute arises regarding the ~g of fees or c3.arges that cannot be resolved with the ~t, the parties may agree to submit the issue to a mutually agreed upon Dispute Resolution ~ or, should agreeraent on the process not he reached, the dispute will be submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings for resolution. Subsection 10 Accuracy of Information: All information required by this Ordinance shall be complete, accurate, and submitted in a timely mannm'. Subsection 11 Indomnif'wation of County: Each Hauler or Self-Hauler shall take all reasonable p _rec_aufions necessary to protect the public from injury and shall defend, indemnify and save the County harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgtrw, ats, expenses and claims of damages that may arise by reason of any tort claim for bodily or personal injury, disease, death or damage to property resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the Hauler or Self-Hauler, its agents, employees, or ind~t contractors, or anyone for whom any of them may be liable. 9 Subsection 12 Admlnistrntive Procedm~: A. Suspension or Revocation of License: Any license required under this Ordinance may be suspended or revoked for violation of any provision of this ~. Suspensions shall be for a period up to sixty (60) days or until the violation is Written notice of a suspension or revocation shall be served personally or by registered or certified mail upon the Licensee at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the effective dale of the suspension or revocation. The written notice shall contain the effective date of the su s on or revo tion; the wtUch s pS,ort the conclusion that a violation or violations have occurred; a statement that if the Licensee desires to appeal, a written request for a hearing must be _received by the Department within fifteen (15) calendar days following service of the notice, exclusive of the day of service; a~l that the request for hearing must state the grounds for appeal. If a hearing is requested, the suspension or revocation shall be stayed pending outcome of the hearing. Upon receipt of a request for hearing, the Department shall set a date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures in this Ordinance. B. Summary Suspension of License: If the Department finds that the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action, summary suspension of a license may be ordered. Written notice of a summary suspension shall be by perso~ service upon the Licensee or by posting notice of the summary suspension of the license at a Hcrmepin County's solid waste facility. The ~ent shall also take reasonable steps to notify the Licensee by telephone prior to the summary suspension. The written notice shall st_n.t_e the effective date of the summary suspension; the violation requiring emergency action; the facts which support the conclusion that a violation has occurred; a statement that if the Licensee desLres to appeal, a written request for hearing must be received by the Depamnent within ten (10) calenda~ days following service of the notice, exclusive of the day of service; and that the 10 I ! 1, ! I, Il i I request must state the grounds for appeal. Upon _rec-_Apt of a request for hearing, the Departm~t shall set a date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures in this Ordinance. C. Reinspeetlon by Department: Upon written notification from the Licensee that all violations for which a suspension or summaxy suspension was invoked have been corrected, the D~aanment may reinspect the vehicle or activity, ff upon reinspection the Department determines that aH violations have been corrected, the Department may, in its discretion dismiss, modify or stay the suspension or summary suspension. Written notice shall be provided to the Licensee. D. Hearings: Hearings required pursuant to this Ordinance shall be conducted as follows: 1. Hearing Ofr~.er: The hearing shall be before an impartial hearing officer who shall conduct the hearing on be. haft of the County Board. The Department ~ prescribe the duties of the hearing officer or contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Depamnent shall ascertain the availability and timeliness of scheduling the hearing through the Office of Administrative Hearings. If it is determined that a prompt hearing is not readily available through the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Department may appoint an individual learned in the law to act as the hearing officer. 2. Prehearing and Hearing Notice: The Department shall schedule and provide notice of the date, time and place of the preheating confezence and hearing. 'I'ne preheating conference shall be held at least three (3) weeks prior to the hearing. The hearing shall be held no later than forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of the request for hearing or by mutual agreement of the parties, subject to scheduling by the Office of Administrative Hearings. 3. Procedure: The preheating conference and hearing shall be conducted in the following manner:. The preheating conference shall define the issues, schedule the exchange of wimess lists and documentary evidence, seek agreement on the authenticity of documents and relevant testimonial evidence, determine whether intended evidence is cumulative and repetitive, and consider all other matters that will assist in a fair and expeditious hearing. 11 be de fw he je Each party shall exchange all relevant information and documentary evidence at lea.st one (1) week prior to the hearing date. Such information shall include ~11 evidence intended for introduction at the hearing and includes but is not limited to the following: exhibits; statements; reports; witness lists, including a description of the facts and opinions to which each is expected to testify; photographs; slides; ~rnon.st~vc evidence. Evidence not exchanged in accordance with this provision will not be considered in the hearing unless good cause is shown to the hearing officer. The hearing shaJl be public ~d shall be tape recorded or, at the discretion of the heazing offu:m', ~ be recorded by a court reporter. Hearings shall be informal and the rules of evidence as applied in the coum shall not apply. Irrelevant, immaterial and repetitious evidence shall be excluded, The ~ent shall have the burc~ of proof through clear and convincing evidence. The Department, Licensee or at~plicant, and additional parties as determined by the hearing officer, shall present evidence in that order. Each party shall have the opportunity to cross-examine the wimesses of the other party. The hearing officer may examine witnesses. Failure of an applicant or Licensee to appear at the bearing shall result a waiver of the right to a hearing. The hem-ing officer shall issue a report conlaining written findings of fact and conclusions based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and shall submit the same to the County Bo,~. Thc County Board shall consider the report of the hearing officer at the next possible board meeting and may adopt or modify the r~port and lake action, reject the report of the hearing officer, or remand for furtha' hearing. The parties shall be notified of the action of the County Board within thirty (30) calendar days following its determination. 12 Appeal of a decision by the County Board shall be made to the District Court within thirty (30) calendar days following the whether the record of ~ hearing co~.~ins evidence upon which the County Board could have reached its decision and w~ the County Board abused its discretioo in reaching its decision. SECTION V VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES Subsection 1 Misdemeanor:. Any Person who willfiflly or negligently does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor: (A) hauls Mixed Municipal Solid Waste without a requir~ license or registration; or m) hauls Mixed Municipal Solid Waste and fails to collect or fails to remit to the County the required Solid Waste Management Fee. Negligence, for the purposes of this section does not include hauling Mixed Municipal Solid Waste for a Generator who subsequently fails to pay his/hor bill. In case of parfi'al payments made by Generators, the Hauler shall remit the Solid Waste Management Fee to the County in the same proportion as the Solid Waste Management Fee to the Generators' total bill. Nothing in this section precludes prosecution for misdemeanors or felonies under State law. Subsection 2 Injunctive Relief: The County may institute appropriate actions or proc__vedings, including application for injunctive relief, action to compel peri'om or other appropriate actions to prevent, restrain, correct or abate any violation or threatened violation of this Ordinance. Subsection 3 Venue and Prosecution: The Hennepin County Attorney's Office shall prosecute violations of any provision of this Ordinance. Such prosecutions shall be venued Subsection 4 Costs and Special Assessments: The County may recover costs, including attorneys fee. s, staff and other related costs, incurred to enforce compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. At the discretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County Director of Property Tax and Public Records as a special tax against the real property owned by such Person. Subsection 5 Citations: The Department, its duly authorized representative, or any 13 311,3 licensed peace officer shall have thc power to issue citations for violations of this Ordinance, but this shall not permit the Department or its representatives to physically arrest or take into custody any violators. Subsection 6 l~partmem.~l Order: The Department nay issue such Orders as nay be necessary for the enforcement of this Ordinance. Each Order shall state the violation and the action a~d time schedule required for compliance. S~ON VI SEVERABH,rFY It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County that the provisions of this Ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: Validity of Provisions: If any court of compe~t jurisdiction shall rule that any provision of this Ordinance is invalid, o~r provisions not specifically included in said judgment shall not be 'affected. Be Application to Site or Facility: If any court of competent jurisdiction shall rule that the application of any provision of this Ordinance is invalid to a particular structure, site, facility or opera, on, such judgment shall not affect the application of said provision to any other structure, site, facility or operation not specifi~y included in the judgment. SECTION VII PROVISIONS ARE C'UMULA~ The provisions in this Ordinance are cumulative and are additional limitations upon all other laws and ordinances covering any subject matter in this Ordinance. 14 i · l, I I, ill ! ! DATE This Ordinance slmll b~ in fu]J force and effect upon passage by the County Board. Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin Co~mty this xxxx day of XXXX, 1993. COUNTY OF HF~NNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVED: BY: Chair of the County Board Assistant County Attorney ATTEST: Clerk of the County Board 15 VERSION A: COUNTY COLLECTED HENNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER FIFTEEN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT August 16, 1993 HXNNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER gu~'rEEN SOl.m WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ............ . ................................ 1 I. DEFINITIONS ......................................... 1 G~ PROVISIONS Subsection 1 Administration ................................ 2 Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Subsection 4 Solid Waste Management Fee ....................... 2 Procedure.~ for Establishing the Amount of Solid Waste Management Fee ....................... 2 Methods of Collection of the Solid Waste Management Fee ..... 2 1TI SO!.m WASTE MANAGEMENT FF.£ - CO!.L~'C--'TION POLICY ' 2 Subsection 1 Collection ................................... Subsection 2 Unpaid Fee .................................. 2 Subsec~on 3 Tax Exempt Properties ........................... 3 VIOLATIONS Subsection 1 Subsection 2 AND PE1VALTIES Venue and Prosecution ........................... 3 Costs and Assessments ........................... 3 V. PROVISIONS ARE CUMULA~ ............................ 3 VI EFFECTIVE DATE ' 4 PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to establish authority for a Hennepin County solid waste management fee to fund environmental programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens pursuant to State mandates governing wasle management programs. The Ordinance includes: procedures for establishing a solid waste management fee; the fee payment method; reporting requirements; and penalties for noncompliance with provisions of this Ordinance. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.811, Subd. 3(a) and Sulxl. 5, and Section 400.08. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners does ordain: SECTION I DEFINITIONS For thc purpose of this Ordinance, thc terms defined in this section shall have thc meanings given them, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Subsection I *Cotmty' is Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subsection 2 *County Board* is the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Subsection 3 "Department" is the Hennepin County ~ent of Environmental Management. Subsection 4 'Ord--' is Ordinance 15. Subsection 5 "Person" includes, but is not limited to: an individual, busine.% Hauler, Self- Hauler, public or private corporation, p~'mership, joint venture, ~tion, trust, unincorporated a.~ociation, government or agency or political sulxJivision thereof, landfill operator, generator, any other legaJ entity, a~d ~y receiver, t~ustee, a.~ignee, agent, or ocher legal representative of any of the foregoing. Subsection 6 'Solid Waste Man~ement Fee" is the fee payable by owners of reaJ properties located in Hennepin County for Solid Waste Managem~t Services ~ cstablished by the County Boazd. Subsection 7 'Solid Wnste Management Services' includes all activities provided by the County or by Persons under conwact with the County which support the preferred waste management responsibilities, de.scribed in Minnesota Statutes I 1SA.01 et seq, 473 and 400.08, including, but not limited to waste reduction and reuse; wa$g recycling; composting ! i 1, I I, Ill i I of yard waste and food waste; re,~ce recovery through Mixed Municipal Solid Waste composting or incineration; land disposal; and management of problem materials and household hazardous waste. II GENERAL PROVISIONS Subsection 1 Admlnlxtraflon: This Ordinance ~ be administered by the Hennepin County. Subsection 2 Solid Waste Mmnagement Fee: A Solid Wa.~e Management Fee shall be imposed for Solid Waste Management Services provided by Hero, pin County. The owners of real property in Hennepin County shall pay the Solid Waste Management Fee imposed in the manner set forth by the County Board. Subsection 3 Procedures for Establishing the Amou~ of ~ Wast~ M~mgement Fee: The County Board shall ~tablish or amend the amount of the Solid Waste Management Fee following a public hearing, by re.solution, and shall state the effective date for the enactment of the Solid Waste Management Fee. Subsection 4 Methods of Collection of the Solid Waste Mam~~ Fee: The County Boaz-d shall impose the Solid Waste Mar~gement Fee ag~nst ail pa~.els improved with r~l or per,hal properties (including tax exempt properties) ~xl bill the Solid Waste Management Fee.~ on the County property tax statements as a separate line item. S ON m SOLID MANAG FEE - CO ON POLICY Subsection I Collection: Owners of real property in Hennepin County shall pay a Solid Waste Management Fee for Solid Waste Management Servic~ in the amount established by thc County. Such fee shall be payable in conjunction with the payment of real property tax. Subsection 2 Unpaid Fee: On or before October 1:5 each year, the County Board may certify to the County Auditor all unpaid outstanding Solid Waste Management Fees, and a description of the lands against which the Solid Waste Management F_,~__ arose. It shall be the duty of the County Audiwr, upon order of the County Board, to extend the axse~ments, with interest not to exceed the interest rote provided for in Section 279.03, Subd. 1, upon the tax rolh of the County for the taxes of the year in which the asse~ment i~ filed. For each year ending Octobex 15, the ~ment with interes~ shall be carried into the tax becoming 2 due and payable in January of the following year, and shall be enforced and collected in the ma/re, er provided for the enforcement and collection of real property taxes in accor~ce with the provisions of the laws of the State. The charges, if nol paid, shall become delinquent and be subject to the same penalties and the same rate of interest az the taxes under the general laws of the State. Subsection 3 Tax Exemp~ Properties: Unpaid Solid Waste Management Fees billed to tax exempt properties other than governmental entities shall be collected in the same manner az Solid Waste Management Fees collected from other real property owners. Unpaid Solid Waste Management Fees owed by governmental entities shall be doducted from any funds which are thereafter to be distributed by the County. SECTION IV VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIF. Subsection 1 Venue and Prosecution: Thc Hennepin County Attorney's Office shall prosecute violations of any provision of this Ordinance. Such prosecutions shall be venued in Hennepin County. Subsection :1 Costs and Assessments: Thc County may recover costs, including attorneys fee.s, staff and other related costs, incurred to enforce compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. At the discretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County Director of Property Tax and Public Records az a special tax against the real property owned by such Person. SECTION V PROVISIONS ARE CUMULATIVE The provisions in this Ordinance are cumulative and 'are additional limitations upon all other laws and ordinances covering any subject matter in this Ordinance. II ! 1, I ~, II1 i I SECHON VI EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon pas.sage by the County Board. Pa.s.sed by the Board of County Commissioners of Heanepin County this xxxx day of XXXX, 1993. COUNTY OF tIENNEPIN STATE OF MINNF. fiOTA BY: Chair of the County Board APPROVED: Assistant County Attorney ATI'EST: Clerk of the County Board 4 /WPLUM il I I, IJ ! I TEL: ~$8-2625 Rug 24,95 11:22 No.006 P .01 I. AW orr)Ets WURST, PEARSON., LAII~SON, UNDERWOOD & MCRTZ Old~ FINANCiAl II)L~.ZA. ~UI~[ ItO0 FACSIHILE ~RANSI~I~'fAL TO: Company: ..... Total number of pages including transmittal sheet If you 8o not receive all pages, please call 612o338-4200. The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privLleged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of th~s communication is strictly prohibited. you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (612-338-4200) and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. I EL: .~6~-2b2b WHLUM II Nu§ 24,9,5 ~1:22 No.UUb P'.U2 BEST&FLANAGAN in. ~ New to the Bench By Clifford M. Greene 'I've always considered my,elf vary lucky in my career,' observes R4M~nbaum with charac~zf.btfc '~;), rtr, t Job out of law school was · law atu&n~'s d.'~am: trig ~Rri~h~ euel in _0hi_'caro -- often t, ~ _ on behalf' ~ A vlHety of t~n~nt clients. We thou~t ~1~ ~ mal~ matured.' She f- Nntfmantml her yetis u a~out C~...J~,. eou.-troom lawyer fbr other as,a: 'It was there ! met a tale,tad ¥iaTA h_wYer named ~3m Roeenbe~m.' And than, sb offered tho under, ta~ed ·aide: 'Wa worked very well t~fether.' · Apparen_t~. ,o. W~'nen it ¢_-~_-_ time t.t~., two Ides]lath lawyers t~ move on to , me ~e, one ~ll.~e l ~,~n~ ~ ~ ~ la bi,ed ~ ~d ~apla~ 1 ~ d~ ~ .fo=~ e~, l ~ve no doubt ~a~ she ~,' n~w pha~t of' their ctreers, they did ,o ' ?,~_(uth?r .--..as · domeetk ptr~neri~ip. ~'ney (~lcMI4 k) pur~ue life t4)~ethor {n · . to anyone who Minne~ot4. . .m.t~ her mo.-Lt,.re. ~Vhat atdp. ney. a~d "I for A Job worldrlf for the.]~, wefts .ltUgn,n_ta may not know is that ..tin.ed ou.t. t6 be one el'the }mst oppor~%trd. Hen. Matllyn Roeenb·g~l portunft¥ to pr.side over complex ues z co,ua peutbly have had M expl~m a commercial litigation, which, w01 call now st4t4 lad · new &rea of the law at the defm to serve others through the practice her t,'a~rttnf and er~erlenc~ :n same of law. Mari]~ l~osenbaum il ever-~ate. Mat~yn Rooenbaum traveled Orr, urn. f~ to her former cotlea~ues st the ~Mms ~ out ~atet Mlrmeeota on cases involving ~ asta~4= and complex bull, eel vtluA. ~ (n?w l~bins l<apl~n}~A~'r p~ln ~lon~. She may be ~ho only ~.r,gn in ~ ~vezopmgapart.t;mepositio~ rorher. ~he I~came able t~ build, a prlVAtf# ~,aetlee fn wlt~ at3~ian, l If~ai~]~t tn~ fha employment ~th th. ~. M. we_l] is ~e ir[ab, of judging. 'I know In the mld-1970s, Mar(1),n Re,ambers wL~..t Fm ~ttlr~ into," s~e acknowlodlu. Zn ~e yea~ since her husband became A ~e~n~t~eed. an. ew v~. at~on-- motherhood. The Fate~l t. hat the l~wyer, at Robins worn fed.mljudfe, she has developed a u.u/? m.'dr-anara, now 1T, wu roll.wed wallin[ to hire me in a flexiWs a~'enge, understanding that ~metfmes Judges wtthlfl two year, by the trHvel of twtfl sent, she states, deecribirlg her years at girls, Victoria and Catherine, With thr~ Robin, with fond.e,,. 'My spt~ielty must ma]tm decislord which an dJfflcult new - and .trs..~i. 'I ·ppru~ate ~e burden t.hAt c~ild~en In ali,peru, Roseflbaum devoted ~was the clo.~t you cnn aJ.ud~e et~e, wlwfl trldnf to malco a hat attention ~a .sWing a family. ~even~e. "I tto worked closely with cTlent~ who ',~_,_.~nav? _.,pp~l worklnI altor~ther' get to In ol-d-~hl~ned law practice, I clslon, euch as sentencinl, which can l~l by wr'Ttin~ ~f~ were real change Iomeone'l life Io drastically,' ~ople w4th ~ery immediate problems,' ex. Raeenbaum vows that her Judicial re- ~,.~~ plains the new iud~., - '"'~ -~ ' eponsibllitie, will not rorce her ~ ab4ndo. ·u, -lth the. mclll on,heir Jives. It wis very ~lfllllnm' ~wlinI ~am which his ~me ~ au- Ar tho Robin, fi~..~, w,,r~,~ closely tumn ~tual toe the Judf~. in the 10~8, ~o tNst and ,l~ arum When Rf,ckwoll ?{~eyhell, eta.dinI th~ drlm' ~,t pi~h early ~lm ~ame U.S. At~ey with attorney ~[m ~ckwell, t, p. rtmer In chee~n[ ~or her teenage daughters ~ct ~senbaum ~rll had ~] eft- ~oved his pra~i~ ove~ h, iht. P,,oham Haik law fl , . am~ games and ~nnim at Minne~nka ~m, · ~ ti~e ~ mnq~er i new p~reoilona~ · ~. ho urged hlx v:th,.d col. petitions, apd traveling with her family. worm. pflvaM p~e~ In e lar~ law ~. ~ks~v~,l v,~, ~~ (Her most ~nt v~atlon Included a ~me~ ~ Twinsbu~, ~hio ~ ~t ~ ~e same ~me, the ~tum Jud~ brazed - De~oi~e thn ~oTa~l~e ~r,,vR~,,~h,.r ~tov nt family cuu]d panictpm~ ,n a twins con~n. 'b ~r ~mo~e at~moyl --e~nl ~ blend .~~er colle,,~,.~ ~'~('rihe~r tlon.) ' 4al ~mlly Involvsmmnt with ~elr as Ir,Me ~ llFe-l,n~ ~ri~,nd - which WPLUM --L[ TEL: 3,38-2625 Ru§ 24,93 !!:22 No.006 P.03 Roe. enbeum * Continued exceptional legal experience and talent. her long-time colleai~e Jim Rockwell noted at ha~ swearing-in, 'ghe has de~t ~t~ ~th ~e simple and ~ · e e~deHy, ~abl~, and ~ who ~d a~ut ~e p~fe~lon H she ~ ~ced her ~r ~ her ~m~y ~fe.* l] O ~~. ~g ~ a~fldl~ ~ Cl~ndlnll~ R~r 8~ (82~),11 u~en~ studio ~ un~mmon tO tM oz~ent title they m sppllcabte and ~2.8 ~td~ml~t~ f~ ~At With~t t~ A~e {~ll~ ~bment} ~ ~u~ should i.hmtnk 8~d adeq~aM denning. ~me, of the (3) any mlli~ml ~6~MQ~InMI of ~c~on, lecithinI ci~l obtl~otione I~siflf hm ~ or~nizi~ofl*l con- notable (6) iny ~or criminal ~ =fin Indi- ~nael or · vail of the who pmn(clpm~d In, tendeRLY, b~ tho o~ni~tion other mufl~ ufl~r I (8) &ay culpeblUty .cora under ! K2.5c) (Culplblltty S~o~} ~E.r ~an TO or lower ~ln O; ~ ~onl ~r ~e or men (JO) tn~ ~ictQr llstid In ti de~i~ th riflp, Incising t~. ~- ~. a~iflM tev,~, in6 iny a~ava~nf ~¥abllity ~, t8 U,S.C. I ~72fi) lm~il~on o~1 ~n~nm · 0 eo~ shill ~nli~r, Iff Iddition ~ t~. ~c~rl Mt fo~ in ~tlon l l) ~e dirlnaiflt'l income. II~lni capet- dilly dependent ~ tho dafo~d~nt, ~r any ~her ~fl do~ndoflt on ~e deFendant. ay otho~.~r~ (la;lading a ~vo~m.nt) t ~ould ~ ms~ilbie for ~ WOl~are of ~fldoM, ~tat~ ~ the ~ur~n that qTte~a- live puflli~mcnt, would 13) any ~vnlo~ tou infllcMd u~n ~e~ ~) the n~d ~ dep~vo the de~Adant Iltelally o~in~ ~a;~. ~m the fl~: and o~cer, dime, ~plo~o, oF MORt ~e ~. p~veflt a ~0~ of such ~ ~. °18 ~,9.C. I ~3. lmpos~tlm~ ~ a Sentence (a) r~n M ~ ~floide~ la lm~flf ~mpty ~th the pu~m Mt b~ ~ (2) oftkh fuh~on, ~e ~ in ~e ~lCu~sr m~n~ ~ b im~, shill ~. il) ~e Mtum and d~uml~ncN o~t~ of- fen~ and the hi.~ and chart~itiel d. fen~nt; 12) ~ nfld for the Mn~nce lm~ied-- ~d. just pu~lshm, nt hr t~. Inet mflduct; (C) ~ p~t t~ public ~m edmcs of the deftndaflt~ a~ (D) to pm~d. ~e 4,re~nt ~th ed~cntloflat or v~a~oflil ~ifllflf. m.~c~ ~, or other ~lonil t~at~int range .tobliahod For thy appllc~hlc ~f,,~enM ~mmit~ by t~e applicatiun io~ ordefsndaflt ~ Mt ~ iff the ~{dellne. that nra ifsu~ b~the ~n~n~n4 Commission pursuant ~ 2~ U.S.C. ~a,l) and that t~ t any ~[neflt ~l{cy t~tOmont iMg~ by the ~ntcflcing C()mmiJsi~n pu~umnt to U.9.C. ~*ds2J that i, in o~c~ on the dom (&, thu nkvd ~ avoid unwa~nntod ~ctim~ ofth~ ~ffon~, ~ T~a l-[enneuln Lawyer ;~i~ip ~ ~ ~ ( ~ 82 7. ~ 8 ~ 6) i#ip ~v Phi~p V ( ~890. ~ 935) House of Moy 5555 Shoreline Blvd. Mound MN 55364 Sernmer Company, Inc. 4144 S. H/ghway 101 M/nnetonka, MN 55345 ('612) 474-8004 IE"C"D AU8:2 4 1993 August 23, 1993 What a pleasure it was to have a 5 minute conversation with such' an alert concerned citizen ("Keibi") in Japanese; I didn't find out the equivalent in Cantonese. I speak of the "Abuse of Authority" by your City fathers in the threat of "indictment" in your concern for the safety of Mound citizens, some of whom must be handicapped, who choose to eat at your House. (see City of Minnetonka vs. Delmore) in the matter of a garage with a building permit; neighbors decided the "drip line was in violation of ordinance! It cost the City of Minnetonka at least $100,000 of tax money. An exchange of checks between the two parties saw Danl Delmore (retired engineer) the "winner", by $6.75! He spent a very large s~n of money for '~is day in Court". (District Judge La June T Lange presiding). Circa 1991. The "media" has forgot to mention the vote of the Mayor in the "dispute" of their right to legislate over a Hennepin Co. road. (does the police file show a ticket issued to the Mayor for not yielding, stopping, etc. when the crosswalk was in place? It would appear any legitimate member of any body of government would have voted "present" on the issue. ilegitimi non carborundum" Ist generation Ital~ian will tranlate. cc City of Mound cc Hennepin Co. Con~nissioners cc City of Minnetonka cc Mr. Danl Delmore best w~ish~.~e~ for succ.~mss, Phillipf~. Seamer II i I HENNEPIN IL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesoto 55343-8468 PHONE: (612) 930-2500 FAX (612) 930-2513 TDD: [612) 930-2696 I~"O AU6 2 6 August 19, 1993 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive) Between CSAH 110 and Belmont Lane Speed Zoning Dear Mr. Shukle: Enclosed is a copy of the speed limit authorization issued by the Commissioner of Transportation on CSAH 15 (Shoreline Drive) between CSAH 110 (Commerce Boulevard) and 150 feet east of Belmont Lane. Authorized is a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The current speed limit on this segment of CSAH 15 is 35 miles per hour. Signing changes will be made as soon as scheduling permits. The speed zone investigation was requested by City Council Resolution No. 93-74, dated June 8, 1993. Sincerely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DAL:gk Attachment cc: Pat Murphy HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppodunih/employer Mn/DOT 29213 (12-78) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCAL STREET OR HIGHWAY SPEED LIMIT AUTHORIZATION Road Authority Hennepin County [ Date Road Name or No. County State Aid Highway 15 Page I of l P July 30, 1993 Termini of Zone: From CSAH I10 To 150 feet east of Belmont Lane IDate of Request July 9, 1993 Kindly make the following changes in speed limits on the above-referenced section. Changes authorized herein are in accordance with Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act, M.S. Chapter 169.14 and applicable subdivisions thereof. 30 miles per hour between the intersection with County State Aid Highway 110 and a point approximately 150 feet east of the intersection with Belmont Lane. NOTE: The speed limits, described in this authorization, are authorized contingent upon curves and hazards being signed with the appropriate advance curve or warning signs, including appropriate speed advisory plates. The roadway described shall be reviewed for traffic control devices impacted by the authorized speed limits before posting the signs. Warning signs and speed limit signs shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (1) White - Road Authority (1) Pink - Central Office Traffic (1) Blue - District Traffic Engineer .r Mn/l~O.f,~tl3~ffized ~nature ' for Road Authority use only Date traffic control devices changed implementing this authorization Month-Day-Year ]Signature [Title i AUG 2 3 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda 5:30 pm, Wednesday, August 25, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Meeting report review of 7/28/93 meeting; Administrative subcommittee report of 8/3/93: a. Concept presentations addressing issues raised in the 8/3/93 subcommittee report; (committee hand-out) * Discussion and recommendations * Consideration of a board workshop date and place to further develop subcommittee concepts presented 3. Fee Study Subcommittee report of 8/3/93; 4. Board member staggered term review per 8/17/93 proposal; City of Spring Park and City of Excelsior communications concerning a by-laws amendment to allow an alternate representative to vote when appointed representative is unable to be present. City of Spring Park communication asking clarification on "voluntary contribution" of aspect of Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvest program budget; 7. Additional business; BOARD MEMBER NOTICE: Please confirm your attendance OR REGRETS for food planning purposes, 473-7033. Thank you. I · I, I I, ii i i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearings 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 1993 Tonka Bay city Hall 4901 Manitou Rd (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS Excel Marina, New Multiple Dock License Application, St. Albans Bay, Excelsior Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Dock Length Variance Application, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran READING OF MINUTES - 7/28/93 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, 8/14/93 meeting B. Cosentino Dock Length Variance Application, 20640 Linwood Road, Deephaven, Lower Lake South; Public hearing report and findings as corrected, recommending denial of variance for 200' dock, and allowing applicant 90 days to bring dock into compliance C. Stocks side Setback Variance, Mound, Halsteds Bay; request to amend the condition on the 7/28/92 Order regarding watercraft beam limit of 7' D. Bean's Greenwood Marina, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; New license application to relocate three tie-on slips, recommending denial E. Additional business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, 8/16/93 meeting LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 8/25/93, Pg. 2 B. Decibel Level Ordinance Amendment, second reading; changing the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka from 82 to 80 decibels C. Public officials Lake Tour; recommending to move the date of the tour from the first Saturday in August to the second Saturday. D. Special Events - Deposit Refund of $100 for Westonka MDA Bass Tournament, 7/25/93, recommending approval E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report F. Additional business 3. ENVIRONMENT A.Environment Committee, Chair Rascop 1) Report of 8/24/93 meeting B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Report of 8/20/93 meeting 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Report of 8/3/93 subcommittee meeting B. Report of 8/3/93 Fee Study subcommittee meeting C. Report of 8/25/93 meeting FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. July Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Nominating Committee Slate of officers NEW BUSINESS ****** EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING HOWARD KELSEY PAGE V. COMMISSIONER OF NATURAL RESOURCES IMPLIED CONSENT LITIGATION ******* ADJOURNMENT 8/18/93 ,! ! I J, II i I AU8 2 5 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, July 28, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO OR:DER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Penn at 8 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven: James Grathwol, Excelsior: Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minne- trista; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; George Owen, Victoria. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood: Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Penn for Cochran A. Penn asked Board members to respond to the staff as to whether they will attend the Public officials Lake Tour and Luncheon, Saturday, August 7, 1993. Reservations will be taken until 8/4. B. Strommen announced that during the high water emergency Chair Cochran taped a thirty second public service announcement through the cooperation of Lakes Cable Advertising and the Excel- sior Park Tavern. Joel Campion, Lakes Cable Advertising, showed the announce- ment on a TV screen as it will appear on the ESPN, CNN, TNN and USA channels. The announcement by Cochran called the attention of the boating public to the need for wake control during the high water period. Campion said Lakes Cable Advertising and the Excelsior Park Tavern have contributed $1,000 a month toward similar programming. He welcomed any suggestions as to changes in wordage. Other messages would also be invited in the future. READING OF MINUTES A. Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 6/23/93 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unani- mous ly. B. Johnstone moved, Carlson seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/15/93 Emergency Board meeting with the following correct ion: Page 3 Paragraph 3 - the last word should be "wakes" Motion carried unanimously. C. Grathwol moved, Johnstone seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/17/93 Emergency Board meeting with the following correct ions: " Page 3 Paragraph 3 - where it says "Moore moved it should read "Bloom moved". - continued I, MCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 Page 3 - "Motion carried" should be added after the second paraoraph Page 3 Paragraph 2 - The water level should be "929.8'". instead of "929.6'" Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS From persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. Thomas Wartman. representing the Gideons Point tlomeowners Association (HOA) requested reconsideration of the Board action denying the variance for Lots 1 through 5. He submitted a re- vised plan for the boardwalk over the wetlands for Lots 1 and 2. The request included a reduction of the HOA boat density from 51 Boat Storage Units to 47 Boat Storage Units. He asked for refer- ral of the new variance request to the next Water Structures Committee meeting on 8/14, for a recommendation to be considered by the Board at its regular meeting on 8/25. LeFevere said that, because the Board has acted on the application, it would require a motion by a Board member to do anything with it. A motion to reconsider has to be made at the same meeting the original motion was made. A motion to rescind and/or a motion to alter the previous action would be in order. That type of motion could be made by any member, to be differen- tiated from a motion to reconsider which requires the motion be made by a member of the prevailing side. The motion to rescind or modify the previous action would require previous notice of the proposed action, with a majority of the entire body or 2/3 of the members present in favor. If the motion were to send the new application to the Water Structures Committee it would only require a majority vote of the members present. Babcock said the issue of a site plan for the entire devel- opment shoreline which conforms to the Order issued for granting the Gideons Point Homeowners Association 1993 multiple dock license is pending before the Water Structures Committee. The Committee tabled action at the last meeting because the site plan was not submitted. Strommen said he does not believe the commit- tee would be in any position to reconsider the application in view of the Order denying the variance on the west end. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to refer Mr. Wartman's request to the Water Structures Committee. DISCUSSION: Babcock said the new dock license for the HOA is not complete until the missing site plan has been approved. He called for either a vote on the motion on the floor or a motion to modify the variance. LeFevere said an alternative would be for a member to give notice tonight that there will be a motion to rescind at the next Board meeting. Johnstone asked if it is possible for Wartman to submit a new variance application. LeFevere said Wartman could start the whole process over by paying a new fee and having another public hearing. Hurt wondered if there is a time limit for asking for reconsideration. LeFevere said there is no such provision under the LMCD rules. LeFevere said the action the Board took was - continued I ! 1, I I Il i I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 predicated on the information received at the public hearing. The court allows the Board to rescind action. He does not believe it would be a problem to proceed at the next Board meeting. After a certain point a new application and/or a new public hearing may be required. A potential risk in the Board acting to reconsider the matter is that a court would require another public hearing. Grathwol said his motion to refer the matter to the Water Structures Committee would leave any future action up to the committee. As he understands it. there is a change in the vari- ance application. The new site plan was just received and he, Grathwol, does not fully understand it. Justin Holl, 30 Pearl Street, has seen the new proposal. It moves the new dock 40' closer to the Holl property. He wants the dock to be further away from his property. VOTE: Grathwol, Johnstone, Owen and Foster voted aye. Bloom, Carlson, Reese, Hurt, Rascop, Babcock, and Penn voted nay. Motion failed. Wartman said the HOA is not opposed to making a new applica- tion, paying the fee and having a public hearing. He would like to do that prior to the Water Structures Committee meeting so a public hearing could be held on August 14. He said there is enough time to meet the publication requirements. There was discussion as to whether a public hearing could be held before the committee meeting. It has been done in the past only when there was a need to proceed quickly because of the boating season beginning. There was consensus that the public hearing must be held before a regular Board meeting. Carlson said the new site plan doesn't address the concerns of the Board and nothing is going to change until Wartman meets the variance criteria. Suzanne Holl, 15 Highland Avenue, said it is possible to go around the marsh with the dock for the west end of the property, moving it toward the development. That would solve the variance problem and the marsh problem. She said there is nothing dramat- ically different about the new proposal. Hurt said the Board had previously acted to limit the time for presentations from people not on the agenda. That procedure should be followed as it is not considerate of other people waiting to be heard. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Minutes. Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/10/93 Water Structures Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. Stocks Side Setback Variance Application, Mound, Halst- eds Bay btOTION: Hurt moved, Reese seconded, to accept the recommendation of the Water Structures Committee to approve the Findings and Order approving the side setback variance application of Thomas and Roma Stocks. VOTE: Motion carried, Carlson, Babcock and Bloom voting nay. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 C. Lakeside Marina License Conditions, Maxwell Bay, Orono The Board received a recommendation from the committee that the District proceed with prosecution on the off-lake storage violation, unless James Dunn, President of Lakeside Marina, brings the facility into compliance by this meeting, and to amend the license conditions to show that the records shall include the MN number, or name and port of call for documented boats, for iden- tification of all boats stored on land, in lieu of name. address and phone number as previously stated. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to accept the commit- tee recommendation. DISCUSSION: Thibault reported Dunn was cooperative and discussed all of the boats on his property with her. There are a large number of boats on the east side of the property, which are there for a variety of reasons such as long-term storage and service. Thibault said Dunn gave her the status of each boat, includ- ing those on trailers on the west side of the property. Two of the trailer boats were on an "in and out" contract. One boat has been moved to the Lakeside showroom for sale, at the request of the owner. The owner of the other boat could not be contacted and the boat has been moved to an off-lake facility of Dunn's. Dunn has advised all of his customers that the ramp cannot be used because of the high water and the LMCD rules. Thibault believes the boat storage on land is in compliance. A motion by Grathwol to table the motion was defeated by 4 ayes, 5 nays and 2 abstentions. Babcock and Grathwol withdrew the original motion. MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the 1993 multiple dock license for Lakeside Marina, Inc. with the condi- tions as amended in that his records are to include the state registration number or name and port of call for documented boats for identification of all boats stored on land. VOTE: Motion carried, Hurt abstaining. D. Navarre Cove Homeowners Assoc., Carmans Bay, Orono MOTION: Babcock moved, Johnstone seconded, to accept the recom- mendation of the Water Structures Committee to approve the re- vised Navarre Cove HOA site plan dated 6/8/93 changing the three stick docks from 25' to 44' for 6 BSU, subject to LMCD receiving the Association's documentation of boat storage rights. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Excelsior Park Tavern Amenities, Excelsior Bay. Excel- sior MOTION: Babcock moved, Penn seconded, to accept the recommenda- tion of the Water Structures Committee to amend the Excelsior Park Tavern license to reflect a trade in amenities from the pool for swimming lessons to the provision of free charter boat rides to handicapped and under-privileged community groups - which are of equal Code value. The licensee is to provide the charter boat rides to at least 100 people per year and give a written report at the end of the season. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. I! 1, I _1 Il i I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes. Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/19/93 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. High Water Level Foster thanked the LMCD staff for the inordinate job it did in getting out the publicity on the rules to be observed during the high water emergency. Foster publicly thanked Gabriel Jabbour for his financial contribution and assistance, the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association for its support and help in passing out fliers and helping with the mailing, to the TV stations for the publicity and to Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvement, for his department's swift reaction in moving buoys. Letters of appreciation are to be sent to all who assisted. The Board expressed appreciation to the executive director for the extra time and for the effort he put in preparing the plan. Thibault said the number of calls about high water are down since the regulations went into effect. Rascop said he has had calls thanking the LMCD for its action. Hurt said some people have said it would be a good idea to have the regulations on a permanent basis. Penn said he has had complaints from the Interlachen area at the Narrows where homeowners have had to sand bag. There is no minimum wake in that area. The executive director has talked to Denis Bailey about that area and the channel buoys will be moved out 300' from the end of channel. Bailey will add a point marker so when the boats come out from the channel buoys they will be moved further away from the area. Penn said he would like to see some signs at the Coffee Bridge, Arcola Bridge and Narrows Bridge. The executive director will look into the request to see what can be done. Rascop noted the 135 warnings issued by the Water Patrol. MOTION: Rascop moved, Owen seconded, to write a letter to Sher- iff Omodt thanking him for his immediate help in enforcement of the high water ordinance, with a copy to Sgt. Chandler. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Decibel Level ordinance Amendment The Board received an opinion from LeFevere regarding the proposed amendment to the ordinance limiting decibel levels on the Lake. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the first reading of An Ordinance Relating to the Decibel Limits of Marine Engines or Motor Boats on Lake Minnetonka; Amending LMCD Code Section 3.01. Subdivision 17. DISCUSSION: The amendment reduces the decibel level for marine engines or motorboats to 80 decibels from 84 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured before 1/1/82 and from 82 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured on or after 1/1/82. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 Babcock questioned the change of all engines and motorboats to 80 decibels. Foster said the committee decided this would be a more practical means of enforcement. Babcock said the date of manufacture is shown on all engines and motors. Penn said he would support the 80 decibels over all. Hurt asked about having a public hearing. Foster said this was discussed at public meetings at which manufacturers and vendors were given an opportunity to be heard. Carlson said it would be advisable to give adequate notice to everyone before the second reading of the ordinance. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay. D. Special Events 1. The new and renewal special event information, as shown in the approved minutes of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee, was accepted. 2. Deposit Refunds MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the fol- lowing deposit refunds of $100 each to: a) Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/5/93 b) IN Bass Tournament, 6/6/93 c) Mound City Days Fireworks and Water Ski Show, 6/20/93 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol The Water Patrol submitted a report of significant activity on Lake Minnetonka since 6/23/93 with an addendum covering quiet water activity since 7/19/93. The addendum shows 132 verbal warnings, 15 citations and 5 written warnings issued 7/20 - 7/27. Enforcement activities have been taking place in response to complaints of alleged violations by the Minnetonka Yacht Club and Minnetonka Sailing School in Carson's Bay. Numerous copies of the High Water Emergency handouts have been distributed. The Water Patrol continues to receive a large number of calls each day regarding the minimum wake rules. The weekly charter boat inspect ion update from 4/28 - 7/10/93 was submitted. The reports were received and filed. Hurt observed that the Water Patrol did not have a represen- tative at this meeting. The executive director reported the Dis- trict received verbal notice from Lt. Esensten that the Water Patrol was directed to not send a representative to the Board meetings or the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meetings. It is a matter of the time involved and a question as to whether there is full appreciation of the services they are providing. Carlson said the District should formally invite the Water Patrol to the meetings, expressing how much the District values and appreciates Water Patrol input, with an assurance that every effort will be made to limit the time they spend at the meetings. Hurr suggested personal calls inviting the Water Patrol and Sheriff's Department to the Public Officials Lake Tour. The executive director reported the Lake level is 930.13' as of 7/28/93. II ! I, I ! II1 I I LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 E. ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurt Hurr reported there was no meeting this month. 1) Draft Proposal to contract for environmental planning, implementation services. The executive director distributed a draft Contract Service Action Plan dated 7/26/93 from the Environment Committee, as well as a draft action plan prepared by Dick Osgood, dated 7/12/93, to accomplish environmental protection objectives of the Management Plan. MOTION: Hurr moved, Penn seconded, to approve an independent contractor agreement between the District and Dick Osgood, Eco- system Strategies, to engage Osgood to implement an action plan to accomplish environmental protection objectives in the Manage- ment Plan for Lake Minnetonka as introduced in the District's outline dated 7/26/93 and the contractor's outline dated 7/12/93. DISCUSSION: The executive director said there are more than sufficient funds in the 1993 budget and the balance will be' carried forward to 1994. Rascop asked that the LMCD auditor comment on the propriety of that action. Penn said he has worked with Osgood on the EWM Task Force and finds him very competent. Grathwol had questions from the Excelsior City Council regarding the budget for this plan. He wondered if the Board will get an overview of the work to be accomplished on an ongoing basis. It appears to him that there is no termination date on the contract. Hurt said there will be an evaluation after Phase I. Grathwol asked if the committee had looked at funding the plan in any other way. lie suggested the Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District, the Pollution Control Agency or the Iiennepin Conservation District. Hurr said the committee could not see those agencies participating with funding in the District's plan. The executive director said this program is like seed money to get investment from the lead agencies to implement their portion of the objectives in the Management Plan. Babcock would like to have a presentation every three to four months so a report can be made back to the cities. Hurr said all cities are copied on the minutes, and invited to the meetings. There will be continual updating through the executive director. Johnstone said this is exactly what the District should be doing. He suggested looking for other sources of funding. Grathwol said it is important that the District keep commu- nicating with the cities. That is one of thc most important things on the agenda, t{urr suggested having Osgood give an update at the next Mayors' meeting. The executive director said the cities have been included in all Environment Committee mail- ings. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 Johnstone said there may be funds available from some other source. Hurr said that if application is made to the LCMR the funds would not be available in time to do this program. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn MOTION: Penn moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force meeting of 7/16/93 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1) Report of 7/16/93 meeting Penn reported 303.5 acres have been harvested. High water presents a problem. The public access milfoil fragment clean-up continues. Seven public accesses have received herbicide treatment. The Task Force will be looking at the potential for treating with Garlon IIIA in 1994. The SONAR test in St. Alban's Bay continues. Weevil populations have been found in a natural state in the Lake. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the Administrative Committee meeting of 6/23/93. Motion carried unanimously. B. Administrative Meeting of 7/28/93 Carlson reported it has been suggested all terms expire at the end of 1993. The plan was for some members to resign after 1 or 2 years and then get reappointed for new three year staggered terms to change the current situation when all terms end at one time. Carlson said Mayor Callahan of Orono points out the LbtCD enabling act does not allow one or two year terms. Johnstone asked if there could be a lottery or drawing to establish the new terms. Carlson's response was that some cities and members may have preferences and those should be taken into consideration. Carlson said preferences and commitments will be considered at the next administrative committee meeting. MOTION; Carlson moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the ap- pointment of a nominating committee with Carlson as Chair, and Bloom, Rascop and Babcock as members. The nominating committee is to report its slate of officers at the August Board meeting with the vote to be taken at the September Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Carlson reported a sub-committee of the Administrative Committee is looking at administrative procedures, the restruc- turing of the District board and funding sources. They are looking at ways to solicit comments and concerns from the Dis- trict's constituents. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 The executive director reported receipt of a resolution from the Spring Park City Council requesting consideration be given to amending the LMCD by-laws to allow the communities to elect an alternate Board member to serve when a regular member cannot attend. MOTION: Johnstone moved, Grathwol seconded, to refer the Spring Park resolution to the Administrative Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The next meeting of the Administrative Committee will be 7:30 AM, Tuesday, August 3, 1993 at the LMCD office. The executive director reported the Excelsior Park Tavern has extended an invitation to the Board and guests for an infor- mational cruise on either 8/15 or 9/12 from 11 AM to 1 PM. The purpose would be to familiarize the Board with the operation of a charter boat. In response to a question from Carlson about the propriety of accepting such an offer, LeFevere said it would depend on what happens on the cruise and what is discussed. It would have to meet the Open Meeting Law requirements. Bloom said he would check with the Minnetonka Beach attorney. A show of hands indicated the members preferred the Septem- ber date. FINANCIAL REPORTS A. Financial Reports. MOTION: Carlson moved, Hurt seconded, to approve the Statements of Cash Transactions for April, May and June as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Audit of Vouchers for payment MOTION: Babcock moved, Penn seconded, to approve payment of bills in the amount of $56,372.52, Checks #9285 through 9349 and Payroll Checks #1084 through 1110. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT The executive director presented the calendar for the month of August. The Administrative Committee subcommittee meeting on 8/3 is to be added, as well as an Environment Committee meeting date to be determined. Grathwol said the LMCD Lake Access Com- mittee will meet in September. The executive director said the past week has been challeng- ing for the staff because of the pressure of putting the high water ordinance into effect He commended Thibault and Tyk for their response to the need to prepare and distribute the high water information. Generally the response was favorable from the public when the minimum wake rules were implemented. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 1993 Penn suggested that when the normal water level is reached. the District should review keeping some of the emergency slow buoy placements. The executive director suggested the Lake Use and Recreation Committee could review that subject. The executive director said he and LeFevere had an opportu- nity to welcome the new Minnetonka City Manager, David Childs, to the area. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance Relating to Mandatory (BWI) Chemical Testing on Lake Minnetonka MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the first reading and to waive the second and third reading of An Ordinance Relating to Mandatory (BWI) Chemical Testing on Lake Minnetonka: Amending Code Sect. 3.17, Subd. 14. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Memo regarding LMCD Levy to Cities Carlson called attention to the City of Excelsior memo prepared for distribution to the cities explaining why the LMCD cannot reduce the proposed 1994 levy. Grathwol said he feels the Excelsior City Council understands the reasons despite its letter of protest. C. Resignation Hurt announced she has tendered her resignation to the Orono City Council as a member of the LMCD Board. Penn expressed the regrets of the Board and commended Hurt on her services. The executive director thanked Hurt on behalf of the staff and for her generous help on committees and sharing her professional planning experience. ADJOURNMENT Owen moved, Penn seconded, to adjourn the meeting. carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. Motion David Cochran Douglas Babcock, Secretary I ! 1, I l, II1 ~ ~ I Irr'[ AU8 2 3 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAFT Action Report: Meeting: Water Structures Committee 7:30 AM., Saturday, August 14, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven: David Cochran, Greenwood: Thomas Reese, Mound; Duane Markus, Wayzata (as noted). Also Present: Rachel Thi- bault, Administrative Technician 1. Michael Revier, 2691 Ethel Avenue, Orono, Carmans Bay Babcock reviewed the Public Hearing report and Findings of Fact from 7/28/93 to consider the application of Michael Revier for a dock use area variance. The committee received a packet of information from staff including material made available at the public hearing. A letter dated 8/12/93 from David and LuAnn Runkle, 2684 Casco Point Road, objecting to the variance was submitted. The Runkle letter included attachments, with letters from attorneys Clinton blcLagan and David Sellergren supporting the Runkle objection. The Runkles' objection is based on the contention that the proposed Revier dock will encroach on their property rights. They state Revier has the right to share an existing dock with the neighbor the south, C. Gordon Amundson, 2697 Ethel Avenue, that Revier purchased his lot knowing of the limited docking situation and at the Orono Planning Commission meeting, Revier stated he did not intend to build a dock. Also submitted was a letter dated 8/13/93 from Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel, commenting on the Revier variance appli- cation. LeFevere concluded that granting the variance would not be unreasonable. However, according to LeFevere, it would be appropriate to consider any access to the lake which is associat- ed with the Revier parcel in deciding whether the variance re- quested should be granted. LeFevere advised against the LMCD becoming involved in determining the property rights of Revier and the Runkles. Those rights should be determined by a court of law. An additional letter with attachments furnished by Runkle, dated 8/13/93, was received by the committee at this meeting. Babcock said the submittals will take some time to review. Bab- cock also noted LeFevere's request for more time to complete his review. Revier responded to a question from cochran, stating the house on his lot will be completed in October. Cochran suggested the committee could delay action for more study. Babcock said he would like some discussion at this time because all parties concerned were present. The discussion resulted in the following additional informa- tion:, Revier estimates his shoreline at 28' He agreed to have a survey to determine more precisely the shoreline frontage at 929.4" OHWL. Babcock told Revier the committee will consider a dock length to reach 4' of water depth from the 929.4' level. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 14, 1993 * Revier said he would want to proceed with the variance based on dock shared with Amundson. , Foster asked how far out a shared dock can go when one lot is 30' and the other 50' Can they be combined for an 80' dock? Thibault said 50' would be the authorized dock length as the Code only allows the neighbors to waive the common setback requirement. Babcock would like an opinion from LeFevere if that becomes an issue. * Runkle said he believes there is adequate room for a shared dock on Amundson's property (Lot B) without a variance. He showed an overhead projection of the area. Runkle believes that any problems regarding dock rights lie within R.L.S. 115 which includes the Revier, Amundson and Kauffmann properties. Runkle said it is possible to construct a dock entirely within R.L.S. 115. Babcock noted the property was originally platted when the lake level was below 929.4' and therefore some of the lots were platted to include land that is now under water. The ownership of the property platted below the 929.4' shoreline is questionable and may only be determined by the courts. * R. Kauffmann, 2696 Ethel Avenue, owner of the property south of the Amundson property, said his attorney advises the State of Minnesota owns the property under the water. He be- lieves, if Runkle wants to prove anything different, it should be adjudicated in court. He is agreeable to Revier and Amundson sharing a dock if it can be constructed so as not to interfere with anyone else. He agreed with the LMCD staff recommendation as prepared by Thibault and included in the staff packet. * Runkle does not agree with the LMCD staff recommendation. He believes the matter of dockage was settled in 1956 when the property was platted by giving Revier dockage rights over the Amundson property. . Reese said he believes there is a possibility of compro- mise. He believes the proposal is reasonable, but recommended drawing a dock location in the area defined on the staff recom- mendation. MOTION: Cochran moved, Reese seconded, to have the applicant work with staff and the other parties involved, to draw the dock and boat locations in the dock use area defined on the staff recommendation, staying as far away from the north line as possi- ble. The application is to be held over to the next committee meeting for an expanded opinion from LeFevere. DISCUSSION: Babcock asked Revier and Amundson if there was a limitation on boat size that they would consider acceptable. Revier and Amundson said they have 25' and 21' boats, respective- ly. Kauffmann said he would have to move his dock further south. He believes the angle could be modified to some extent. Cochran asked for the shoreline frontage on the Kauffmann and Runkle properties. Kauffmann said he has approximately 100' and Runkles' have approximately 110' Mrs. Runkle asked for consideration of their plan. It was suggested the Runkle proposal be overlayed on the staff proposal to show the area of disagreement. Any new material is to be - continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 14, 1993 submitted to staff at least 8 days before the next committee meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Louis and Judith Cosentino, 20640 Linwood Road, Deephaven. The Public Hearing report and findings from 7/28/93 were submitted to the committee. There is a correction on page 2 of the report, paragraph 7. The sentence should read "At a dock length of 100' he shows 51" of water depth." Cosentino said his request is not for a 200' dock. He is asking for a dock over 100' long to accommodate a 46' cruiser with a 40" draft. Cosentino objects to what he considers selec- tive enforcement of the LMCD rules as there are other neighboring docks out further than 100' When he purchased his property the neighboring docks were out as much as 300' and he did not realize those were temporary low water extensions. As a result he put his dock in at the same length as it was in past years, 240' His specific complaints were that the Murphy property has 55' of shoreline and a 100' dock. The Carisch property has 45' of shoreline with a 110' dock. Babcock reviewed the Code allowance for length variances to reach 4' depth, and the need for a hardship to be shown before granting a variance. In this case. he said, the hardship results from the applicant having a boat larger than what can be accommo- dated at this location. It is the policy of the District to act on complaints, and in this case complaints have been received on the extreme length of the dock. Cosentino said he already moved his dock over this spring when his neighbor objected to the setback, but the length was not mentioned. Foster observed that the 240' length with a canopy was extreme in the view of the neighbors after they had moved their docks back in from the low water years. Babcock said the question before the committee is how to get Cosentino into compliance, considering the 4' depth limitation on variances. The neighbors should also be required to comply. Foster said letters should be written to the neighbors who are in violation and they should bring their docks back into their dock use areas. Babcock said the LMCD Code was designed to put constraints on large boat storage in that the depth of the water should be a constraint on the size of a boat docked at any location. The Code prevents large boats from being stored beyond 100' Cosen- tino responded that there are many locations on the Lake in the same situation as his. Babcock said perhaps a lake-wide survey should be made to determine if the 4' water depth/100' dock is appropriate. The 4' water depth allowance is the same as the ~{nDNR rule. Reese said perhaps there is a point where a [)oat should be stored at a marina. Cochran said he believes most of the docks which are out more than 100' are there because of a shallow water situation. Cosentino said he does not object to having a 100' dock if everyone else has a 100' dock. He is willing to come back with an application for that length for next year with the understand- ing he can put on an extra section if the water depth is less than 4' Foster said he believes the LMCD Code regarding dock lengths is wrong because it is not consistent with what is happening all around the Lake. He said, when looking at a 4' depth, that is not water generally used by the public. Markus arrived. MOTION: Cochran moved, Reese seconded, to recommend that the Board deny the variance request of Louis Cosentino for a 200' dock and to allow the applicant 90 days to come in compliance wi th the Code. VOTE: Motion carried, Markus abstaining. Mrs. Cosentino asked if a request for a 150' dock would save them the problem of re-applying next year. Foster said he ques- tioned whether any variance could be granted unless there was a Iow water year. Babcock said it would be up to the Cosentinos to decide what kind of a variance application they want to make for next year. Babcock added that Cosentino will have to prove hardship in any other variance application. Cosentino is to confer with the LMCD staff in making another application. The committee discussed other ways of determining dock lengths. There was a suggestion from Foster that dock length be allowed to 925.4' lake bottom elevation to give the 4' depth from the OHWL. Foster also suggested limiting the size of boats stored at private property. Babcock said there are certain lots on the lake which do accommodate boats of a desired size. Cochran was excused. 3. Stocks Side Setback Variance, Mound, Halsteds Bay Babcock reviewed the Board approval of the Findings and Order to allow Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, a variance for 5' setbacks, restricting the length to one 40' stick dock with no canopy, for one restricted watercraft with a maximum ?' beam, to stay within the dock use area. Babcock said, earlier this week the question of the 7' boat width limitation was raised by the Stocks. Babcock said he does not believe the committee should second guess the action of the Board. He would prefer the question go directly to the Board, to either reconsider or amend the Order. He said the Board could either send it back to the committee or change the Order. Foster asked why the District specified boat and dock widths. He said the committee action on the Revier variance application was to locate a dock within a dock use area without any reference to limiting .the size of the boats on the dock. Mr. and Mrs. Stocks said their application was only for a waiver of the 10' setback to 5' Stocks said their survey lhows they have 21.9' of shoreline rather than the 20' on which the variance was predicated. This would al low them to store an 8' wide boat. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 14, 1993 Babcock said it is possible they should not store anything larger than a 7' boat on the dock. The variance gave the Stocks the right to have access for a minimal lakeshore. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, that the committee recom- mend the board amend the variance Order to change the limit to 5' side setbacks and eliminate the mention of the boat and dock width. DISCUSSION: Babcock said he could not support the motion because any action to overturn an Order should be initiated by the Board. Reese said he does not remember any discussion of a 7' boat width at the Public Hearing. He believes there is an error in the Findings and the District has created a hardship for the Stocks. Reese said the District should not design docks or specify boat sizes. VOTE: Foster and Reese voted aye. Babcock and Markus voted nay. Motion failed. Babcock asked that the item be placed on the Board agenda at the request of the Stocks. Markus mentioned the possibility of the Board reconsidering the variance request and the variance being denied. Babcock said he will entertain a motion from the Board at the next Board meeting, to consider amending the Order. It is his belief that will require a 2/3 vote from the Board. Mrs. Stocks said there should be some rule that real estate people are accountable for giving information regarding LMCD rules. She also questioned why she and her husband were not informed in 1987 of a complaint about the dock on the property. The previous owner was notified by the LMCD instead of the Stocks. With that knowledge they would have been in a different position as to the price of the property. 4. Bean's Greenwood Marina, St. Albans Bay, Greenwood Thibault reported an inspection showed that the owner of Bean's Greenwood Marina, James Bean, moved several tie-ons front their approved position to a position more convenient to him. Bean submitted an application to relocate the slips. This in- cludes one outside of the 100' length. MOTION: Babcock moved, Markus seconded, to recommend to the Board denial of James Bean's application for relocation of slips at the Bean's Greenwood Marina Multiple Dock because he has moved boats outside of the 100' limitation. VOTE: Motion carried, Foster voting nay. 5. Adjournment Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM. FOR TttE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair Action Report: Meeting: IEC'D AU6 2 3 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Use and Recreation Committee DRAFT Members Present: Bert Foster. Chair, Deephaven: Robert Rascop, Shorewood: Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Evaluation of High Water Emergency Program Reese reported on his experiences riding with the Water Patrol on Friday, August 6, 1993. He found the Water Patrol to be very professional and recommends the experience to other Board members. He stated the deputies he rode with made about 12 stops for various reasons. They asked the boaters if they were familiar with the Minimum Wake law and distributed information. One ticket was issued to the operator of a ski boat going full throt- tle the length of a Minimum Wake bay. The operator said he was not familiar with the law, despite obvious signage at the en- trance of the bay. Reese observed a drug bust on Boy Scout Island. The Water Patrol and Hennepin Park Rangers cooperated in the investigation. A complaint was received about a chain saw being used on the island. Investigation showed four juveniles were partying. When the Water Patrol approached the juveniles threw what appeared from the smoke odor to be marijuana into the fire. There were no arrests. Reese said he found it interesting to watch how it was handled. Reese said the Water Patrol is not happy about enforcing the 600' Minimum Wake zone. Reese said there was one stop for a boat that was not show- lng a stern light. The boat was difficult to see but was noticed because of the careful observance of the deputy operating the patrol boat. Reese said he was out from 6:30 PM to 10:30 PM. Rascop said he has had a number of calls commending the LMCD for the Minimum Wake ordinance. He met one individual with negative remarks. That party thought the ordinance is foolish. The executive director said the LMCD office has received mostly positive remarks. He said he is amazed how many people are water skiing and towing persons in the main lake in lieu of the bays now posted minimum wake. Thibault said Board member Johnstone reported there are many boaters not observing the restriction in Grays Bay. A resident of Carsons Bay has reported to the office that the Minnetonka Yacht Club boat used to ferry people to the Island in Carsons Bay exceeds speed limits in the bay. Foster pointed out that this is a designated quiet water bay. (See Ordinance Sec. 3.02. Subd. 1-4 re speeds and wakes.) 5:30 PM., Monday, August 16, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, LMCD Office LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 16, 1993 Mark Breneman, North Shore Drive Marina. said he was present to voice a complaint about the publicity as reported in the SAILOR and LAKER. Itis customers gained the impression that the most of the Lake was declared No Wake. He has called the news- papers to tell them only 20% of the Lake is Minimum Wake. Breneman commented on the requirements for a stern light on a boat. He believes sail boats should have a light on the top of the mast. Foster said that is not required. Breneman did not agree with Foster. Foster said he will research the point. (LMCD Code does not specify a position for the white light on sailboats.) lA. Long Term Control of Large Wakes The executive director and Thibault commented on the heavy wakes produced by various boats in the open areas, particularly boats passing in close proximity to another while producing substantial wakes - often within 50' Reese said there is a lack of common courtesy among boaters. He would like to see a booklet on boating courtesy. The executive director said a booklet or pamphlet would be a first step to considering legislation to require that operators of boats be licensed. Rascop suggested getting input from the marina owners and from the Power .Squadron. Breneman said he would favor such a publication and it could be distributed through the marinas and at boater gathering spots. Foster said another method of controlling wakes would be to keep the channel buoys out further as is being done during the high water emergency. Reese suggested the committee put together a manual on boater courtesy, using Save the Lake funds to cover print lng costs. Foster suggested inviting a representative from the Power Squadron to the next committee meeting for input. 2. Decibel Level Ordinance MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to recommend the Board move approval of the second reading of the decibel level ordi- nance amendment changing the limit to 80 decibels. DISCUSSION: The executive director suggested a review of Attor- ney LeFevere's comments on the amendment. Foster believes they have been taken into consideration by the Board. Reese said Officer LaBatt said the fines for noise viola- tions are not sufficient compared to the cost of modifying a boat. Rascop said the District has tried in the past to get specific fines written into the ordinance but the courts do not support this. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. Critique of the Public Officials Lake Tour Foster said he thought the tour was well done. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 16, 1993 The executive director said some of the invitees have fixed plans which conflict with the first Saturday in August. He suggested rotating the date for the tour each year. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend moving the date of the Public Officials Lake Tour back one week in 1994. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director said this year there were fewer "no shows" than in the past, six total compared to 12 to 15 other years 4. Special Event Deposit Refund MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to recommend the deposit refund of $100 to the Westonka MDA Bass Tournament, 7/25/93. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Water Patrol Report A. Monthly Activity Report The executive director said the Water Patrol has not submit- ted an activity report. He anticipates having a report for the Board meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM FOR THE CObtMITTEE Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair ]',AEF. M. TN~ETO~KA ~ONS~..RVAT]'O~ DTS?R]*CT Administrative Subcommittee Report Meeting of August 3, 1993 TO: Administrative Committee FROM: Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnstone Executive Director Gene Strommen PURPOSE. Consider possible changes in LMCD's structure, organization, operations and funding, reaching agreement with the Administrative Committee for subsequent recommendation to the board on how to consider recommended changes. PROCESS. The subcommittee recommends the Administrative Committee conduct a special meeting to review the problems some city representatives perceive about the LMCD, such as: STRUCTURE; * Board -- is it too large? -- can it be more efficient? -- are members parochial in representing interests of cities, other interest groups? -- is accountability sufficient to cities, citizens? -- are important issues being addressed: those facing the lake? those identified in Management Plan? -- are communications adequate to: cities? other constituents? City representation: -- is it equitable to have each a vote from each city on lake issues? -- should a board member solely represent a city council? -- how much local city control is desireable in managing the lake? Board size: -- A smaller size will require a more complicated selection process, based upon some weighted condition of the city, ie: amount of shoreline population taxable market value FUNDING: * Sources: (supplemental to city levy) -- lake users: boaters - public access, marinas, homes -- lakeshore frontage -- dock licensing upon special legislative approval R[C'D AU6 2 3 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4:00 PM, Tuesday, August 3, 1993 Tonka Bay Marina Club House 235 Tonka Bay Road, Tonka Bay PRESENT: Scott Carlson, LMCD Treasurer-Minnetrista; Bert Foster, LMCD-Deephaven; Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina; Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boat Yards; Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marina; Trent Rezabek, Tonka Bay Marina; Woody Love, Shorewood Yacht Club; Gene Strommen and Rachel Thibault, LMCD staff. STAFF REPORT ON TIME ACCOUNTING: Staff time accounting for multiple dock license related activities as a percent of the total activity for the months of June and July was reported as follows: June July Gene Strommen 8% 8% Rachel Thibault 35% 36% Jabbour asked if the MDRA costs would be calculated at this time. Carlson said that the understanding was that a full year's worth of time accounting would be done before the fees were evaluated. The license fees would not change for 1994. Strommen pointed out that it is necessary to consider costs above the amount of the time study for a litigation fee reserve for multiple docks. Gideon's Point Homeowners Association's recent new multiple dock license and variance applications were discussed as being handled as two separate applications for billing and time study purposes. MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE INSPECTIONS: Thibault gave a overview of the multiple dock license inspections conducted as of the meeting date. *Over half the inspections have been conducted. *Most facilities are in compliance with their license. ,Approximately 20% of multiple dock licensees had some form of license violation. The most common violations are boats being stored in unauthorized locations. *Personal watercraft are being stored inside large slips in excess of the boat storage units (BSU) allowed. Pedersen pointed out that the "envelope concept" which would allow boats to be stored anywhere within a dock use area would eliminate that type of boat storage violation. He said that the "envelope concept" is favored by the multiple dock licensees. ,il j 1, I J, II1 i i Fee Study Subcommittee, 8/3/93, Page 2 Carlson raised the question of whether or not inspections should include dock safety. He suggested that minimum standards could be developed for dock construction, as well as gasoline and electricity on docks. Love said that he supports the envelope theory, but thinks that the safety issue could be a hornet's nest. The question was raised as to whether or not the LMCD should take responsibility for inspecting for safety. A qualified person would be required for this type of inspection. Rockvam suggested that dock inspections be turned over to the cities. Foster said that the LMCD inspections currently aren't for safety. The inspections are for compliance with the LMCD Code and the multiple dock license requirements. Strommen questioned how boat density would be regulated under the ,,envelope concept". The fee study subcommittee concensus was that the licensees would still be limited to their current licensed number of boats within the ,,envelope", but changes in configuration would be allowed without Board approval. Thibault pointed out that many marinas have non- conforming grandfathered docks out beyond 100'. She asked how this would be affected by the ,,envelope concept"? The Water Structures committee intends to review this concept. RESIDENTIAL SLIP RENTAL: Concern about residents renting boat slips was raised. The multiple dock licensees feel that the allowance for two boats of any origin at a residential site is not fair. It was suggested that the LMLOA send a message to lake residents about the regulations for boat slip rentals at residential sites. Some lake cities have ordinances against renting slips at residential sites. It was suggested that other cities should adopt similar ordinances and enforce the ordinances prohibiting boat slip rentals. Foster asked how many docks were counted with 3 or more boats. Thibault said that last year there were about 200 docks total, four of which were multiple docks with five or more slips that have since been licensed. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM, with no additional meeting set. 8/17/93