Loading...
1994-04-26 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. e e e APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 1994, REGULAR MEETING. ~ GILBERTSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 5926 HAWTHORNE ROAD, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 10, PID//23-117-24 42 0044. REQUF~T: MINOR SUBDIVISION. CASE//94-14: MARILYN BYRNES, 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 41 0023. REQUEST: VAR/ANCE FOR GARAGE. ~ RICHARD T. FLAM, 2025 ARBOR LANE, LOT 5, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0034. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. CASE//94-16: DAVID & NANCY PIELA, 1645 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 11-14, BLOCK 10, WOODLAND, PID #13-117-24 12 0180. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. PG. 1202-1216 PG. 1217-1234 PG. 1235-1250 PG. 1251-1265 PG. 1266-1276 1199 e e e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ~ DON BONNICKSON FOR CHRIS KULENKAMP, 4531 DORCHESTER ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 13, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0135. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR PORCH & DECK. ~ JANIS & JOSEPH GEFFRE AND PATRICK & CHRISTINE FURLONG, 5028 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOTS 8, 9, & 10, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S GLEN ARBOR, PID #13-117- 24 42 0015. PG. 1277-1293 REQUEST: MINOR SUBDIVISION. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - TEAL POINTE. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS: PG. 1294-1310 PG. 1311-1352 Ae Bo DOUGLAS B. SMITH 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVON PID//25-117-24 11 0036 REQUEST: RETAINING WALL. PG. 1351-1362 BATCH 3: WIOTA COMMON, PEABODY LANE, WATERSIDE COMMON, LONGFORD ROAD, KENMORE COMMON, AND EXCELSIOR LANE. PG. 1363-1384 APPROVAL OF 1995 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS. PRESENTATION OF 1993 FINANCIAL AUDIT - GARY GROEN, ABDO, ABDO & EICK. PG. 1385-1397 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AL & ALMA'S RELATING TO THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF BOATS LOCATED AT THIS LOCATION. (SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 24, 1994) PG. 1398 ~ LMCD AGREEMENT FOR CAR/TRAILER PARKING WITHIN 2000 FEET OF MOUND BAY PARK PUBLIC ACCESS. PG. 1399-1405 RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA. PG. 1406-1427 1200 ! Il, 17. ~ NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) PROPOSAL TO AMEND N-LC BYLAWS. PG. 1428-1432 18. TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE - VFW PILLOW PUFF. PG. 1433 19. RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR N. W. TONKA LIONS. PG. 1434 20. RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #398. 21. 22. 22. 24. PG. 1435 MUSICAL CONCERT PERMIT - MOUND BAY PARK. PG. 1436 PROCLAMATION TO DECLARE THE WEEK OF MAY 2-6, 1994, AS WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK. PG. 1437-1438 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 1439-1456 -INFORMATION/M-I$CEI-LANEOUS~, Financial Report for March 1994 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 1994. West Hennepin Human Services mailing re: name change. REMINDER. Board of Review, Tuesday, May 10, 1994, ~ Please bring sales ratio booklets sent out previously. PG. 1457-1458 PG. 1459-1476 PG. 1477-1480 Fe Ge LMCD Draft Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of April 14, 1994. Thank you note from Bert Larson for the Proclamation. PG. 1481-1519 PG. 1520-1530 PG. 1531 1201 I ,I JJ I, i , ,Ii, , I ii, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 12, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Mark Hanus, Pat & Paul Meisel, J. T. Miller, Bob Smith, David Maroney, Victor Niska, and Tom Reese. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 IN TE~ MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the March 22, 1994, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 RECYCLOTTO WINNER The Mayor announced that there were two Recyclotto Winners: Lowell Zitzloff, 6365 Bay Ridge Road $50.00 Westonka Dollars for the week of March 22, 1994; and Duran Jacobson, 2201 Lynwood Blvd., $100.00 Westonka Dollars for the Week of April 11, 1994. Neither were present. 1.2 PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 19, 1994, AS BERT LARSON DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND The Mayor read the Proclamation. Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following: PROCLAMATION//94-41 PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 19, 1994, AS BERT LARSON DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ILo2. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 1.3 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//94-12; INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT/f277, SHIRLEY HILI~ ELEMENTARY SCHOQL, 2450 WIISHIRE BLVD,, PID #24 117-24 12 0059, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALII3W THE EXPANSION OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL The City Planner explained the request. All schools within residential zones are required to have a conditional use permit in conformance with Section 350.640 of the City Code. The school is a "grandfathered" use because it has had nothing done in the recent past and does not currently have a permit. Proposed improvements involve a new entryway, a new media center/library addition, some improvements to the interior of the building to meet ADA requirements, the addition of a mechanical room, and a fenced louvered enclosure for outdoor mechanical equipment. The Planning Commission recommended approval and asked that the site plan become a part of the resolution. The Planner stated there will be a revised Site Plan submitted showing the mechanical room and the fenced area which will be incorporated into the resolution approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. VICTOR NISKA, Director of Facilities for Westonka Schools. He thanked the Council for the City's cooperation. COUNCILMEMBER JESSEN asked if their are plans to repair the sidewalk on the school property in front of the school. Mr. Niska stated there is some money from the bond referendum for sidewalks, but they have not yet addressed what those improvements will be. COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN stated that Frank Matachek called her and encouraged City support of this project. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution with a revised Site Plan: RESOLUTION//94-42 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A "PUBLIC SCHOOL" LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMIIN ZONING DISTRICT FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 (SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY), 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID//24-117-24 12 0059, P & Z CASE g94-12 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 1.4 CASE/D4 10: RF$OLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR WH.I.ETTE CONSTRUCTION, INC, 474414748 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 25, 26 & 17. BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID #19-11%23 33 0203 The City Planner explained that this was before the Council on March 28, 1994, and there was direction by the Council to modify the proposed resolution to make certain clauses occur before the resolution was released for filing. This has now been done. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 4744/48 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 25, 26 AND 27, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID #19- 11%23 33 0203, P & Z CASE//94-10 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE /~9~09; MARK HANU$, ~.~.46 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1. AVALON, PID #19-11%2~ 24 0001, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE The Building Official explained that the request is to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback to the principal structure in order construct a new garage. There is also a minor hardcover variance of 127.5 square feet, not including the City's property between Mr. Hanus' property and the lake. The Staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance request as the construction of the garage is a reasonable use of the property. The garage will have conforming setbacks and the hardcover is minimized by the fact that drainage and stormwater is effectively contained on this property. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-44 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 24 0001, P & Z CASE g94-09 Councilmember Jensen asked that the following wording be added to the second Whereas in the resolution," ..... the slight amount of excess hardcover is mitigated on the site due to the existing topography that slopes towards the lake over predominantly green space and the additional green space between end of this property and the lake; and". The amendment was accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion. The applicant was present and agreed with the proposed resolution. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE/~94-17; PAl)I, ~ PAT MEISEI., 5.501 BARTLETT BLVD,, LOTS 22 & 23. AUDITOR'S SUBD, #170, PID #24-117-24 23 0007, VARIANCE FOR ADDITION The Building Official explained the request. He reported that according to the survey a portion of the existing crawl space of the dwelling is in the floodplain, however, the main floor and the addition are not. The proposed addition is shown to be 24 feet to the channel that goes between Lake Minnetonka and Lost Lake. The applicant submitted two hardcover calculation sheets. The second sheet with conforming calculations considers the boulevard that is a privately held commons, and the cobblestone paver driveway at 50% impervious surface. The Building Official explained that the addition would encroach approximately 17' closer to the channel than the existing structure and it is proposed in this location partially to maintain the 50 foot setback to the main body of the lake and reduce the impact. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance request due to practical difficulty, with the following Findings of Fact: Unique circumstances apply to this property due to the fact that it abuts a channel that is not the main body of the lake and therefore the visual impact from the lake is less. The proposed addition is conforming to the 50 foot setback to the main body of the lake. This property abuts a private commons area or green space, and when considered reduces the impact of the nonconforming impervious surface. The City Attorney pointed out that currently the chimney on the existing cabin on the property is encroaching on the neighbor's property. He stated that the applicants are aware of this and they are willing to remove the chimney, which resolves that. The Attorney further stated that there may be another problem with the property between them and the main body of the lake, but this would be a problem that the applicants will have to work out with their attorney. The City Attorney stated that he is recommending that the resolution require that the applicant remove the chimney on the cabin thus removing the encroachment on the neighboring property before building permit issuance. The Council decided to add this requirement as item 2.c. in the proposed resolution. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RESOLUTION ~4-45 APRIL 12, 1994 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VPaVAANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 5501 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 22 & 23, AUDITOR'S SUBD. NO. 170, PID g24-117-24 23 0007, P & Z CASE //94-17 The vote was four in favor with Smith abstaining because the applicants are clients and friends of his. Motion carded. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.7 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT; SECTION 350:760, SUBD, 4, TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The City Planner stated that this item as well as the next two items are not formal recommendations from the Planning Commission, but does represent their direction. This is an update because all three of these items will need a public hearing before adoption. The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of truck parking in residential areas at their March 14th meeting. The Commission expressed consensus that only one commercial vehicle should be allowed per lot, commercial vehicles housed in garages are acceptable (up to a certain size - ie. semi tractors), and that consideration should be given to regulating trucks by height and length. The proposed ordinance amendment as prepared by the City Planner was as follows: Section 350:760, Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) truck and/or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed, provided they are stored at all times within an enclosed garage. The following draft of a new ordinance provision is the Planning Commission's recommendation which seeks to accomplish the primary objectives: laOl.. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 Section 350:760, Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Area~. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial track, bus and/or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed tO be parked outside,, The Planning Commission did discuss a whole variety of parameters on sizes of vehicles, types of vehicles, etc. There was discussion at one time of allowing some of these types of vehicles to be housed within garages or buildings, but that was not part of the recommendation at this time. The Planning Commission is asking if the Council has specific comments on this as direction to them. The Council reviewed the examples of acceptable trucks and examples of those that would be excluded from residential areas that were in the packet. The Council asked why the Planning Commission deleted the enclosed in a garage verbiage. Mark Hanus, Planning Commissioner, stated that the Planning Commission was split on that decision. The concern on the garage issue was that the City would see a lot of variance cases on oversize garages to store larger vehicles. He stated there was really no consensus of the Planning Commission on whether 'stored in garages" should be left in the proposed amendment. Mr. Hanus reminded the Council of one provision in the zoning ordinance which does not allow a garage to be taller than the principal structure. Mayor Johnson commented that if we allow certain vehicles to be stored outside, that he hopes additional consideration is given to allowing garaging of vehicles that exceed some of the standards, because a 40 foot motor home is allowed and some of those are not as nice looking as some of the trucks he has seen. He further stated that some people make their living driving tracks and do not have access to a commercial area to park these vehicles. The Planner stated that motor homes are more accessory to a residential use than a commercial vehicle. The City Attorney stated that another thing to keep in mind is that if we allow storage in a garage in a residential area, you are kind of allowing warehousing or commercial activities in a residential area. Councilmember Smith stated a lot of people would not like to have commercial vehicles parked in their neighborhoods and most cities in the metro area would not allow this. The Planner stated that this could be before the Planning Commission for a public hearing on May 9th. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 1.8 RECO~ATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AME~ NDe; RE TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETIONS The Planner stated that the Planning Commission is proposing the following for the proposed ordinance amendment for time limits on building completions: "All gxterior work required to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations ~4he'ex°,eeio~ of any building or structure in any district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for this completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense." The Council agreed that this would cover what was asked. It was agreed that this amendment is to deal with beginning exterior work and not completing it within one year causing neighbors to have to look at unsightly buildings longer than one year. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this May 9, 1994. 1.9 RECOMMENDATIQN FROM PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT; SECTION 330:120, DESIGN STANDARDS, PI. IBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACE AND PARK LAND DEDICATION The Planner reported that both the Planning Commission and the Park & Open Space Commission have reviewed this. Both members of the Planning Commission and the City Council have questioned the collection of a park fee for a lot containing an existing structure. Both groups have supported park fees for newly created lots. At this time, the ordinance requires that two park dedication fees be collected. The Planner stated that he feels that the whole issue of the appropriate percentage and how that's applied to which value to be used needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney asked that the Planner to ask the Planning Commission to consider the following: "If you have a forty acre plot with one farm building on it, and you developed it into one acre parcels, and you came in with a plat, you would take 10% of 40 acres or 4 acres and say that's what they have to dedicate." The Planner agreed. "If you put it on a lot basis, what the people and the Planning Commission are saying is there should only be 39 lots charged, not 40." The Attorney pointed out that if you ask different communities the same question, you will get different answers because of the interpretation of ordinances. These park fees are not put on houses they are put on land. The Council discussed the results of the survey of other communities that was in the packet and determined that 6 that were surveyed interpreted their ordinance to say that only vacant land was charged the park fee. The Planner will look at the full ordinances of some other cities to determine if it is interpretation. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUT~ APRIL 12, 1994 The Council asked the Planning Commission to give some suggestions on what to base the cash dedication. 1.10 DISCUSSION: CLARIFICATION ON 1994 SUMMER PARKS AND LIFEGUARD The City Manager reported that the Recreation Coordinator with the School District has submitted a memo with statistics, need and rationale for the Westonka Youth Drop-In Center which is in the Council packet. The Council accepted the clarification. 1.11 BID AWARD; 1994 EI,EVATED WATER STORAGE TANK PAINTING EVERGREEN TQWER The City Manager reported that the Engineer's estimate for the exterior was $160,000 and the interior $40,000 for a total estimate of $200,000. The following six bids were received for this project: ODLAND PROTECTIVE COATINGS, INC. ALTERNATE 'A" 84,300.00 37,500.00 J DELOUGHERY PAINTING CO. ALTERNATE 'A' 132,600.00 24,000.00 e H & H WATERTOWER, INC. ALTERNATE ~A" 137,675.00 30,200.00 TMI COATINGS, INC. ALTERNATE "A 146,300.00 38,900.00 RAINBOW, INC. ALTERNATE "A" 147,200.00 49,500.00 TENYER COATINGS, INC. ALTERNATE "A" 160,000.00 51,900.00 The low bid was from Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. The Engineer has checked the references of Odland and received nothing but excellent reports. The paint suppliers also gave favorable recommendations. The Engineer has recommended that the City award a contract, in the amount of $121,800 to Odland Protective Coatings, Inc., for the base bid and Alternate. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RESOLUTION ~t94-46 APRIL 12, 1994 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE PAINTING OF THE EVERGREEN WATERTOWER TO ODLAND PROTECTIVE COATINGS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,800 FOR THE BASE BID AND ALTERNATE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 L.M.C.D, REPRFSENTATIVE TOM REESE - LMCD REPORT Tom Reese presented his April 7th report to the Council on Eurasion Watermilfoil; Lake Management Plan; and other general items. 1.13 APPROVAL OF CAR/TRAIl,ER PARKING AGREEMENT WITH LMCD AS IT PERTAINS TO MOUND BAY PARK PUBLIC ACCESS The City Manager reported that this has been around for about 1 year. The City has worked with the LMCD and the DNR and have now arrived at the number of spaces that are within 1500-2000 feet of the Mound Bay Park lake access. This is an attempt by the LMCD to achieve the goal that was established of 700 car/trailer parking spaces around Lake Minnetonka. There are 43 spaces within the 1500-2000 foot area. Councilmembers Ahrens and Smith asked if the people on Beachwood Road were notified that their street was going to be identified as car/trailer parking? The City Manager stated they were not notified. The Council discussed that Beachwood has always been a car/trailer parking area. LMCD Rep. Tom Reese stated that the DNR has softened their approach to identifying car/trailer parking and the Cities need to cooperate in this identification of parking. The Council decided to delay action on this and continue this to the next Council Meeting. The issue can be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting and the neighbors are notified that this will be on the next regular agenda. 1.14 BID AWARD: 1994 SEALCOAT PROJECT The City Manager reported that the Engineer's estimate for this project was $28,000. following four bids were received for this project: 1. ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY $26,795.00 The 2. ASTECH CORPORATION $29,635.00 3. BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. $30,430.00 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 4. CALDWFJ.L ASPHALT, INC. $32,996.60 The Engineer recommends awarding the bid to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $26,795.00. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-47 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE 1994 SEALCOAT PROJECT TO ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,795.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 DISCUSSION; DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSES RELATING TO PRIVATE STRUCTURKq ON PUBLIC LANDS CASES The City Manager explained that this item is from the March 22nd Council Meeting with the following amounts: $242.00 McCombs Frank Roos - for Munson Removal $3,175.00 Smith Construction Co. - Munson Boathouse were approved for payment but where they were to be charged was to be decided at a later date when the full Council was present. The Council discussed whether this should be charged to the Commons Dock Fund or the General Fund. The Council also discussed whether legal issues and which future bills related to the Commons should be charged to the Commons Dock Fund or the General Fund. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to charge the above two bills to the General Fund. The vote was 2 in favor with 3 voting nay. Motion failed. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to charge the above two bills to the Commons Dock Fund. The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens and Smith voting nay. Motion carried. The Council will discuss what should be charged to the Commons Dock Fund at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting to see if there can be consensus. 1.16 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS The City Manager explained that this case for a zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and moving building permit was continued to their next meeting on April 25 and could be continued to their May 9th meeting. In order to meet the publishing time-line, notification of neighbors 1.111 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 and the fact that Our Lady of the Lake School needs to be able to begin building on the site that the house sits on, the date for the Council public hearing is determined to be May 10. The Attorney suggested that the language in the moving building permit request be expanded to allow moving the convent within the property at 2385 Commerce Blvd. and/or to 1730 Commerce Blvd. to accommodate the Church's building project. Richard Garazzo, 1772 Lafayette Lane, stated that they were at the Planning Commission Meeting April 11 and are waiting for answers from the applicant on questions they raised. He requested that the neighbors be given enough time to review the answers before action is taken. The City Attorney pointed out that the people applying for the CUP need to have a plan available so that the neighbors in the area can study it and react to it. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set a public hearing for May 10, 1994, to consider the following: An amendment_, to the Mound Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:25, to allow "Community Residential Facilities (16 or less)" as a Conditional Use within the B-2 General Business Zoning District. 0 A Conditional Use Permit to allow a community residential facility (16 or less) within the B-2 zoning District at 1730 Commerce Blvd. (Old Fina). A Moving Building Permit to allow a building to be moved within 2385 Commerce Blvd., (Our Lady of The Lake Church Convent), and/or to 1730 Commerce Blvd. (Old F'ma). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 RF~qOLUTION APPROVING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION'S (MTC) DECISION TQ DELETE THE 4:51 A,M, BUS STOPS AT BARTLETI' BLVD, (COUNTY ROAD 110 W,) AND WE~TEDGE BLVD, (COUNTY ROAD 44) DI.J-E TQ LACK OF RIDERSHIP, EFFECTIVE MONDAY. JUNE 6. 1994 The City Manager reported that is the result of a petition to reduce bus service in the County Road 44 and County Road 110 area. The MTC is proposed to discontinue the 4:51 A.M. bus stop in that area because of lack of ridership. The City agrees. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-48 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION'S 0VITC) DECISION TO DELETE THE 4:51 AM BUS STOP AT BARTLETT BLVD. (COUNTY ROAD 110 WEST) AND MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 WES~E BLVD. (COUNTY ROAD 44) DUE TO LACK OF RIDERSHIP, EFFECTIVE MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 SUBORDINATION OF REPAYMENT AGREEMENT (HUD) The City Manager explained that this pertains to a CDBG housing rehabilitation loan for Frank & Mary Segner. They are refinancing their mortgage and the lender requires that the City subordinate its lien in favor of their mortgage. CDBG states there is sufficient equity in the property to ensure that the City's interest is protected. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-49 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SUBORDINATION AGREF. f4E2~T FOR PID ~24-117-24 11 0019, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, 2541 WEXFORD LANE (FRANK & MARY SEGNER) Motion carried. 1.19 LICENSE RENEWAD.q The City Clerk reported that the following licenses are up for renewal: Expire 3/31/94. New License Period 4/1/94 to 3/31/95. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Hawker Blue Bell Ice Cream A1 & Alma's Supper Club Expire 4/30194. New License Period 511194 to 4/30/95. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Games of Skill Al & Alma's Supper Club American Legion Post #398 Headliners Bar & Grill MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VFW Post//5113 APRIL 12, 1994 P001 Headliners Bar & Grill VFW Post//5113 Mound Lanes Mound Lanes Amusement Device American Legion Post #398 Headliners Bar & Grill VFW Post #5113 Restaurant A1 & Alma's Supper Club Subway Sandwiches American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 Domino's Pizza #1974 Happy Garden Hardee's Headliners Bar & Grill House of Moy Mound Lanes Scotty B's MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approval renewal of the above licenses and permits as recommended. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.20 PAYMENT OF BILLS, MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $114,411.55, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.21 APPROVAL OF PORTABLE SIGN The City Manager reported that the City Council needs to approve the use of a portable sign application for itself to allow this sign to be used for 7-10 days to advertise the Annual Clean-Up and Recycling Days, April 22 & 23. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve and portable sign application for the quasi public function to the City of Mound for 7-10 days advertising the Annual Clean-Up and Recycling Days, April 22 & 23, 1994. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.22 PROCLAMATION - APRH. 20, 1994, AS SCHOOL AGE CHH.D CARE DAY The City Manager reported that the Minnesota School-age Child Care Alliance in conjunction with the Minnesota Association of Education of Your Children are celebrating the Week of Young Children, April 17-24, 1994. Westonka Schools has asked that the City also participate by proclaiming April 20, 1994, as School Age Child Care Day. Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION It94-50 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1994, SCHOOL AGE CHILD CARE DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MI$CE! J.ANEOUS. A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1994. Fo L.M.C.D. mailings. Letter from Senator Gen Olson in response to my letter re: proposed legislation for LMCD. Letter of apology from Mark Saliterman pertaining to an incident that recently occurred at Headliners. Mound City Days Parade announcement. Please handle your own arrangements for riding in the parade. Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 1994. Letter of thanks from Scott Schmieg, 1736 Bluebird Lane to the Mayor, City Council and Staff regarding the review and subsequent approval of a remodeling project. Memo from Multiple Dock Owner's Association. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES I. N. REMINDER: PM. APRIL 12, 1994 Memo from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) re: City Unity Day Resolution and Rally scheduled for Thursday, April 21, t994, in St. Paul. Notice from Hennepin County on upcoming Town Meeting. Information from Hennepin Parks on a number of issues including development of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. Information from City of Robbinsdale re: state legislation in the area of pawnshops. A readable copy of the bills that were questioned at the last meeting on the expenses paid out for dental insurance. The dollars do add up correctly. Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for April 19, 1994, 7:30 REMINDER: Annual Parks Tour, Thursday, April 21, 1994 at 5:45 P.M. MOTION made by Smith, and seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 10:55 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 5926 HAWTHORNE ROAD, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK '10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-'117-24 42 0044, P & Z CASE #94-13 WHEREAS, the applicant, Gilbertson Construction Inc. has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by the Mound City Code, Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, proposed lot area and lot coverage are conforming, Parcel 1 has an area of 9,667 square feet and Parcel 2 has an area of 9,870 square feet, and WHEREAS, Parcel 1 contains an existing non-conforming detached garage which will be removed resulting in conforming setback requirements and Parcel 2 contains and existing home which is non-conforming due to a 4.65 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to remove the existing home on Parcel 2 within 18 months of the City Council's approval of this resolution, thereby removing the existing encroachment at that time, and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision has been found to be consistent with the regulations set forth in the City Code, 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 Council does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels I and 2 from Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, The Highlands, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall remove the existing home on Parcel 2 within 18 months of the approval of this resolution by the Mound City Council. The applicant shall further post a security with the City or enter into an agreement with Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case//94-13 the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, guaranteeing removal of the building within the stated period. Until the building is removed, variances of 5.35 feet for the side yard setback encroachment and 5 feet for the rear yard setback encroachment are hereby granted. Be The applicant shall remove the existing garage on Parcel I prior to the release of this resolution. CJ The applicant shall submit a revised survey at an appropriate scale delineating the proposed house locations and the proposed elevations. Said survey shall also include locations of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain, and existing and proposed service locations. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1 ) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a 10 foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the easement documents, prior to release of this resolution. The easement documents shall be filed with Hennepin County concurrently with this approval resolution for the minor subdivision. All costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15, prior to release of this resolution. Park dedication fees in the total amount of $1,000 ($500 per lot) shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of this resolution. The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Parcel 1 ;. That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, The Highlands which lies southerly of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 111.20 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 81.70 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 3. Parcel 2: That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, The Highlands which lies southerly of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 111.20 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 4, to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 81.70 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 3. Proposed Resolution Page 3 Case #94-13 It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 94-14.RES MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1994 ~ (}ILBERTSON CONSTRUCTION INC., 5926 HAWTHORNE ROAD, LOT~ 3 & 4, BLOCK 10, PID #23-117-2442 0044. MINOR SUBDIVISIONJ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create two new parcels. As proposed, Parcel I has an area of 9,667 square feet, and Parcel 2 has an area of 9,870 square feet which both exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet in the R-lA zone. It appears that homes can be built on the proposed lots without the issuance of any setback variances. This is further supported by the fact that the applicant is not seeking any variances as a part of this proposal. Koegler noted that the home immediately east of the proposed subdivision has a non- conforming rear yard setback that could be corrected as part of the subdivision. He stated that at the time of the staff report, staff understood that the property immediately to the east was owned by the applicant. On Monday, April 11th, staff was informed that the adjacent non-conforming lot was owned by the brother of the applicant who does not have any interest in the subdivision. Therefore, the Commission may want to further discuss item #1 of the staff report-which suggests shifting the eastern line of the subdivision 6.67 feet. Staff also recently learned that the applicant desires to retain the existing non-conforming home on Parcel 2 until such time that a new home is built. As a result, the Commission will need to consider variances to the existing side lot line and the proposed rear lot line. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision subject to conditions. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion was suggested: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the minor subdivision for Case #94-15 subject to the following conditions: Ptt~nnlng Commission Mlnut~ /II,ril 11, 1994 The eastern lot line shall be moved westerly a minimum of 6.67 feet to create a conforming rear yard setback for the applicant's existing home. In accordance with this requirement, a revised survey drawing and legal descriptions shall be prepared and submitted to the Building Official prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The existing garage and home on existing Lot 4 shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution, or as an alternative, the applicant shall post a suitable security to the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to demolish the structures and restore the site. The applicant shall submit a revised survey at an appropriate scale delineating the house locations with proposed elevations. Such survey shall also include the locations of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain and existing and proposed service locations. A final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a ten (10) foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the above described easements, prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The easement documents shall be filed concurrently with the approval resolution. Costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15 prior to release of the approval resolution. Park dedication fees in the amount of $1 ,OO0 ($500/iot) shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of the approval resolution. Mueller questioned if a variance would need to be granted if the house on Lot 4 is allowed to remain for any period of time. Concern was expressed that if a variance is granted, could the house remain forever? The Building Official reviewed the condition of the dwelling and noted that it is small, it has minor plumbing and electrical problems, but it could be considered habitable. Alan Gilbertson stated that they plan to develop Parcel I first, and then if everything works financially, they hope to develop Parcel 2 the Spring of 1995. He is receptive to some type of requirement that the house be removed by a certain date. He stated, however, he does have a concern about the deficient unit charges. He would like this fee waived as he does not feel he should have to pay on a 14 year old bill, and these charges were not recorded on the property. In addition, he feels he should only have to pay one park dedication fee as he is creating only one new lot. The Commission noted that it is not their place to discuss fees and these issues could be raised at the City Council meeting. In reference to the moving of the lot line, the applicant stated that the adjoining property is not owned by him, but by his brother, and the property is nonconforming in other respects also, and would prefer to leave the line as proposed. 2 Plannlns Comm~lon Ml~u~e~ Al,~ il, 1994 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff, with the following modifications to the conditions: 1. Delete. The existing garage aml-keme on existing Lot 4 shall be removed pdor to the the approval resolution ~- - filing of ...... ~-=. -n . .. .... , ....... ~ ...,....k..:,. The exisfina home on Lot 4 shall ~ removed within 18 months of Ci~ Council e~oval of the minor su~vi~on, end ~ o~ ~u,r,nt,~ o[ r~moval ,hell ~ ~u~i~d ~dor Io r~,~ o[ the ,~o~,~ Also, language should be added to include recognition of the newly created nonconforming setbacks for the existing dwelling structure. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. 122 . Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Gilbertson Construction - Bill Gilbertson CASE NUMBER: 94-13 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5d LOCATION: 5926 Hawthorne Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential - R1-A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new parcels. As proposed, Parcel 1 has an area of 9,667 square feet and Parcel 2 has an area of 9,870 square feet. Both of these parcels exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet in the R1-A zone. At the present time, the property proposed for subdivision is split by a north/south common property line. The existing western lot (4) contains both an existing house and an existing garage. Both of these structures are to be removed as part of the proposal. If the proposed subdivision is approved, the parcels will be separated by a common east/west property line. The subdivision will result in parcels that are of a more generally square shape instead of the elongated rectangular shape of the existing lots. At the time of the preparation of this report, the survey drawing does not identify setbacks. It appears that homes can be built on the lots without the issuance of any setback variances. This is further supported by the fact that the applicant is not seeking any variances as a part of this proposal. Imnd Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Gilbertson Minor Subdivision Planning Report April 6, 1994 Page Two COMMENT: The proposed subdivision does not raise any significant issues beyond the normal ' ' declination requu'ements. The survey doe~, however, identify an enganeerlng concerns and park ' ' ' existing home immediately east of the subject subdivision. This home is owned by Mr. Gilbertson who is the applicant. The home currently has an 8.33 foot rear yard setback which is not in compliance with the required 15 foot setback. If the eastern line of the subdivision was relocated 6.67 feet to the west, this existing home would no longer have a nonconforming rear yard setback. It does not appear that the movement of this line would impact the development potential of either Parcels 1 or 2. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision subject to conditions. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion is suggested: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the minor subdivision for Case #94-15 subject to the following conditions: The eastern lot line shall be moved westerly a minimum of 6.67 feet to create a conforming rear yard setback for the applicants existing home. In accordance with this requirement, a revised survey drawing and legal descriptions shall be prepared and submitted to the Building Official prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The existing garage and home on existing Lot 4 shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution, or as an alternative, the applicant shall post a suitable security to the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to demolish the structures and restore the site. The applicant shall submit a revised survey at an appropriate scale delineating the house locations with proposed elevations. Such survey shall also include the locations of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain and existing and proposed service locations. A final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: I) a five (5)foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a 10 foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the above described easements, prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The easement documents shall be filed concurrently with the approval resolution. Costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $l, 828.15 prior to release of the approval resolution. Gilbertson Minor Subdivision Planning Report April 6, 1994 Page Three Park dedication fees in the amount of $1, O00 ($500/lo0 shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of the approval resolution. · ,I Ill J I , ,ll~ , J Il, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers PLanners Surveyors April 4, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Gilbertson Minor Subdivision Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, The Highlands Case #94-13 MFRA #10687 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the information furnished for the above-referenced minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainaqe The survey submitted shows only tentative house locations and no proposed elevations; therefore, final grading and drainage plans will need to be furnished when application is made for buildinG permits. We would also recommend that drainage and utility easements be dedicated alonG all lot lines, 5' wide on the sides and rear and 10' wide along the front. Streets and Utilities The survey submitted did not show the existing sanitary sewer or watermain or any existing services. Sewer service connections are not allowed directly into manholes as shown on the survey. I am assuminG that the existinG house on Lot 4 was connected to City sewer and water in Hawthorne Road; therefore, the proposed house on Parcel 2 should be able to use these existing services. The City's record plans do not show any existing services available for Parcel 1 on Idlewood Road; therefore, these services will need to be installed at the applicant's expense. If these services are not installed prior to recordinG of the subdivision, some type of financial guarantee should be provided to the City. The combination of these two lots were only assessed one unit charge when Hawthorne Road was reconstructed in 1979 and no unit charge when Idlewood Road was improved in 1980. With this proposed subdivision creatinG an additional buildable parcel, one deficient unit charge of $1,828.15 should be collected. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Jon Sutherland April 4, 1994 Page Two In conclusion, we are recommending the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval: Furnish revised survey, drawn to an acceptable scale, which shows proposed houses with elevations. Also, the existing sanitary sewer and watermain with existing and proposed services need to be shown. Final Grading and Drainage Plan to be approved by the City Engineer at the time Of building permit application. Dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City, 5' in width along all side and rear lot lines and 10' in width along front lot lines. Se Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel 1, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 to be paid. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry II il il I · , ,ii , il II, CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364.1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 1, 1994 Mr. Bill Gilbertson 214 W. 73 1/2 Street Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Minor Subdivision Application, Case #94-13 5926 Hawthorne Road / Dear Mr. Gilbertson: On 4-1-94, I attempted and was unable, to contact yot~ about several issues concerning your minor subdivision. You will need to contact Mr. Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent, at 472-0600 in order to obtain information about the availability and locations of utilities for both parcels. What is shown on the survey you submitted is not correct or adequate. Your surveyor will need to update this utility information, add the proposed house footprints with setbacks and elevations to the original and submit copies to scale. After staff review, there will be additional information needed. The city engineer usually requires drainage and utility easements as a condition of approval by the City Council. Please contact me to discuss your request if you have any questions. You will receive a copy of the staff report prior to the Planning Commission meeting on April 11th. Jon Sutherland Building Official cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner File JS:ls Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date= City Council Date= ~ ~', 5 / City Planner , Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 E.crow Deposit= ~l,O00 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or wint the follov~ng informatlo~: Address of Subject Property A Zoning District Address · Day Phone Day Phone Name of Engineer Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. ~ yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signe~ by el! owners of the subject property, or an explanation given wh~ this is not the case. Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner Date Gllbe~tson, Construction "'OR~iN~.D~$CR~PTZON.; (Area is 19,537 Sq. Ft.) Lots 3 a~d 4, Block. 10, The Highlands. .D~SC~IPT. ION ,FO~ PARCEL 1~.' (Area ts 9,667 Sq. Ft.) That pa~t of ? ~ 3 and 4 Block 10, The Highlands which lies Northerly of Ii!ne drawn'from a point on the West line of said Lot.'4, distant 111,20 feet South of the northwest corner of-said Lot 4..to a point on theEast line of said Lot 3, distant 81.70 feet South of the northeast corner of said Lot 3. 'DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL 2: (Area ts 9,870 Sq. Ft.) That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 10 The Highlands which lies Southerly of a line drawn,from a po[hi on the West line of said Lot 4, distant 111.20 feet South of the northwest corner Of aaid Lot 4 to a point on the East line of said Lot 3, distant 81.70 feet South of the northeast corner of said Lot 3. We hereby cer~tfy that this is a true and correct representation of a survey o? the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, tf any, thereon and all visible oncroachments,.lf any, from or on said land. Dated this 30th day of Oecember, 1993. CARLSON & CARLSON, INC. -~AND SURVEYORS /Llrry R/~.ogture, Land Surveyon atnnesrta License NO. 9018 NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS "70 SQ FT X 30% = SQ FT X 15% = I ~t:l bl I LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: .,.,/~x ~q'-/ = X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ******************* GARAGE: ~ y X ~ ~ = X = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** DRIVEWAY: X/O X /~, = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: X = (if impervious X = surface under deck = 100%) TOTALDECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** OTHER: ~-,j. ~.-\K 1'3.. x % = '~(~ X = TOTAL OTHER ******************* joHo 0 TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* (~ {OYER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Z ~/'Z/~ - DATE: BY:~//~,.......~ , J~'~ESL_NO NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SQ FT X 30% = SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: LENGTH X X X TOTAL HOUSE * X TOIA[ GARAGE ~o x WIDTH q© = X = X = X = TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************  R) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I '~o I //~ES___NO 29001 I ~,o~o I ,I I i {{ ,ii{ , {I Required ~t Width: ~ / . (froncag, on ,n improved ~bltc PRZR¢I PAL BUILDXN~ t~XXS?XNO AND/OR PROPOSED eETBACKe: PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT I N S · W FRONT; N S E M SIDE= N S E W SIDE, N S · M P~AR = N S · W FRONT FRONT SIDE: SIDEs ~AR: LJ~.KE S HOI~ ACCESSORY BUILDZNO 4' vr §' 4' FRONT t N S E W FRONT= N S E N SIDE= N S tm W SIDE= N S · W REAR= N S E W LAF~ SHOILE z SO' fmealured from O.H.W.I NO ACCESSORY BUII, DING 4 _ 3 ?O '" 0 --.1 : CONFORMING, YES_~/ NO ? . WILL THE PROPOSED IMPRO~T, ~N,O~, YES PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE FOR 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD, PIE #24-117-2442 0023, P&Z CASE #94-14 WHEREAS, the owner, Marilyn Byrnes, has applied for a variance to construct a garage that will be conforming to setbacks. Variances to be recognized include 1) a 4.6' setback from the dwelling to Bedford Lane, 2) a hardcover variance of 898 sq. ft. with total site hardcover at 49%, and 3) a lot area variance of 1,350 sq. ft., and WHEREAS, Bedford Lane is an unimproved 15' wide access to Brighton Commons, a 6' side yard setback is required, resulting in a 1.4' variance, and WHEREAS, taking into consideration a portion of the unimproved Bedford Lane and the city commons property as additional green space, the hardcover calculations would be conforming, and WHEREAS, the proposed garage is of minimal size at 20' x 18', and it has been the city's policy in the past to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter, and WHEREAS, the applicant's site plan details a 3 to 4 foot blacktop driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane. This encroachment is not blocking the access, but should be recognized at this time, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the following variances to allow construction of a 20' x 18' detached garage, upon the condition that the driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane be allowed to remain subject to the understanding that if any work in the access is needed, the city is not responsible for restoration of the asphalt: A 1.4' setback variance to the south side property line. A hardcover variance of 898 sq. ft. with total site hardcover at 49%. A lot area variance of 1,350 sq. ft. 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 April 26, 1994 Page 2 94-14, Byrnes o 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 20' x 18' detached garage with conforming setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 10, Block 38, Wychwood. 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 APRIL 11, 1994 ~ MARILYN BYRNES, 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE. LOT 10, BLOCK 38. WYCHWOOD. PID #24-117-2442 0023. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE_ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a garage that will be conforming to setbacks. Variances to be recognized include a 4.6' setback from the dwelling to Bedford Lane. Bedford Lane is an unimproved 15' wide access to Brighton Commons, a 6' side yard setback is required, resulting in a 1.4' variance. This request also results in a hardcover variance of 898 sq. ft. with total site hardcover at 49% and · lot area variance of 1,350 sq. ft. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a portion of Bedford Lane and the city commons property as additional green space. With the additional area the hardcover calculations are conforming at just less than the 30% allowable by ordinance. The proposed garage is of minimal size and it has been the city's policy in the past to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. The applicant's site plan details · 3 to 4 foot blacktop driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane. This encroachment is not blocking the access, but should be recognized at this time. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow construction of a 20' x 18' detached garage, with the condition that the driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane be allowed to remain subject to the understanding that if any work in the access is needed, the city is not responsible for restoration of the asphalt. Mueller confirmed that the existing shed will be removed. The size of the proposed garage was confirmed to be 20' x 18'. MOTION made by We~and, seconded by Muller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, taking into consideration for the lot area variance and hardcover variance that there is undevelopable green space adjacent to this property known as Brighton Common. MOTION carried unanimously. CITY of MOUND · STAFF REPORT 534", MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M%NESOTA 55364-1687 ~612) 472-0600 FAX (6t2) 472 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of April 11, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ,~'~? ' Variance Request for Garage APPLICANT: Marilyn Byrnes CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 94-14 2851 Cambridge Lane, Lot 10, Block 38, Wychwood, PId #24-117-2442 0023 R-lA Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a building permit for a garage that is conforming to setbacks. This results in a variance request to recognize an existing non conforming dwelling that is set back 4.6' to Bedford Lane. Bedford Lane is an unimproved access to Brighton Commons with a 6' side yard set back required, resulting in a 1.4' variance. This request also results in a hard cover variance of 898 sq. ft. with total site hardcover at 49% and a lot area variance of 1350 sq. ft. The planning commission may wish to consider a portion of Bedford Lane and the city commons property as additional green space. With the additional area the hardcover calculations are conforming at just less than the 30% allowable by ordinance. The existing topography slopes predominantly over green space towards the lake minimizing the impact on hardcover. The proposed garage is of minimal size and it has been the city's policy in the past to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. In 1978 the Byrnes applied to the council for a permit to store 2 boats on the lake access Bedford Lane. The park commission recommended denial and the city council subsequently determined to take no action. The applicants site plan details a 3'-4' existing blacktop driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane. These encroachments are not blocking the access but should be recognized at this time. Any encroachments onto the access require city approval through the general permit process. Usually with the condition that if any work in the access is needed the city is not responsible for restoration. printed on recycled paper Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request with the following condition. 1) The existing blacktop encroachment into Bedford Lane is allowed at this time with the condition that if any work in the access is needed the city is not responsible for restoration of the black top. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 26, 1994. Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: _ City Planner _ City Engineer Other VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Public Works DNR Application Fee:.~k~ Case No.~4-i'4 Please type or print the following information: Add~ :;s of Subject Property 'Z~-I C_~ibi~_t~c~:- LtuO~_. ].ot ] O AddiUon LO q C t4 ~ i'~ 'ming District Block I-/-2/4 /4& 00&. Useofl'roperty: %~acadE_ F~,'~'-~ ~,c~-~-- Day Phone 4tTZ-/&z~' ·/]'~[?,/(,Of~./'~,'g. pay Phone_ '?'7/Zf2 -/(/~'- _ 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 re. so'lOtions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ! ~. -D~rac~ -'5 co,.- ~ o - 2c,~ /a /o Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ~ ft. Side Yard: (~.,N S~E W ) ~ ~ ft. ~", ft. Side Yard: ((..~)S E W ) ~ ' ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S~)W_.~) ft. .~.~Co" ft. Lakeside: ( N S E ~P) ft. 26,'-- O "ft. ·(NS EW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ~f6° ft. Lot Size: sq ft 4~0 sq ft Hardcover: ~ sq ft ~.c~ 3 sq ft fto ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sqfl sqft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Se 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 situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (t-q'other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 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 (), N~ If yes, explain: e Was~e hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No/~ ff yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described 8. in this petition? Yes (), N~//~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. 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. Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ADDRESS: 2-~5.~1 C.~ ~Stzt r~_~E_ ~,~F--. EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA ._~0 SQ FT X 30% = _~/~0 SQ FT X 15% = [ 13q¢ | HOUSE: GARAGE: DR~EWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~) OTHER: ~-~l DP--- LENGTH WIDTH TOTAL HOUSE * = = _;..7o0 __ t~.-~ X /~ = 3 a3 _ X = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** z8 x 'z~,.~ = 74z- ~ - x ~F5 = '~q' , TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** X = TOTAL DECK ************* /D~ TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** 3 x ~ = /~4 X = TOTAL OTHER ~33 _ TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* *********************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [ 8e/~, "i ,,.YES..~NO BY: DATE: 3-~ -q'dr' . lb C.C),UC~E=T E I _1 T & J IMPROVEMENTS 4425 149th Avenue NW ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (612) 422.9863 ~o~ ~y~ SHEET NO.. CALCULATED CHECKED BY. SCALE DATE ! 4 ,8/ ~993 June 2 2, RESOLUTION ~93-87 i~SOLUTION TO ~PPROVS ~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC I.~TDS PEI~IT TO I~EPLACB AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMON ABUTTIN~ 2851 C~RIDGE ~E, ~T 10~ B~CK ~8~ WYC~OOD FOR 5 YE~S ~W~ ~CK SITE J51735 ~E~A5, the owners of 2851 Ca.ridge ~ne, Robert and Marilyn Byrnes, have applied for a Const~ction on ~blic ~nds Pe~it to replace the existing stai~ay located on Briphton Co.on abutting their property, and~ ~E~S, City Code Section 320, re~ires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or co~ons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or co~ons, and~ ~E~AS, the existing stai~ay was approved by Resolution ~78-209, and; ~E~S, there are existing ti~er retaining walls on the adjacent 15 foot right-of-way, and pe~ission was granted by the Parks Director on August 24, 1984 for this work, and~ ~E~AS, the fence on Briphton Co.on belongs to the adjacent property at 2845 Ca.ridge ~ne, and; ~E~AS, the Park and Open Space co~ission reviewed this re~est and reco~ended approval. NOW, THE~FO~, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota. as follows: 1. To approve a Const~ction on ~blic ~nds Pe~it for Robert and Marilyn Byrnes, owners of 2851 Ca.ridge ~ne, ~t 10, Block 38, Wychwood. to replace an existing stai~ay on Brighton Co.on, upon the following conditions: A. The stai~ay be constructed to code as approved by the Building Official. B. The series of ti~er retaining walls on the 15 foot right-of-way be allowed to remain subject to the owners acknowledging that they constructed these walls and are respon- sible for their maintenance. C. The pe~it shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 191 June 22, 1993 D. 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 foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the none. Attest: City Clerk 192 GENERAL ZONLNG INFORMATION SIlEET ADDRESS; % , ' survey on filE? y.~ no . Date of lurvly~. Y ~ · t Width; / (frontage on 4' 9r 6' 4' or 6' 4' , SO' f#&our0d trcxn IB~i~ E R1~ CO~FOPJ41 JIG ? SIDE: I~ARt ACCESSORY BUILDIffG MILL THE PRO~O~,D I)4PIKOVE)4ZI4TS CO#TORJ4? Y·$ . 11' -B ~ 0 ',',J I PROPOSED RESOLUTION/P34- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 2025 ARBOR LANE LOT 5, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS I AND 32 SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD PID #13-117-24 41 0034, P&Z CASE #94-15 WHEREAS, the owner, Richard Flare, has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconformities including setback variances and a hardcover variance to reconstruct an existing nonconforming deck on the lake side of the dwelling, and WHEREAS, the proposed deck is to be reduced in size and will be setback 47 feet from the ordinary high water, resulting in a 3 foot variance request. The existing deck is 4.5 feet closer to the ordinary high water, and WHEREAS, Resolution #82-64, approved on March 9, 1982, granted a 12 foot street front variance to allow construction of a detached garage, and WHEREAS, a 60 square foot hardcover variance also needs to be recognized, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1A Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does approve a variance to recognize the following to allow reconstruction of a deck: a. A 12 foot front yard setback variance to the detached garage. b. A 60 square foot hardcover variance. c. A 3 foot setback variance from the deck to the ordinary high water. 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 10' x 20' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 5, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32 Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood. Proposed Resolution /~pr~t 26, 1994 Page 2 94-15, Flare 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 APRIL 11, 1994 CASE #94-1§; RICHARD T. FLAM, 2025 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS I & 32 :~KARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD. PID #13-117-24 41 0034. VARIANCE FOR DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to reconstruct an existing non conforming deck on the lake side of the existing dwelling. The proposed deck is to be reduced in size and will be setback 47' from the ordinary high water, resulting in a 3' variance request. This represents a 4.5' improvement to the existing condition and still allows the applicant a reasonable size and functional deck. A variance given in 1982' to construct the existing garage resulted in variances of 12' to the front yard and 2' to the north side yard. A 60' hard cover variance also needs to be recognized. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as it represents a positive improvement in the non conforming status of the property by increasing the setback to the lake by 4.5'. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. ,I I it I ,a ,,t, · PHONE NO. EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106FiLENO' 772--7910 APR 7 199z~ April 5, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: VARIANCE REQUEST, RICHARD T. FLAM, LAKE MINNETONKA (27- 133P), HARRISONS BAY (~15), CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the above-referenced variance request. We encourage projects that reduce impervious surface and increases the setback of structures from the lake. We do not object to the city approving this variance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this variance application. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, ~Joe Richter Hydrologist c: City of Mound Shoreland File AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOdND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612 472 3600 FAX (6'~2i ,4.72 0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of April 11, 1994 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~.~.~ ° SUBJECT: Variance Request for Deck APPLICANT: Richard T. Flam CASE NO. 94-15 LOCATION: 2025 Arbor Lane, Lot 5, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32 Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood, PID #13-117-2441 0034 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to reconstruct an existing non conforming deck on the lakeside of the existing dwelling. The proposed deck is to be reduced in size and will be setback 47' from the ordinary high water, resulting in a 3' variance request. This represents a 4.5' improvement to the existing condition and still allows the applicant a reasonable size and functional deck. A variance given in 1982' to construct the existing garage resulted in variances of 12' to the front yard and 2' to the north side yard. A 60' hard cover variance also needs to be recognized. .RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as it represents a positive improvement in the non conforming status of the property by increasing the setback to the lake by 4.5'. JS The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 26, 1994, printed on recycled paper Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee:~ Distribution: ,/. Public Works City Planner City Engineer ~_ V/ DNR Other ~ pe or print the following information: ; of Subject Propertyc~_ _c~G ~~~ ~ ' · fleeTS 3;2, 5' ~ L,~o t, r- ~~/e~°t~o°~l°ck "'"' PID No. A, ri i <~ning District ~-/~' Use of Property:-~~~~~t~ Owner's Name e"~x;~-¢,~,~ .y.-, lZ-~b,~ Day owner's ^ddress l Applicant's Name (if other than owner) {xA & % Day Phone Address 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. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): laS'6 Variance Application (11/93) Case No. q4-" } ,% Page 2 .... e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located.'? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( 1~ S E W ) ,=9..0 ft. ~ ft. Side Yard: ((~S(~_W_) Side Y~d: (~E~) ~ fl. ~z .~ fi. R~ Y~d: ( N ~ide: ( E · (NSEW) Street Frontage: ~ c') fi. Lot Size: _(o c3oo sq fi Hardcover: t -7' (,:, (,::, sqft \...~ fi. fi. , fi. fi. , fl. ~b'~,,V sqfi ~ ~z. sqfi Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( )soil (~ existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 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: o Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No 60. If yes, explain: Yes (), 8. A re the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Applicant's Signature Date 27 4 Date 1 5'g Propos.?d lowest floor elev. ,, NAME: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA ~'~"-~ SQFT X 30% = t-7~,[ S ~'<~'~ se FT X 15% = ~"~,C~"' LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: ,./- o..~- x zo.y = X = TOTAL HOUSE ******************* GARAGE: X = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: ) 0 (if impervious I Q surface under deck = 100~[) TOTALDECK TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * J ego ~zO [ 1 YES___NO BY: DATE: I I Ill I ,n ~ ,t, I I I it ! ,I , ,1~, , t ,t Councilmember Polston moved the following resolution. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, 72 March 9, 1~)82 RESOLUTION NO.82-64 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT A 12 FOOT STREET FRONT VARIANCE; MAINTAINING 4 FOOT SIDE YAR AND 8 FOOT FRONT OFF STREET - LOT 5, SUBD. OF LOTS ! & 32 - SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD Jon R. Alblnson, contract owner of property at 2025 Arbor Lane, described as Lot 5, Subd. of Lots I & 32, Skarp & LIndquist's Ravenswood, has requested a.12 foot street front variance, and said variance Is to allow for demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new 20 x 22 foot double garage, an.d the new garage would have the garage door facing to the street and would line up fairly well with the neighboring garages, and the Planning Commission has recommended granting a 12 foot street front variance; maintaining a 4 foot side yard and an 8 foot off street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED RY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation granting a 12 foot street front variance; maintaining a 4 foot side yard and an 8 foot off street for the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new 20 x 22 foot double garage. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayo r" 'Attest: City Clerk GENERAL ZONING LNFOI~,%IATION SIIEET ADDRESS ~ RequLred ~t Width: ~ (~rontoge on in. improved ~blic .treet) 8~BACE8 REQUIRED: ACCESSORY BUILDZNq FRONTz N S E W ,~ /' FRONT z N S g W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE~ N S K H 4' or ~' ~s~o~: SO' ~measured from EXISTING AND~OR PROPOSED GE?BACKS: PRINCIPAL 8UI LDI~I~ FRONTI N S E H ~ FRONT FRO~Tz N S ~ W ~l~ ~NFO~XNG? YES, BYr -- ARE~k~R LA PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~P34- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1645 EAGLE LANE LOTS 11, 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 10, WOODLAND POINT PlO #13-117-24 12 0180, P&Z CASE ~P34-16 WHEREAS, the owners, David and Nancy Piela, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setbacks for the principal dwelling of 17.31 feet to Eagle Lane, and a 3.48 feet to Jennings Road to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1A Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to Eagle Lane, Jennings Road, and Dove Lane, and a 6 foot side yard setback, and WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the following variances to allow construction of a conforming 24' x 26' detached garage, upon the condition that easements be acquired for the curb radius and hydrant on Eagle Lane at the intersection with Jennings Road as required by the City Engineer: a. A 2.69 foot front yard setback variance to Eagle Lane. b. A 16.58 foot front yard setback variance to Jennings Road. 2. 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. 3. 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 24' x 26' detached garage with conforming setbacks. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 10, Woodland 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. 6. 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 APRIL 11, 1994 CASE #$4-16; DAVID & NANCY PIELA, 1645 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 11 - 14. BLOCK 10, WOODLAND POINT. PlD #13-117-24 12 0180. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, Building Official, Jon Suthedand, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. This request is otherwise fully conforming to the ordinance. The existing dwelling footprint results in a 2.69' setback variance to Eagle Lane, and a 16.58' setback variance to Jennings Road. City Engineer, John Cameron, has reviewed this request and noted that the City did not obtain easements for the 1978 Street Improvement Project. The City should have an easement over the west 5 feet of both Lots 13 and 14 to allow for some boulevard beyond the edge of the pavement for Dove Lane. A 5 foot wide by 10 foot long easement should also be acquired for the curb radius and hydrant on Eagle Lane at the intersection with Jennings Road. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it is conforming to the ordinance with the condition relating to the easements as noted in the City Engineer's report. The Building Official reviewed with the Planning Commission a revised survey showing a modified location for the garage received by the applicant just prior to the meeting. The applicant noted that the location was revised due to the elevation of the land and the amount of fill that would be needed for construction. The Commission noted that the revised location was an improvement. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Wetland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller informed the applicant that there may be some costs involved in the filing of the easements. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. NORTH 79.74' LANE CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYV,'.T. SD ROAD MOUND I,,41NNE5Z-A 55364 '~687 (612) FAX (612 .:'-2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of April 11, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .,~ Variance Request for Garage David & Nancy Piela 94-16 1645 Eagle Lane, Lots 11 - 14, Block 10, Woodland Point, PId//13-117-2412 0180 R-lA Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing non conforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. The request is otherwise fully conforming to the ordinance. The existing dwelling footprint results in the following variances. 2.69' to Eagle Lane and 16.58' to Jennings road. The city engineer has comments that are noted in the attached report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval, of the request as it is conforming to the ordinance with the condition as listed in the city engineers report. JS The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 26, 1994. I ] I I ,I , ,t , McCombs Frank Roos Ass, ociates, Inc. APR ? I99 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors April 5, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Variance Request 1645 Eagle Lane Case #94-16 MFRA #8902 Dear Jon: We have reviewed the subject variance request and have one item that should be addressed. We were never able to acquire the necessary permanent easements on this property for the 1978 Street Improvement Project. The City should have an easement over the west 5 feet of both Lots 13 and 14, to allow for some boulevard beyond the edge of the pavement for Dove Lane. A 5-foot wide by 10-foot long easement should also be acquired for the curb radius and hydrant on Eagle Lane at the intersection with Jennings Road. These easements could be made a condition of the variance approval. I believe this is registered land; therefore, we would need the "Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title". We could then prepare the easements for signature and, once signed, the City Attorney's office could record same along with the resolution of approval for the variance. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron City Engineer JC:jmk An Equal Opportunity Employer /270 .VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0(~, Fax: 472-0~20 City Council Date: ~ ..'~:~ ~'ff, d~ Distribution: ~/7_c¥~ 4 L~lan~ccnwi~,~ ~. City Planner \,/~ x./ City Engineer \ / Other " Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 Please Ope or print the following information: ......................................................................... Address of Subject Property Owner's Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner). Address Use of Property:_ Block PID No. I~-! I-7 q --R- 50q 7 · g, es icl'ene'a. Day Phone 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 resoN~ions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 0 - Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 .. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), Noir. ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Side Yard: ( ) 7 ~ 0 - ft. 3, q c~ - ft. - I/~, ~ g - ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) - ft. - ft. fi' Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft' ft' ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft' ft' fi' ·(NSEW) ft' ft' ft. fi. ft. fi. Street Frontage: Lot Size: .sq ft _sq ft sq fl - _sq ft - sq ft _ _sq ft 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-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow {~) to~gmphy drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil "~:,~t,,existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain: O d ,r cz/so nde, se (~J - _ ,d Are the conditions of hardship, fo~ which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No/~ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such~otices as may be required by law. Owner's S~gnature ~0~47/ ~ Date ' ?' Applicant's Signature Date NORTH 7 9. 7~r NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SQ FT X 30% SQ FT X 15% HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~) OTHER: LENGTH WIDTH X TOTAL HOUSE * * X TOTAL GARAGE * X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY X TOTAL DECK * * * TOTAL DECK @ 50% X X TOTAL OTHER * * TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* ( ~VER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~YES~NO ....I GL,NElL. M-,/,O,%LNG LNI,'OIL,'~LATION ,SIIEE'I' FRONT: FRONT: SIDE: SIDE: ~SHOREt · d m O..#. ~ :XlSTING A/~D/OR PROPOSED 8ETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING iq,:31 / ,(~ ~3 !<'. FRONT FRONT SIDE: RE~R: YES . NO~Z~ ? FRONT: SIDE: ~S · W _ 4' or 6' N S E W 4' t~C~ES$OR¥ BUILDING FRONT FRONT SIDE: SIDEr - I I PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING PORCH AND DECK AT 4531 DORCHESTER ROAD LOT 2, BLOCK 13, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0135 P&Z CASE #94-19 WHEREAS, the owner, Chris Kulenkamp, has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks resulting in a 16.5 foot variance to the front yard for the accessory building, and a 6.5' rear yard setback variance for the house. A fully conforming 12' x 16' four season porch and 6' x 10' deck is proposed, and WHEREAS, the existing nonconforming status of his property has previously been recognized by Resolution #91-99, and WHEREAS, this is a unique property where, technically, the front yard is Tuxedo Blvd., but the house faces Dorchester Road and also uses this as its access, and WHEREAS, functional, and the placement of the house and other buildings serve the property well and is WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval due to the fact that strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. This property is an unusual case with the configuration of the abutting land on Tuxedo Blvd. and the fact that the house fronts on Dorchester that is technically the side yard. 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 nonconformities resulting in the following variances to allow construction of a fully conforming 12' x 16' four season porch and 6' x 10' deck: ao A 16.5 foot front yard setback variance for the accessory building. A 6.5 foot rear yard setback variance for the house. 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 April 26, 1994 Page 2 94-19, Kulenkamp 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 conforming 12' x 16' four season porch and a 6' x 10' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 13, Avalon. 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. 1 78' MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11,' 1994 ~ DON BONNICKSEN FOR CHRIS KULENKAMP, 4531 DORCHESTE~ ROAD. LOT 2. BLOCK 13, AVALON. PID #19-117-23 31 0135. VARIANCE FOR PORCH DECK, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for variances to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks requiring the following variances: 1 ) a 16.5 foot variance to the front yard for the accessory building, and 2) a 6.5' rear yard setback variance for the house. A fully conforming 12' x 16' four season porch and 6' x 10' deck is proposed. The existing nonconforming status of his property has been recognized by a previous variance, Resolution #91-99. This is e unique property where, technically, the front yard is Tuxedo Blvd., but the house faces Dorchester Road and also uses this as its access. The placement of the house and other buildings serve the property well and is functional. Strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommends approval due to the fact that strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. This property is an unusual case with the configuration of the abutting land on Tuxedo Blvd. and the fact that the house fronts on Dorchester that is technically the side yard. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Bird, to recommend approval of the variance aa recommended by staff. MOTION carried unanimousJy. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. 1 77 CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 1687 6~2~ 472-0600 FAX (6!2~ 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of April 11, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request for Porch and Deck Don Bonnicksen for owner Chris Kulenkamp CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 94-19 4531 Dorchester Road, Lot 2, Block 13, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0135 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking variances to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks requiring the following variances: 1 ) a 16.5 foot variance to the front yard for the accessory building, and 2) a 6.5' rear yard setback variance for the house. A fully conforming 12' x 16' four season porch and 6' x 10' deck is proposed. The existing nonconforming status of his property has been recognized by a previous variance, Resolution #91-99. This is a unique property where, technically, the front yard is Tuxedo Blvd., but the house faces Dorchester Road and also uses this as its access. The placement of the house and other buildings serve the property well and is functional. Strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends approval due to the fact that strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. This property is an unusual case with the configuration of the abutting land on Tuxedo Blvd. and the fact that the house fronts on Dorchester that is technically the side yard. JS:pi The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 26, 1994.  printed on recycled paper / ~1~ ~ VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: /-~-I1 .c~ City Council Date: Distribution; City Planner ,,, Public Works City Engineer ~/ DNR Other ! Application Fee: $50.00 Please type or print the following information: .................................................. Address of Subject Property Addition ~ L//¥ ~c~F',x PID No. Zoning District Owner's Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Day Phone ~/"7 7~ - / '7/'7 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? fi<l(yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ov, e _~-l~t ~ ~ '5.,,~;," fl,,,, s .,. d s/,.~ y. ..~-,- p..,./~: { ~/.,~ p,,.., ,t ~ lagl II I Variance Application (11/93) P~e 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 use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) :(NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: sqft sqft _mil sqft sqft ..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-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 ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( )soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 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 (). ff yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Y~4~No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature~ Applicant's Signature~ Date Date ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 $. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 ..SURVEY FOR: CHRIS KULENKAMP $_L. rRVEYED: May 28, 1991 _D!~AFTED: May 29, 1991 LEG_AL DESCRIPTION: EASTERLY PARCEL Lot 2, Block 13, AVALON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WESTERLY PARCEL ;.ets 3 and 4, Block 13, AVALON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS: We have surveyed the above described propers, which 'the client claims to own or appear~ to own from various government records. We ma;:,- no rcprescntalion that the client docs in fact own thc propers, nor that a search of thc records has been made to determine ! "¢ ext. -: and nature of his holdings. If there is any doubt concerning thc accuracy, of thc legal description, competent legal counsel .:i,: -,c retained to perform a title search and issue a title opinion for our usc in preparing the survc'y. Wc show only those ·. :.'nenu which the client informs us of or which we happen to become aware of through other sources. Thc survey shows only those l.nprovcments which are visible and which wc al.ecru imp~_~ant, .. STANDARD $'t'5. *nOLS & CONVENTIONS: ~th plastic plug bearing State :;:enl. License Number 10535, set, it' "o' is filled in, then I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Samuel O. Parker R.L$. 10535 SCALE: ONE INCH EQUALS 20 FEET i ,I lit ! I , ,ii, , ii NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SQ FT X 30% = SQ ET X 15% = HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH X X GARAGE: TOTAL HOUSE * DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: oe(X~ x ~, [~ = ( if imperviou~-.~,J~ i'~' X I ~ = surface under deck = 100~[) TOTAL DECK ************* OTHER: TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES NO KULENKAMP ADDITION 4531 DORCHESTER RD. MOUND MN 55364 SCHULTZ DESIGN ,3409 FAST LAKE ST · ORONO. MN. 55556. (612) 449-8947 4 FRFINT ELEVATIDN KULENKAMP ADDITION - 4531 DORCH[STER RD. laOONO lan 55364 scHULTZ DESIGN ~-~ 449-894--'-'---'-'~ 3409 EAST LAKE ST · ORONO, MN. 55356 · (612) RLGHT EXISTING HEIUSE ELEVATIEIN KULENKAMp _ ADDITION 4531 DORCHESTER RD. MOUND MN 55564 SCHULTZ DESIGN 3409 FAST LAKE ST · ORONO, MN. 55356 · (612) 449-8947 EXISTING HOUSE LEFT ELEVATION KULENKAMP ADDITION 453! DORCHESTER RD. MOUND MN 5.5364 SCHULTZ DESIGN 5409 FAST LAKE ST · ORONO, biN. 55356 · (612) 449-8947 16' 4'-3' 7'-6' 4'-3' REMOVE ~/INDO~/ AND DOOR VRAP IN OAK ~/ITH CASING FLOOR PLAN 181 July 23, 1991 RESOLUTION ~91-99 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO THE PROPOSED DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND RECOGNIZE Ltl EXISTING NONCONFORMING REAR YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FOR LOTS 2, 3 & 4, BLOCK AVALON, PXD JIg-IX7-23 3X 0X3S, 453X DORCHESTER ROAD, P&S CASE NO. 9Z-025 WHERBAS, the applicant has applied for a front yard setback variance and recognition of an existing nonconforming rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a detached accessory structure for Lots 2, 3, 4, Block 13, Avalon, PID #19- 117-23 31 0135, and~ WHEREAS, the existing principal structure is.setback 8.5 feet from the rear property line, and the accessory structure is proposed to be setback 16.5 feet to the front property line, and~ WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3 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, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 30 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, this property being a corner lot is an unusual circumstance with the configuration of the abutting land on Tuxedo Blvd., (Lot 1) which was obtained by the City of Mound for street purposes, and~ WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, nonconforming residential property when the alteratlons 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 does recommend approval due to the fact that strict interpretation of the Zoning Code creates an undue hardship, and the addition of the accessory structure would enhance the use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 13.5 foot front yard setback variance to the proposed accessory structure and recognizes the existing nonconforming rear yard setback resulting in a 1 I ,,m ~J j 182 July 23, 1991 6.5 foot variance to allow construction of a 16' x 16' aetaahed accessory structure for Lots 2, 3, 4, Block 13, Avalon, PID J19-117-23 31 0135. The City Council authorizes the violations and 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 provis~ons and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. Construction of a 16' x 18' detached accessory structure setback 16.§ feet from the front property line (Tuxedo BlYd.), all other setbacks will comply. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 13, Avalon, PID J19-117-23 31 0135. 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. 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 Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jess.n, 'Johnson and Smith· The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: CltyCler~ GENEI~kL ZONING LNI:OIL\IATION SI IEET Required Lot Width: (f~ont&ge on an Lmprovmd publ£c street) 12.© ~isting Lot Width , Depth 8 P-TBACK8 ltgQUZRED f SIDg~ g ~SHO~: SO' l~asured from O.H~W.} FRONT: N S E W ~RONT: N S E W SIDE: R S g W SIDE: N S g w P.~AR: N S g W LAY, E SHOP~: ACCESSORY BUILDING no ? S~' [~easured fr~ EXISTING A~'D/OR PROPOBED SETBACKS: FRON?~ S E W FROHT: SIDEr N~ g W SIDE: SIDEr SIDE: ~z N S E I ~: ~5HO~; LAKESHO~: c~ r- -- 0 0 ,~ x' 0 --, i i NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS - Page 2 ISLAND PARK AREA (Continued) Island View Drive -. from Clyde Road to Dorchester Road Devon Lane - from Richmond Road~ to Canterbury Road Devon. Lane - from Tuxedo Boulevard south to Commons Canterbury Road - from Devon 300 feet west The proposed assessments for the above are on file for public inspection at the City Office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk Treasurer of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assess- ment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk-Treasurer. ' ' ' No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment a~to a SPecific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written objec- tion to that assessment with the City Clerk-Treasurer prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing. The City Council has adopted a policy regarding the deferment of special assess- ments for senior citizens pursuant to MSA 435.193 to 435.195 in certain hardship cases. If you are a senior citizen (65 years or older), you are advised to check with the City Clerk prior to the date of the hearing to determine if you may be eligible to apply for a hardship deferment. Mary H.OMarske, City Clerk Treasurer The proposed assessment on your property is: PID #: 19-117-23 33 O041 Amount $2,900.92 If you have two or more adjacent pieces of property which are listed as separate parcels on your tax statement, you may have been assessed 1 unit charge for each parcel. By combining these into 1 parcel, one of the unit charges may be removed from your total assessment. Please check with the City Office prior to the hear- ing on September 23rd. After conclusion of the hearing, the above assessment will be spread for 15 years at 8% interest from date of hearing at which assessment is set to December 31, 1995. You may pay all or p rt of the assessment on each parcel on or before 30 days after said hearing without interest. If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be at least $100.O0. If the total assessment is less than $300.O0, no partial payment can be accepted. Such payment will be received at the Mound City Office. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 5028 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOTS 8, 9, AND 10, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S GLEN ARBOR, PID #13-117-24 42 0015, P & Z CASE #94-20 WHEREAS, the applicants, Janis and Joseph Geffre and Patrick and Chirstine Furlong have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by the Mound City Code, Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-l^ Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, proposed lot area and lot coverage are conforming, Parcel I has an area of 10,831 square feet and Parcel 2 has an area of 10,796 square feet, and WHEREAS, the property contains an existing home and existing deck structure, both of which will be removed, and WI-IEREAS, the property is located in the shoreland district and contains bluff areas and is therefore subject to the provisions of Mound City Code Section 350:1200, Shoreland Management, and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision has been found to be consistent with the regulations set forth in the City Code, 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: 1. The City Council does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels 1 and 2 from Lots 8, 9 and 10, Skarp and Lindquist's Glen Arbor, subject to the following conditions: A. The applicants shall remove the existing home and deck structure prior to the release of this resolution. As an alternative, the applicant may post a security deposit with the City or enter into an agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, guaranteeing removal of the buildings. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #94-20 Bo Other than removal of the existing deck and related restoration, additional filling or grading within the bluff area shall be prohibited, unless it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Mound Shoreland Ordinance. Filling related to the removal of the deck structure shall be done in accordance with a fill permit to be obtained from the City of Mound. Said permit application shall be accompanied by a landscaping restoration plan for the area. Co The applicant shall submit a revised survey identifying sanitary sewer lines, watermains, and existing and proposed services. Said survey shall be submitted prior to the release of this resolution. DJ A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a 10 foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the easement documents, prior to release of this resolution. The easement documents shall be filed with Hennepin County concurrently with this approval resolution for the minor subdivision. All costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. Fo Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel 1 shall be installed prior to the filing of this approval resolution or as an alternative, a suitable security deposit shall be provided to the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney in an amount sufficient to ensure installation. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15, prior to release of this resolution. Ho Park dedication fees in the total amount of $1,000 ($500 per lot) shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of this resolution. The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Parcel 1: Lot 8 and the easterly 20 feet of Lot 9, as measured on the south line of said Lot 9, Skarp and Lindquist's Glen Arbor Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Proposed Resolution Page 3 Parcel 2: Case #94-20 Lot 10 and the westerly part of Lot 9, lying westerly of the easterly 20 feet of Lot 9, as measured on the south line of said Lot 9, Skarp and Lindquist's Glen Arbor Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 94-20.RES MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1994 ~ JANIS & JOSEPH GEFFRE AND PATRICK & CHRISTINE FURLONG. EDGEWATER DRIVE. LOTS 8. 9. 10. SKARP & LINDQUIST'$ GLEN ARBOR. PID #13-117-2-~, 4.2 0015. MINOR SUBDIVISION: City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create sites for two new homes. Parcel 1 has an area of 10,831 square feet, and Parcel 2 has an area of 10,796 square feet. Both of these lots exceed the 6,000 square foot lot size requirement of the R-lA zone. No variances are being requested as part of the proposed subdivision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision subject to conditions: All structures shall maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the delineated top of bluff line as shown on the Certificate of Survey dated March 28, 1994 as prepared by Frank R. Cardarelle. The existing house and deck structure shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution, or as an alternative, the applicant shall post a suitable security with the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to demolish the structures and restore the site. Other than removal of the existing deck and related restoration, additional filling or grading within the bluff area shall be expressly prohibited, unless it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance. Filling related to the removal of the deck structure will require a grading and filling permit. The application for said permit shall be accompanied by a landscaping restoration plan for the area. The applicant shall submit a revised survey identifying existing sanitary sewer lines, watermains, and existing and proposed services. Said survey shall be submitted prior to the filing of the approval resolution. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a ten (10) foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the above described easements, prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The easement documents shall be filed concurrently with the approval resolution. Costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel 1 shall be installed prior to the filing of the approval resolution or as an alternative, a suitable security shall be posted with the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to ensure their installation. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15 prior to release of the approval resolution. o Park dedication fees in the amount of $1,000 ($500/!ot) shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of the approval resolution. MOTION made by Wailand, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff. MotJon carded unanimoudy. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. I J Iii I I ,li~ , J Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mm PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Janis & Joseph Geffre - Patrick & Christene Furlong CASE NUMBER: 94-20 HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5e LOCATION: 5028 Edgewater Drive EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking approval for a minor subdivision to create sites for two new homes. Parcel 1 has an area of 10,831 square feet and Parcel 2 has an area of 10,796 square feet. Both of these lots exceed the 6,000 square foot lot size requirement of the R-lA zone. No variances are being requested as part of the proposed subdivision. COMMENT: The subject property abuts Lake Minnetonka and therefore, is subject to the requirements found in the City's Shoreland Ordinance. Approximately the northern one third of the land proposed for subdivision is in a bluff area. Correspondingly, restrictions pertaining to bluff areas and the bluff impact zone that are contained within the Shoreland Ordinance apply to these parcels. At the present time, the property contains an existing home on the upper portion of the lot and a deck with a structure below it near the lake. Both of these structures are proposed to be removed as part of the request. Upon removal of the deck, filling and landscaping will be necessary to restore the area adjacent to the lake. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff. It appears that the deck on Parcel 2 encroaches into the required 10 foot setback area. The final house plan will Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Geffre/Furlong Minor Subdivision Planning Report April 6, 1994 Page Two need to be modified to maintain a 10 foot setback for all buildings and structures from the delineated top of bluff line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision subject to conditions. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion is suggested: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the minor subdivision for Case #94-20 subject to the following conditions: AH structures shall maintain a minimum lO foot setback from the delineated top of bluff line as shown on the Certificate of Survey dated March 28, 1994 as prepared by Frank R. Cardarelle. The existing house and deck structure shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution, or as an alternative, the applicant shall post a suitable security with the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to demolish the structures and restore the site. Other than removal of the existing deck and related restoration, additional filling or grading within the bluff area shall be expressly prohibited, unless it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance. Filling related to the removal of the deck structure will require a grading and filling permit. The application for said permit shall be accompanied by a landscaping restoration plan for the area. o The applicant shall submit a revised survey identifying existing sanitary sewer lines, watermains, and existing and proposed services. Said survey shall be submitted prior to the filing of the approval resolution.. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shah be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements' shah be dedicated to the City including the following: O a five (5)foot width along aH side lot lines, and 2) a lO foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the above described easements, prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The easement documents shah be filed concurrently with the approval resolution. Costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shah be paid by the applicant. 6. Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel 1 shall be installed prior to the filing of the approval resolution or as an alternative, a suitable security shall be posted with the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to ensure the#' installation. Geffre/Furlong Minor Subdivision Planning Report April 6, 1994 Page Three 7. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15 prior to release of the approval resolution. 8. Park dedication fees in the amount of $1,000 ($500/lo0 shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of the approval resolution. FURLONG.RPT McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, P!ymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors April 4, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 ;, 'nOA SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Geffne/Furlong Minor Subdivision Case #94-20 MFRA #10688 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the information furnished for the above-referenced minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainage The survey submitted shows only tentative house locations and proposed elevations; therefore, final grading, drainage and erosion control plans will need to be furnished when applications are made for building permits. The survey shows drainage and utility easements along the front and side lot lines. Streets and Utilities The survey submitted does not show the existing sanitary sewer and watermain or the existing services to the present house. It appears Parcel II are served by existing services; however, new sewer and water services will need to be installed for Parcel I at the applicant's expense. If these services are not installed prior to recording of the subdivision, some type of financial guarantee should be provided to the City. The combination of these two (2) lots were only assessed one unit charge when Edgewater Drive was improved in 1980. With this proposed subdivision creating an additional buildable parcel, one deficient unit charge of $1,828.15 should be collected. In conclusion, we are recommending the following conditions become a part of the proposed subdivision: Furnish revised survey which shows the existing sanitary sewer and watermain with existing and proposed services. An Equal Oppodunity Employer Mr. Jon Sutherland April 4, 1994 Page Two e Se Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plan to be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City, 5 feet in width, along all side lot lines and 10 feet in width along front lot lines. Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel I either be installed or some type of financial guarantee proved, such as cash escrow or performance bond. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 to be paid. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:3mk Application for .MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~N 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: city council Date: x/_~?_ Site Visit Scheduled: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Other: - Case No. Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please t~pe or print the followin~ information: Address of Subject Propg_rty ~0~ F ~C~Lt3~r ~ner' ~ address ~o ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Name of Surveyor Name of Engineer Day Phone Day Phone Day Phone6~/~ Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~t Z,,f.~ ? ~ lO/~f. Block Zoning District ~--I Use of Pro rty Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provid~ copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. ~igfiature- of Owner I/ ' ~i~at~e '~f~.~r ~ / Date I I it Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For_ certificate Qf Survey k 3~ Joe Geffre BOO ~ Page ~.. _ File 1" = 20' ~aotes iron monuments found Tree & , fiji4 ~4'~ 94G q4e :~ .yo z 4 I r~ed Garage Floor r~-o~ed 1st Floor r~vcsed D~a[na~e I herebY--certifY that this is a true and correct representation 94,4 Lot 10 and the Westerly part of Lot 9, lytng Westerly of the Easterly 20 feet of Lot q, as measured ~ the South line of said Lot q~ Skarp and Ltndqutst's Glen Arbor Additton~ Hennepin County~ Minnesota. AN D: Lot 8 and the Easterly 20 feet of Lot q, as measured o~ the South line of said Lot ~, Skarp and Lind~ulsl;'s Glen Arbor Addition, W~n~ln C~,n[v Minnesota. ~es not pr~t to sho~ lm~rovemen[~ ~ ~croach- Frank R.. C~r~el~'St~e Req. ~. 65.u · ' "' 13c)¥ FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612)'<J41-3031 Certificate of Survey Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Patrick Furlong Book.'~4~ Page.. ~,¢ File q38 c/42 ~Qnum~nts found Tree & Elev. 4~,q 948 · 10.7. 3- q ~'~' i- -- / D-*cri~tion 7arc~l I: q6~'p ~n~ the C-~terly 2C' of lct 9, ~ mensur~ on th~ Z~uth lin~ ~f ~i] L~t 9, 3~*rn ~nC ~igdguist' Arbor ~"~itlon, ~!~un~ln Jounty," -* - 1C ~u" the ,'.~t-rly ~rt of Lot 9, lying '/erterly ~f th. E~sterly 20' of :or 9, a~ ~ur-' ~n th- 3outh lin. ~f ~i~ Let 9~ gk~r~ nn~ Lindqui~ Gl-~b~r AG?iticn, ~enne~ln ~u~~',, FRANK FI. C;ARDAFJELLE (61~) 941-3031 Land Su~eyor Eden Praide, MN 55344 J Certificat ,,,,of Survey ~ ...... Suwey For_ Patrick Furlong , .~r~ ! .-J-' Book ;~4 Page 1" = 20' ] ,;note~ irou monuments found Tree & EI. eV. ,u., File Proposed £lev. C~_~ ~roDosed G~rage Floor $42.~ ;rooosed ls~ Floor ~LO Proposed 2~s. ~oor ~.~ Proposed Drainage ~ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of~ Lot 8 and the Easterly 20 feet of Lot c;, as measured on the South line Lot ~ Skarp and Llndqu~st's Glen Arbor Addit~on~ Hennepin of said ' ..... * to sho~ lmorovements or e~roach- ~ents~' ,f~ny. '~eyed by me this ~ day o~ 1994. ~o · '13,,4 38 o 13o f,, FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Certificate of Survey 1" = 20~ Tree & gleV. ol4o q~ , ? I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation oft Lo~ 10 and ~he Westerly part of Lo~ ~ lying Westerly of the Easterly 20 feet of Lot ~, as measured ~ the South line o~ said Lot ~, $karp and Ltnd~ls~'~ Gten Arbor Addlti~, Henneptn C~n~y, M~nneso~a. Does not priori to sho, improvements Or encroachments, if any. ~rveyed by me this ~ day of ~/~. , 19~4. ' 'o~oseSElev. ~ : ro~ored G,rage ?-oor [.reposed Ist Flcor ?roro~ed Bros. Floor Pro~o~ed Drainage HARDCO~ CALCUL^T]ON$ EXI.qTING LOT AREA SQ Fr X 30 % = ,_~. 7.~ ~ EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: TOTAL HOUSE · · · · · . ..... GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: 2~- x 22~ = .× = TOTAL G~IO%GE .......... ~_.. x 2d x TOTAL DRIVEWAY ......... DECK: X = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK ~ $0% ........ /t/, Z -- OTHER: X = TOTAL OTHER ........... PROPOSED HARDCOVER ·. ............ I 7 o ~'g', z ~-I TOTAL ' IREMENTS? · ~ YES NO ; HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXI,~FING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: lo?qb, ~- SQ Yf X 30% !o7~ .7- SQ FI' X 15% LENGTH WIDTH X TOTAL HOUSE · · · ........ SQ FT GARAGE: :~ x 22_ = TOTAL GI~RAGE , · · · · · · · · · 7/7 I/I · Z DRIVEWAY: ~-. x ~% TOTAL D~ZVrWA¥ . · · · · · · · · DECK: = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK ~ $0% · · · · , · . . OTHER: TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER , . . , .......... MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? .......... _~YES__ ...NO ~AC~g ~F~UXRIgD ! ~0' f#llured free O.H.#.) __ BLOC[ 10 ADBITIOI BXXETXN~ ~[OR PROPOSED SBTBACKEJ # S E P.r, AAs M · g LAABSHOP~ I IS THiS[pP~)~T~CONFOI~J41N~? YE· , NO ACCESSORY BUILDING (VA(. d445 I 1310 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: Mound City Council Bruce Chamberlain, Planning Consultant April 21, 1994 SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval for Teal Pointe Residential Development APPLICANT: Teal Pointe Development Co. (Neil Weber) CASE NUMBERS: 92-060, 92-061, 92-062, 92-063, 94-06 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37j LOCATION: Property lying immediately east of the termini of Drummond Road and Windsor Road. ZONING: R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential OTHER RELATED REPORTS: City Engineer's report prepared under separate cover. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Teal Pointe is a proposed 9 lot residential development located east of the existing termini of Windsor Road and Drummond Road. The 5.7 acre site is on a peninsula surrounded on the east by a wetland and on the west by existing residential development. The Teal Pointe plans call for lots 1-3 to be served by private utilities and access extensions of Drummond Road. Lots 4-9 will be served by City utilities and street access through a cul de sac extension of Windsor Road. Two outlots will be created as part of the development. Outlot A will be privately owned, containing the extension of Drummond Road. Outlot B will be deeded to the City and contains the wetland on the site. --- Stormwater and runoff are addressed as part of the development plan. A stormwater detention pond will be located on an easement over lots 8 and 9 and a 50' natural vegetative filter will be preserved adjacent to the wetland. Implementation of the proposed plan requires the vacation of portions of the existing right-of- Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Teal Pointe Planning Report April 7, 1994 Page 2 way of Windsor Road and Drummond Road. Vacated land is to be incorporated into the residential lots as shown on the final plat drawing. Homeowner's association articles of incorporation, by-laws and restrictive covenants have been prepared by the developer, reviewed by the City Attorney and included in the City Council packet. Also included in the Council packet is a conservation easement which will preserve a 50 foot band of natural vegetation adjacent to the wetland. Park Dedication. Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot or a total of $4,500 has been determined for subdivision of the property. This amount was recommended by the Mound Park and Open Space Commission at their November 12, 1992 meeting. At the time, the value of the Teal Pointe property was unknown. The developer stated in a subsequent City Council meeting that the value of the property may be in the range of $200,000. The Subdivision Ordinance states, "cash or land contribution shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the fair market value of the land being divided. Minnesota Statute 462.358 provides that land including wetland can be used to satisfy park dedication requirements. When dedication of the 2.6 acre wetland is considered in addition to the cash contribution, the 10% minimum requirement is reached. A City Council Memorandum from the City Planner dated February 4, 1993 discussed this issue and suggested that the City Council reconsider the park dedication requirements and thus consider modification of condition//6 of the preliminary plat approval. The City Council discussed park dedication at their February 9, 1993 meeting and made no change to the original recommendation of $500 per lot to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Preliminary Plat Approval Preliminary plat approval was granted with nineteen conditions by the City Council on February 9, 1993 (Resolution 93-20). Preliminary plat approval includes a conditional use permit to designate the site as a Planned Development Area (PDA). Preliminary plat approval also granted three variance requests. 1) Allowing a private street to serve lots 1-3 on Outlot A. 2) Lowering the right-of-way width requirement on the private street from 50 feet to 24 feet. 3) Extending the maximum cul-de-sac length on Windsor Road from 500 feet to 830 feet and reducing the cul-de-sac paved surface radius from 50 feet to 35 feet. Due to the sensitive nature of the site and concern raised by the neighborhood, a Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet was completed for the project. The EAW process prompted six additional conditions (20-25) to be placed on the preliminary plat approval as seen in Resolution 93-122 dated September 14, 1993. Teal Pointe Planning Report April 7, 1994 Page 3 COMMENT: Teal Pointe is being proposed as a small residential development of single family homes. The development site is very challenging and environmentally sensitive due to steep grades, mature vegetation and the adjacent wetland. To lessen the development impact, the developer is proposing measures not common to a typical residential subdivision. Homes on lots 1-3 will be built using caisson and cantilevered construction techniques to minimize the amount of grading required; a 50' natural vegetative buffer, legally protected by a conservation easement, will be maintained between the yard areas and the adjacent wetland; builders of lots 1-3 will be required to submit a tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and landscaping plan to the City for review prior to issuance of a building permit; and no private docks will be allowed in the adjacent wetland. Outlot A is being proposed for use as a private street extension of Drummond Road. payable on this parcel should be conveyed to Lots 1, 2 and 3 since they will be the beneficiaries and the ones responsible for maintenance of the street and utilities. Taxes The Developer is proposing to use steel sheet pile retaining walls for roughly an 80 foot /,~ distance near the entry of the development, on either side of Windsor Road. The north wall would be roughly 4 feet in height and the south wall would vary up to 12 feet in height. The walls would be painted a natural tone and portions of the walls will contain railings and wood bumper guards. The Developer has indicated that due to the restrictive widths of the existing Windsor Road right-of-way, sheet piling is the only feasible material to use without encroaching onto private property. The Developer believes the material to be architecturally pleasing and due to the longevity and stability of the product, that it is a better solution than concrete or other materials. Given the overall height and expanse of the wall, its long term tendency to rust, and the lack of examples of the material being used as a permanent retaining wall in other areas, Staff has concern about the aesthetic appearance of the walls and the appropriateness of the steel sheeting material in a residential neighborhood. Upon completion of the project, the walls will become the property of the City who will subsequently be responsible for their maintenance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests that the City Council discuss the aesthetic issues associated with the retaining wails along Windsor Road. Upon resolution of the retaining wall issue, Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Teal Point residential development subject to conditions herein and those found in the City Engineer's report dated March 28, 1994 and all conditions and requirements of the preliminary plat approval (Resolutions 93-20 and 93-122). If the Council concurs with this ecommendation, the following motion is suggested: The City Council hereby directs Staff to prepare a resolution approving the final plat for Teal Pointe residential subdivision subject to conditions found in the City Engineer's report dated March 28, 1994 plus the conditions listed below. iii & Teal Pointe Planning Report April 7, 1994 Page 4 The Developer shall secure and give copy to the City, a stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City signing the final plat. The Developer shall secure and give copy to the Building Official, all required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. o Prior to the City signing the f'mal plat, the Developer shall sign a Development Contract drafted by the City Attorney. The Developer shall furnish to the City a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of $127,500 (125% of estimated construction costs) as per plans approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall furnish the City Attorney all necessary information and assistance to transfer Deed of Ownership of Outlot B and all other deeds conveying property to the City. This transaction shall be completed prior to the City signing the final plat and Development Contract and shall be filed at the same time the plat is placed for record. ° Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the Fire Chief and Building Official. Outlot A shall be limited in use to a private street and utility extension of Drummond Road to serve Lots 1, 2 and 3. Outlot A shall be equally conveyed to Lots 1, 2 and 3 as an undivided interest and bound to those parcels in regard to property tax record. !~1~ I I1' ' l: : ,.,. , I,P I!, : I : il'' "Ii Il iJ!i jli'jj'l Iii l 1 ii i ~!. fill ~ lJ % J ild jill I,I ! lit J '", l[J ~? ,, ;- · · 1,1 , ?' ~ .'. . ....... I,,,,.,,,,,,,,,, ~.'iWl l'i'Jlil li~ ~" I "..,",,","',-,,,,",,, ii, .... ,, It .~. -.:.~ ,Ihill .. I,~,, ,,,, ,~, i ! ! ... [ I j :l: lid ,, ~'· I J ., ":i I ~ · I I . .. · ~. ,,, ~' t~!. ,, l,! Ill d,t-ll, 1, ~.'.~'~: · Il ,I ! , ~ ~,,.~ .- ,~ .,:.:.. ~Z COFFIN & GRONBERGo INC. 81JRVLrytNO, EN~IN~RINO AND LAND Pt. ANNINO 4~oA TAMARACK AVlNU! LONO LAKE, MINN. ~,e~ 475-4141 April 22, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound Mound City Hall 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 This is to inform you that the proposed plat of TEAL POINTE essentially matches the preliminary plat of TEAL POINTE dated 4-11-94, and to the best of our knowledge, all lots meet Mound's plat requirements, and has been checked by Hennepin County for mathematical accuracy. Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg, P.5~. & L.S. NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSHENTS - Page 2 ISLAND PARK AREA (Continued) Island View Drive -. from Clyde Road to Dorchester Road Devon Lane - from Richmond Road to Canterbury Road Devon. Lane - from Tuxedo Boulevard south to Commons Canterbury Road - from Devon 300 feet west The proposed assessments for the above are on file for public inspection at the City Office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk Treasurer of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assess- ment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk-Treasurer. ,~.~[~7 No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment a~ to a specific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written objec- tion to that assessment with the City Clerk-Treasurer prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing. The City Council has adopted a policy regarding the deferment of special assess- ments for senior citizens pursuant to MSA 435.193 to 435.195 in certain hardship cases. If you are a senior citizen (65 years or older), you are advised to check with the City Clerk prior to the date of the hearing to determine if you may be eligible to apply for a hardship deferment. Mary H.0Marske, City Clerk Treasurer The proposed assessment on your property is: PID #: 19-117-23 33 0041 Amount $2,900.92 If you have two or more adjacent pieces of property which are listed as separate parcels on your tax statement, you may have been assessed 1 unit charge for each parcel. By combining these into 1 parcel, one of the unit charges may be removed from your total assessment. Please check with the City Office prior to the hear- ing on September 23rd. After conclusion of the hearing, the above assessment will be spread for 15 years at 8% interest from date of hearing at which assessment is set to December 31, 1995. /You all of the assessment on each parcel on or before 30 days may pay or P rt after said hearing without interest. If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be at least $100.00. If the total assessment is less than $300.00, no partial payment can be accepted. Such payment will be received at the Mound City Office. n i lit Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #94-13 the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, guaranteeing removal of the building within the stated period. Until the building is removed, variances of 5.35 feet for the side yard setback encroachment and 5 feet for the rear vard setback encroachment are hereby granted. The applicant shall remove the existing garage on Parcel I prior to the r,-' ..... The applicant shall submit a revised survey at an appropriate scale delineating the proposed house locations and the proposed elevations. Said survey shall also include locations of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain, and existing and proposed service locations. DJ A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a 10 foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the easement documents, prior to release of this resolution. The easement documents shall be filed with Hennepin County concurrently with this approval resolution for the minor subdivision. All costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of ~I~2,8,-1-B, prior to release of this resolution. Park dedication fees in the total amount of $1,000 ($§00 per lot) shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of this resolution. The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Parcel 1' That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, The Highlands which lies ~0~ "~ ~ of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 111.20 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 81.70 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 3. Parcel 2: That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 10, The Highlands which lies southerly of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 111.20 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 4, to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 81.70 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 3. I,tl ,I I it I I Ild , IJ ti DECL.gRATION OF COX, ENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRIC~fIONS OF TE.-XL POINIE HOMEO%~,NERS AS$OCLATION THIS DECLkRA'IION, made this .... day of ,19 .... by IEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT COilPA.N~, a Minnesota corpo;afion, hereinafter called "Developer" and I-E_~L POIN'FE HO.MEO%~.NERS ASSOCL&TION, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, hereinaf-~er called "Association", both of which are hereinafter collectively called "Declarants": WI'I'N ES SETH: HERE.kS, De',eloper is the owq~er of the following described real estate: Lots 1 through 9 and Outlots A and B, Block 1, Teal Pointe, Hem~epin County, Minnesota, accordir~g to the recorded plat thereof; all of x~bich above-described land together constitutes and is bereinafler referred to as the "Property"; and WIIEREAS, the Property, by means of the plat "real Pointe" has been subdixided into nine residential lots (and t,a,o outlots); and 9,ltEREAS, Developer is building upon said Property a single family home development for the general benefit of the res/dents of the homes in said development; and %~;HEREAS, Declarants wish to proGde for the preservation of the ~:a!ues and amen/I/es in said de,~e!opment and to this end are hereby subjecting the P;operty to the covenants, cor~ditions, restrictions, easernents, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said property and each O,.vner thereof (as hereinafter described); and WItERE~,S, the Association has'been formed as an agen~ to receive the po~,er to attend to ar~ ] effect't~ate policies and programs that '~vJll enhance the p!easure asd val'~:e of the development, and administer and e.nfo~ce the cox'enants and restrictions. NOW, IIIEREFORE, Declarants declare that the Property is and shall be held, trar~sferred, con,~e.~ed sold, leased and occupied, subject to the covenants, condhions, restrictions, easemenls, charges and liens here/naP, er set forth, v~hich are for the pa~pcse of protecting the ,.alue, desirability and attracti,.eness of the P;operty, and .,~hich shall r'..~n v, ith the P~operty and be b;'0ding upon all parties haGng any fight, title or inlerest in lhe ?~operty, their heirs, successors a~d assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Or, net the;eof, :and the heirs, successors and assigns of each O,~ner. 'lEis Declaration hereby established a general plan for the indiGdual owr3er.-hip of real property estales consisting of residential lots. E;ery con,.e.~..ance of any of such residences, or premises, or an part thereof, shall be and is subject to these easements, ce;'en:~ts, conditions and resl~ctic, ns, as foiler, s: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The followSng wolds, when used in this Declaration (unless the conlext shall prohibit) shall have the following meanings: A. "Owner" shall mean the one or more persons or entities, who as record Or, her, contract vendee, tenant or subtenant (including an under-lenant fzom a .ubtenant) or assignee of a contract ,~-endee, tenant or subtenant, or of such an assignee, is entitled of record to possession of any Lot which is a part of the Property, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. B. "Property" shall mean Lots 1 through 9 and Outlots A and B, Block 1, leal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereinafter be annexed by amendment to this Declaration. C. "Association" shall mean Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation. D. "Lot" shall mean any Lot, as shown upon any recorded subdiv/sion plat or map of IEAL POINTE, Hennepin County, Minnesota. E. "Member" shall mean any person or entity holding membership in the Association as proGded in Art/cie II hereof. F. "Developer" shall mean Teal Pointe Development Company, a M/nnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. G. "Mortgage" shall mean any mortgage or other security instrument by which a Lot or any part thereof or any s~ructure tbexeon is encumbered. H. "Mortgagee" shall mean any person or entity named as the Mortgagee under any such Mortgage or any successors or assigns lo the inlerest of such person or entity under such Mortgage. I. "Li,~Sng Unit" shall mean a residential housing unit consisting of a group of rooms and hallways which are designed or intended for use as liGng quarlers for one family. For the purpose of determining membership in the Association, each Living Unit as constructed by Developer shall be considered as a separate and indiv/dual unit. MITICLE 11 PROPERTY SUBJECT TO IHIS DECL.~:~ATION The real properb' which is and shall be held, txansferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the City of Minneapolis, Count), of Itennepin, Stale of Minnesota, and is more particularly described as follows: 2 ,I I It I I t~d , I Il, Lois 1 through 9, Block 1, Outlot A and Outlot B, Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP ,~ND VOTING RIGHTS IN ASSOCD, TION Section 1. Membershig. Every Owner, except as herein provided to the contrary, shall be entitled and required to be a member of the Association. If right to possession to a Lot, whether by deed, conlract, lease, sublease, assignment or title, is held by more than one person, each of such persons shall be a member. An Owner of more than one Lot shall be entitled to one membership for each such Lot. Each such membership shall be appu~enant to the Lot upon v, hich it is based and shall transfer automatically by voluntary or in-,o!untary conveyance of the right to possession (as the case may be) of that Lot. No person or entity other than an Owner or Developer as appointed by Mound Council may be a member of the Association, and a membership in the Association may not be transferred except in connection with the transfer of right to possession to that Lot. Section 2. Transfer. A membership in the Association shall not be transferred, pledged or alienated in any way, except upon the transfer of the right to possession of a Lot and then only to such transferee, by intestate succession, testamentary disposilion, foreclosure of mortgage of record or other legal process. It shall be the responsibility of each Ch,vnet upon becoming entitled to membership, to so notify the Association in x~fiting, and until so notified, the Association may continue to carry the name of the former Or, ncr as a member, in ils sole discretion. Any atlempt to make a prohibited transfer is void and will not be reflected upon the books and records of the Association. In the event the CYx-ner of any Lot should fail or refuse to transfer the membership registered in his name to the transferee of the fight to possession of such Lot, the Association shall have the fight to record the transfer upon the books of the Association and issue a new membership to the transferee, and thereupon the old membership outstanding in the name of the transferor shall be null and void as though the same had been surrendered. Section 3. Voting. The Association shall have ~vo classes of voting membership: a. O__a_ss_A.. Class A 'members shall be all Owners of Lots, v~4th the exception of the Dex:eloper pr/or to __., 19.__, and shall be entitled to one vole for each Lot to which they have the right to possession. When more than one person has the fight to possession to any Lot, all such i:.ersons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves delennine, but in no e~ent shall more than one vote be cast w/th respect 1o any one Lot. l'here can be no split xote. Prior lo or at the time of any meeting at which a ,~ote is Io be taken, each co-Owner or other person entitled Io a vole at such meeting shall file with the Secretary of the Association the name of the voting co-Ov,-ner or other person entitled to a vole at such meeting, unless such co-O's, net or olher person ha~e filed a general ,,o~ing authority v/th the Sec~elary applicable to all xoles until rescinded. b. Class B. The Class B member shall be the Developer who shall be entitled to t, xo votes for each Lot ewned. The Class B membership shall cease on the happening of either of the folloMng e,,ents, whichever occurs first: (i) When the right to possession of the last Lot within the property is conveyed by Developer; or (ii) ,, 19 Developer shall be entitled to Class A membership for all Lots owned by it on or after the term/nation of Class B membership. Section 4. S_u_st>ension of Voting_Rights. In the event any Ow~oer shall be in arrears in the payment of any amount due u~der any of the prov/sions of this Declaration for a period of fifteen (15) days, or shall be in default in the performance of any of the terms of this Declaration for a period of fifteen (15) days, such Owner's fight to vote as a member of the ,~sociation shall be suspended and shall remain suspended until all pa3ments are brought current and all defaults remedied. M1TICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS Section 1. General Pro,4sions. a. All easements described in this Declaration are easements appuaenant, running with the land. They shall at all times inure to the benefit of and be blah_ding on the Owner and the Mortgagee from time to time of any Lots, and their respective heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns. b. The covenants, restrictions, conditions and reservat/ons imposed or established by or created under this Declaration shall run with arid bind the land for a per/od of thirty (30) years from the date of the recording of this Declarat/on and may be enforced by the De,,'eloper, the Association or any Owqaer through any proceeding at law or in equity. Failure to so enforce shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right lo do so thereafter. After the expiration of said thirty (30))'ear period, all of such covenants, restrictions, conditions and reservations shall continue to run *,/th and bind the land for successive periods of ten (10) years each unless re,,oked, changed or amended in ,a'hole or in part, by a vole of not less than t~vo- thirds (2./3) of the M'embers and evidenced by an instrument executed by duly authorized officers of the Association recorded. Section 2. _R. ight_9, f_[_njo2:ment. Every Ovmer shall have a non-exclusive right and easement of enjoyment, v~'bich fight and easement shall include, but not be I/mited to, easements for ingress and egress to his or her Lot, for laleral suppml, utility, g'aler and sew'er easements, ~,ehicular parking, and pedestrian ingress and egress. Such right ,and easement shall be appmlenant Io and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the 4 rights of the Association and Developer reserved under this Article IV, Sections 3 and 4 below. Section 3. Association's Rights_. The Property shall be subject to easements of record on the date hereof and an~ easements which may hereafter be granted by the Associalion. The A~soclation has the right to enforce easements and other restfictions as described in this document. Section 4. Develol?er's Rights. a. Developer's agents, employees, guests and invitees shall have the fight of access described in Article W, Section 2 hereinabove, so long as Developer owns any unsold Lots and Developer shall have the same rights as any other Ovrner as to Lots owned by it tom time to time, except as otherwise specified herein. b. Developer shall have the fight to execute all documents and do all other acts and things affecting the Property which, in Developer's opinion, are desirable in connection with its r;ghts hereunder, provided any such document or act or thing is not inconsistent with the property fights of any Owner or of the Association. Section 5. No Dedication to Public Uses. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be cx~nstrued or be deemed to constitute a dedication, express or implied, for any public use or purpose xx-hatsoever. Itowever, in compliance ,Mth the prov/sions of Sec.5on 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, a condition of the approval of the Plat of Teal Pointe by the City of Mound requires the payment of a park fee in the amount of $500.00 per lot, to be collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. Section 6. No Dock R/g_h_ts_. Neither the Association, the De,,'eloper, or any of the CY, vners shall have any r/ghts to erect or maintain prixate docks on the shoreline of Ire wetland adiacent to the Property. .~RTIC LEV ARClt ITECIURa, L CONTROLS Section 1. Architectural Control Committee Authority. No e:cterior additions, removals or alterations (including changes in color or appearance) to any building on the Property shall be commenced, erecled or maintained except such as are installed or approved by the Developer in connection with the initial construction of the buildings of Property, until the plans and specifications sbowqng the nature, kind, s~ape, height, mater/als, location and approximate cost of same shall have been submitted to and approxed in writing as to harmony of the external design and location in relation to surrounding buildings in the subdiGsion by an Architectural Committee composed of the Board of Directors of the Association or three (,3) o~ more representatives appointed by the Board of Directors. In the event said Board, or its designated Commiltee, fails to app~e,.'e or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or if no suit to enjoin the making of such additions, allerations 13a or changes has been commenced w/thin sixty (60) days of application, such appro~,al w/Il be deemed to have been given. If no application has been made to the A~chitectural Committee or their representatives, suit to enjoin or remove such additions, alterations or changes may be instituted at any time by the Association, any Owner. During the t/me which the Association has a Class B member, the Developer shall serve as'the A~chi~ectural Committee. Section 2. Restoration in Accordance w/th Original Plans. Any restoration or repair of Living Units and garage, after a partial condemnation or damage due to an insurable hazard, shall be performed substant/ally in accordance with the Declaration and the original plans and specificat/ons. Section 3. _Specific Design. and Construction Restrictions and Controls. a. Each building ~5thin Teal Pointe shall be of "natural" colors, which shall consist of earth tones. Acceptable exterior coverings shall be rough sawn wood or shingles (cedar). No changes in such mater/als or colors shall be permitted without the appToval of the A~cbitectural Control Commitlee. b. The type of construct/on to be employed for any Living Un/ts to be constructed on Lots 1 through 3 shall be caisson foundation design with cantilever construct/on - California style. c. At the time of the construction of each Liv/ng Unit there shall be submit'ted to the AJchitectural Control Committee a landscape plan. After the landscape plan is approved by such committee, mater/al changes to the plan may be made only w/th the written approval of the Architectural Control Committee. d. At the time of building permit application for Living Units on Lots 1, 2 a~d 3, there shall be submitted to the City, for re,iow and approval, a set of plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect. The plans shall contain a master site plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement.. Plans should illustrate how de',elopment will mininYze environmental impact to the site. e. 'lite EnGronmental Protection Agency's Best Manage__m_e__n_L_?ractices shall be used and follow, ed in the construction and management of all lots in the Teal PoinIe Development. Plans submitted to the City at the time of building permit application shall indicale how the BMPs have been addressed. AR[ICLE VI 0~,5~ ERS' M_-klNTEN.~NCE Each C~ner shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of his or her [iGng Unit, garage, pat/o, and all other associa*ed areas of such Lot. An Owner shall do no act nor any ,~ork that will impair the structural soundness or integrity of any building or adjoining LiGng Unit or garage, or impair any ea~ment or herod/lament. 6 ,m ,m ~x~ , I id, ARTICLE VII CERTMN NLMNTENANCE OBLIGATIONS - LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 ONLY The Developer shall be responsible for the initial expense of the Construction of the roadway on Outlot A, of which undMded one-third [nlerests shall thereafter be conveyed to the owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3, subject to cross-easements for all of such c~v,nen to utilize Outlot A for ingress and egress to and from their Lots. The Ov~:ners of Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall be responsible for the maintenance of that roadway, snow removal, and the like. The Owners of Lots 1; 2, and 3 shall also be responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer lines and the individual lift stations servicing Lo~ l, 2, and 3. .aRTICLE VIII GENER~L RESTRICTIONS - OBLIGATIONS .kND RIGHTS OF OV~',~ERS Section 1. Prohibited Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, boat, camper-bus, basement, tent or shack shall be maintained on any l_x)t nor shall any garage or other building except a permanent residence, be used on any Lot at any time as a residence or sleeping quaffers, either temporarily or permanently. Section 2. Storage. Outside storage of any items, including but w/trout limiting the generality of the foregoing, sporting equipment, toys, outdoor cookb~g equipment, yard and garden tools and equipment and trash and garbage containers, shall not be allo~t ed unless screened from view by enclosures so as 4o be effectively screened firom ~Sew outside the Lot. The design of such screened enclosure must be approved by the Association in accordance wSth the architectural control prov/sions thereof. The storage or collection of rubbish of any character whatsoever, any material that emits foul or obnoxSous odors, the growSng of any no.~ous weed or other natural subslance, and the harboring of the source of any noise or acti,~ity which disturbs the peace, comfort or serenity of residents is prohibited. Usual household trash and garbage shall be regularly collected and ma)' be kept ou~ide only if in sanitary containers which are so screened. No~Sthstanding the foregoing, no boats, snov. mobiles, trailers, camping vehicles, tractor/trailers or trucks in excess of 9,000 pounds gross weight, or unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall at any time be stored or parked on any Lot outs/de of a house or garage or on any part of the Common Area with the express written approval of the Board of Directors, which may be withheld w/trout stated reason. Section 3. _S.i~g_n_~. No sign of any k/nd (other than designations, in such styles and mater/als as the Association shall be regulation appro~'ed, of street addresses and names of occupants) shall be disp!a)'ed 4o the public Gew on any Lot, except that a "For Sale" sign may' be displayed pro~ided lhat it is in such form as the Association may require, a~d except that Developer shall be permitted to erect and maintain upon the Property such signs as it deems appropriate to ad'~ertise the development during the construct/on and sale periods. ,~RTICLE VIII GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions and of the provisions contained in the Art/des of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Association may be by any proceeding at law or in equity instituted by the Association or by any Owq3er against any person violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any cogenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Attorneys' fees and costs of any such actions to restrain violation or to recover damages as determined by the Court shall be assessable against and payable by any persons violating the terms contained herein. Section 2. Severabilit~. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by legislation, judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Amendment. The provisions of this Declaration, except those provisions relating to the rights of Developer, may be amended by action of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the Owners. No amendment shall take effect until recorded. The pro,~fsions relating to the rights of Developer may be amended as aforesaid with the written consent of Developer. Section 4. Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any Member of the Association under the prov/sions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the Iast known address of such Member appearing on the records of the Association at the time such mailing. Section 5. Coptions. The Article and Sect/on headings are intended fo~ convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect. IN WIINESS Vt3qEREOF, Teal Fointe Development Co. and Teal Pointe Homeowners Association have caused this document to be executed as of the day and year first above written. TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMP)uNY By Its TEAL POINTE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS By Nell Weber Its STATE OF MIN~E. SOTA ) ) COULN3-Y OF HENLNEPLN) The foregoing instrument was ., 19__, by of Teal Pointe Development Company. acknowledged before , the me this day of Notary Public STATE OF MLN~ESOTA ) ) COU~NTY OF HEN~EPIN) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged __, 19__, by Neil Weber, the Pointe Homeowners Association. before me tkis day of of Teal Notary Public THIS INSTRLLMEN-F WAS DRAFTED BY: Abdo and Abdo, P.A. 710 Noflhstar West 625 Marquette A~enue Minneapolis, MN 55402 9 CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS EASEMEN'T, made this day of _, 19 ., by and between ~'£~L POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Mirmesota corporation ('Grantor~) and the CITY OF MOUND, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of M. inne~ta CGrantee~). The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by the Grantee, the receipt and suffi~en~ of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby convey to the Grantee a permanent easement for com,,ep,'ation purposes (the '~_.a..ement Area~), which easement is described on Exhibit A attached hereto and inco~ra~ herein by reference, as follows: 1. Grantor, for itself, its successors and a~signs, declares and agrees that the following prohibitions shall contin~ in perpetuity in the Ea..ement Area: b) Cutting or removing trees or other vegetation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, trimming trees to maintain their health, removing di~a.~ed trees and removing selected trees to allow sunlight to penetrate to limited paris of the Ea..ement Area may be permitted, but only when approved by the Grantee. c) F_.xcavation or filling within the Easement Area. d) Application of chemicals for destruction or retardation of vegetation, unless first approved by the Grantee. e) 0 The deposit of waste or debris. The application of herbiddes, pesti~des and ir~.ecficides. ~, ~d~~dl~ 0 g) Activity detrimental to the pre~rvation of the scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife in the Eac, ement Area. 2. Grantor, for iL. elf, its successors and a~igns, further grants to the Grantee the affirmative right, but not the obligation, to do the follow~ing in the Ea.~ment Area: a) Enhance the slope, trees, vegetation and natural habitat at no cost to the Grantor. b) the terms of th~s instrument. Enter upon the Ea.~ment Area at any time to enforce compliance with c) Take such other action as the Grantee deems neces_~xry or advisable in its sole di~retion, to enforce compliance with the terms of this ir.~-um, ent. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 26, 1994 Neil Weber PO Box 33 Waverly, MN 55390 RE: Teal Pointe Dear Neil: Enclosed is a summary of the expenses to date for the Teal Pointe escrow account. The current escrow balance as of March 31, 1994 is $2934.10. As part of the resolution that is approved by the City Council relating to the final plat approval, the escrow account will be listed as an additional condition to be satisfied in order for the final plat to receive approval. In addition to paying the outstanding balance, we are also going to ask you to escrow an additional $1000 should any further expenses come due from any of the professional consultants, i.e., city planner, city engineer or city attorney, etc. If you have any questions, please contact me. .~~~~erely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr City Manager ES:Is CC: John Bessesen Mayor and City Council pr~nted on recycled paper LN WITN~S WItEREOF, the Grantor and Grantee have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year f'u'st above written. GRAN-I'OR: TEAL POLNTE DEVELOPMENT COMPAN-Y GRANTEE: CFFY OF MOU.'ND Its Mayor Its City Manager STATE OF MIN~'F_,SOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEP~q The foregoing instrument was me this _ _ _, 1994, by Pointe Development Company, a Mi~emta corporation, on behalf of the corporation. acknc~,ledged before day of _, the of Teal Notary Public STATE OF M.LN~NF.,SOTA ) ) COUNTY OF itENrNEPEN*) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of -- and _, 1994, by ., the Mayor and City Manager .Mound, a .Mirunemm municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. of City of Notary Public EXHIBIT A Il| ',!|ll~lll|hDl:::ll!! ,, CONSERVATION . ,.i llh. lll,, ,,, i, ~,:i., :I 'J I :I"i1~m I' '~ I , ,[ ,:,Il Il .I i :,llil,,,ll l :l . ! :Il Il:, l :'" · ::::l,,l:-l~..: I' l' l [! l: ii; IIIIIII ][ ARTI~ OF INCORFORATION OF TEAL PO~ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THE UNDERSIGNFD, for the purpose of forming a corporation under and pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation Act, Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes, and laws amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, does hereby adopt the following Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE L NAME The name of this corporation shall be Teal Pointe Homeowners Association. pt.ml, OSF_S The purpose of the corporation shall be to acquire, manage, construct and maintain association property, and also to promote the health, safety and welfare of residents within the plat of Teal Pointe, according to the plat thereof filed of record with the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the corporation by annexation as provided for and in accordance with the provisions of recorded declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to said Teal Pointe, hereinafter referred to as the "Properties', and specifically for the purpose of constituting and acting as an association of the owners of lots in the platted subdivision known as Teal Pointe. For the purposes aforesaid, the corporation, shall have the following powers: a. To operate and function exclusively as a non-profit corporation with rights, powers and privileges permitted by Chapter 317A, Minnesota Statutes; b. To exercise all the powers and privileges and perform all the undertakinp of the Corporation as set forth in that certain Declaration of Covenan~ Conditions and Restrictions of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, filed or to be filed for registration in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Declarations"), as the ~me may t~ amended or supplemented from time to time as therein provided; To exercise all the powers and privileges and perform all the undertakings of the Corporation as required, authorized, or otherwise permitted under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515A, as amended from time to time, to the extent consistent with the Declarations and the purposes set forth herein; d. To fix charges and assessments to be levied against the Properties; ee To promulgate and enforce such rules and regulations as are reasonably deemed necessary to achieve the Corporation's proper objectives, and duly enforce all covenants, restrictions and agreements applicable to the Properties, including architectural control of the resident lots; f. To pay all real estate taxes and assessments, if any, on any common areas or outlots owned by the Corporation and to pay all expenses in connection with the conduct of the affairs of the Corporation; g. To do each and every thing necessary, suitable or proper for the accomplishment of any of the purposes or the attainment of the objectives herein enumerated or which should appear at any time conducive to the protection or benefit of the corporation. The foregoing enumeration of powers is made in furtherance and not in limitation of the powers conferred upon the corporation by law and is not intended, by mention of any particular power, to limit or restrict any lawful power to which the corporation is otherwise entitled. ARTICI.E III. NON-PROFIT STATUS This corporation is organized as a non-profit corporation. The corporation shall in no way, directly or indirectly, incidentally or otherwise, afford pecuniary gain to any of its members, directors or officers. 2 ,in I Id DURATION The duration of this corporation shall be perpetual. ARTICLE V. REGARD OFFICE The registered office of this corporation in the State of Minnesota shall be follows: ARTICI~ VI. INCORPORATOR The name and post office address of the Incorporator of this corporation are as Name. Address Neil Weber P.O. Box 33 Waverly, MN 55390 BOARD OF DIRECTORS The number of directors constituting the first Board of Directors is three. The first Board of Directors shall serve one (1) year or until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The first Board of Directors of the corporation shall be elected by the Incorporator as provided by law. The second Board of Directors and all successive Boards shall be elected by the members of the corporation, and such boards shall consist of not less than three or more than ten members. The exact number of directors shall be determined by the members. Each director shall be either the owner of a lot in Teal Pointe, have an interest therein, or in the event of corporate ownership or interest, be an officer or designated agent of the corporation. The Board of Directors or the members may create one non-voting position on the Board to be filled by a community member who resides within 300 feet of the Properties, such position to be appointed by the Mound City Council, under such terms and conditions as it shall deem appropriate, consistent with conditions as have been imposed by the Mound City Council for approval of the final plat The Board of Directors shall conduct the affairs of the corporation and shall have the authority to alter and amend the By-Laws of the corporation. Voting membership of this corporation shall consist of those persons who are the owners of the lots in Teal Pointe or the developer of Teal Pointe (as those terms are defined in the Declarations). Membership shall be transferable only in connection with the transfer of riot to possession of a lot. The other qualifications of members, the manner of their admission to the Corporation, and voting by such members shall be as set forth in the By-Laws. Members, Directors and officers of this corporation shall not be personally liable for the payment of any debts or obligations of this corporation of any nature whatsoever, nor shall any of the property of the members, Directors and officers be subject to the payment of the debts' or obligations of this corporation to any extent whatsoever. Th/s corporation shall indemnify every member, Director or officer of this corporation against expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which 4 such member, Director or officer may be made a party by reason of being a member, Director or officer of this corporation to the full extent permitted by law. This corporation shall have no capital stock. MEETINGS This corporation shall meet annually at such place and at such time as may be fixed by the Board of Directors from time to time. Special meetings of the corporation may be held as provided by the By-Laws of the corporation. BY-LAWS The Board of Directors of this corporation may adopt and amend (by a majority vote) such By-Laws not inconsistent with these Articles of Incorporation or with the laws of the State of Minnesota as is deemed to be in the best interest of the corporation or to carry out and make effective these Articles of Incorporation. These Articles of Incorporation may be amended from time to time at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of this corporation by majority vote. IN WIq2qF3S WI4F~REOF, the above-named incorporators has executed these Articles of Incorporation this day of ~ 1993. INCORPORATOR: Neff Weber BY-LAWS OF TEAL POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICI ~F~ L OFFICF_S The principal office of the corporation in the State of Minnesota shah be located in the City of , County of Hennepin, or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall designate. The registered office of the corporation, required by the Minnesota Non-profit Corporation Act, Chapter 317A of Minnesota Statutes, to be maintained in the State of Minnesota, may be, but need not be, identical with the principal office in the State of Minnesota, and the address of the registered office may be changed from time to time by the Board of Directors. ARTICI.K IL DEFINITIONS Section 1. "Developer" shah mean Teal Pointe Development Company, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. Section 2. "Common Area" does not ex/st on this plat. Section 3. "Lot' means any of Lots 1 through 9, Block 1, Teal Pointe, as shown under any recorded subdivision plat or map of Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Ouflots included in Teal Pointe shah not be deemed '~ots" for the purposes of these definitions. Section 4. "Owner' shall mean the one or more persons or entities, who, as record owner, contract vendee, tenant, or subtenant (including an under-tenant from a subtenant) or assignee of a contract vendee, tenant or subtenant, or of such an assignee, is entitled of record to possession of any Lot which is part of the Property, or if there is no such person, then the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any such lot, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section :5. "Property" shall mean Lots 1 through 9, Block 1, Outlot A and Outlot B, Teal Pointe, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be annexed by amendment to the Declaration. Section fi. "Community Facilities" do not exist in this plat. Section 7. "Declaration shall mean and refer to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Teal ?ointe Homeowners Assodafion, to be filed for I it lit I registration in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and shall include any amended or supplemental Declaration executed in accordance with the provisions thereof. ARTICI~ Ei IVrF~MBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS Section 1. Membership. Every Owner, except as herein provided to the contrary, shall be entitled and required to be a member of the Corporation. If the right to possession to a Lot, whether by contract, lease, sublease or assignment of title, is held by more than one person, each of such persons shall be a member. An Owner of more than one Lot shall be entitled to one membership for each such Lot. Each such membership shall be appurtenant to the Lot upon which it is based and shall transfer automatically by voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the right to possession (as the case may be} of that Lot. No person or entity other than an Owner or Developer may be a member of the Corporation, and a membership in the Corporation may not be transferred except in connection with the transfer of right to possession to that Lot. Section 2. Transfer. A membership in the Corporation shall not be transferred, pledged or alienated in any way, except upon the transfer of the right to possession of a Lot and then only to such transferee by intestate succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosure of mortgage or record, or other legal process. It shall be the respons~ility of each Owner upon becoming entitled to membership, to so notify the Corporation in writing and, until so notified, the Corporation may continue to carry the name of the former Owner as a member, in its sole discretion. Any attempt to make a proN'bited transfer is void and will not be reflected upon the books and records of the Corporation. In the event the Owner of any Lot should fat or refuse to transfer the membership registered in the Owner's name to the transferee of the right to possession of such Lot, the Corporation shall have the fight to record the transfer upon the books of the Corporation and issue a new membership to the transferee, and thereupon the old membership outstanding in the name of the transferor shall be null and void as though the same had been surrendered. Section 3. Voting. The Corporation shall have two classes of voting membership: A. Class A. Class A members shall be all Owners of Living Unit Lots, with the exception of the Developer prior to _, and shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot in which they have the fight to possession. When more than one person has the fight to possession in any Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they, among themselves, determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any one LOt. There can be no split vote. Prior to or at the time of any meeting at which a vote is to be taken, each co-Owner or other person entitled to a vote at such meetings shall file with the Secretary of the Corporation the name of the voting co-Owner or other person entitled to a vote at such 2 meetings, unless such co-Owner or other persons have filed a general voting authority with the Secretary applicable to all votes until rescinded. B. Class B. The Class B members shall be the Developer who shall be entitled to two votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs first: 1) When the right to possession of the last Lot within the Property is conveyed by Developer; 2) ., 19 .. Developer shall be entitled to Class A membership for all Lots to which it holds the right of possession or after the termination of Class B membership. Section 4. Suspension of Voting Rights. In the event any Owner shall be in arrears in the payment of any amounts due under any of the provisions of the Declarations or these By-Laws for a period of fifteen (15) da.vs, or shall be in default in the performance of any of the terms of the Declaration or these By-Laws for a peri~ of fifteen (15) days, such Owner's right to vote as a member of the Corporation shall be suspended and shall remain suspended until all payments are brought current and all defaults remedied. Section 5. Quorum_ The presence in person or by proxy of a majority of Lots shall constitute a quorum for holding a meeting of the members of the Corporation. If a quorum shall not be presented or represented, the members entitled to vote thereat shall have power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than the announcement of the meeting, until a quorum shall be present or represented. Section 6. Proxies. Votes may be cast in person or by proxy. Proxies must be filed with the Secretary of the Corporation before the appointed time of each meeting of the members of the Corporation. Cumulative voting shall not be permitted. Section 7. Majority Required. A majority shall be sufficient for the transaction of all business of the Corporation except on matters where a greater vote is required by the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, the By-Laws or by statute. Section 8. Meetings. Meetings of the Corporation shall be in accordance with the following provisions: A. Annual Meetings. The first annual meeting of the Owners as members of the Corporation shall be called within ninety (90) days from the date deeds or leases for eighty (80%) percent of the Lots in the Property have been delivered and the grantees, of same as qualified members, but in no event later than ~ 19 . .. Annual meetings of the Corporation shall be held each year thereafter on the first Monday in the month of February, or Such other date as the Board of Directors shall determine, subject to notice requirements as set forth in these By-Laws. B. Special Meetings. It shall be the duty of the President to call a special meeting of the members when requested in writing by three (3) members of the Board of Directors or upon a petition signed by twenty-five (2.5%) percent of the members of the Corporation. Notice of any special meeting shall state the ti~e arid place of such meeting and the purpose thereof. No business shall be transacted at a special meeting except as stated in the notice unless by consent of four-fifths (4/5) of the members present in person or by proxy at such meeting. C. Notice of Meetings. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to serve a notice of each annual or special meeting, stating the purposes thereof as well as the time and place where it is to be held, upon each member of record at least ten (10) days pdor to such meeting · The mailing of a notice to each member at the address shown for such member of the Corporation's records shall be deemed notice served. D. Order of Business_. The order of business at all meetings of the members shall be as follows: 1) Roll call Proof of notice of meeting or waiver of notice Reading of minutes of preceding meeting 4)4 Reports of officers 5) Report of committees tS) Election of directors 7) Unfinished business 8) New business ARTICLE VI BOARD OF DIRECrORS Section 1. Number of Qualifications. The affairs of the Corporation shall be governed by a Board of Directors composed of not less than three nor more than ten voting members as is determined from time to time by the members (except for the ~'~t Board of Directors, which shall be comprised of three persons). Each director with voting rights shall be either the Owner of a Lot, have an interest therein as Owner or otherwise, 4 133g or in the event of corporate ownership or interest, be an officer or designated agent of such corporation. Section 2. Non-voting Director. In addition to the voting members of the Board of Directors, one non-voting member shall be appointed by the City Council of Mound from the neighborhood within 300 feet of the plat. If no one wishes to serve from the community, the position may remain vacant. Section 3. First Board of Directors. The first Board of Directors named in the Articles of Incorporation shall maintain, manage and administer the affairs, the real estate and other property of the Corporation until the first annual meeting of the members and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified, unless said directors sooner resign. Section 4. Powers and Duties. The Board of Directors shall have the following powers: A. To adopt and publish rules and regulations governing the use of the facgifies of the Corporation and the personal conduct of the members and their guests thereon and to establish penalties for the infraction thereof. B. To suspend the voting rights of a member during any period in which such member shall be in default for the performance of any term of the Declaration or these By-Laws. Such rights may also be suspended after notice and hearing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for infraction of published rules and regulations. C. To exercise for the Corporation all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to this Corporation and not reserved to the membership by other provisions of these By-Laws or the Articles. D. To declare the office of a member of the Board of Directors to be vacant in the event such members shall be absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have the following duties: A. To cause be kept a complete record of all its acts and corporate affairs and to present a statement thereof to the members at the annual meeting of the members or at any special meeting when such statement is requested in writing by one-fourth (1/4) of the membership entitled to vote. B. To supervise all officers, agents and employees of this Corporation and to see that their duties are properly performed. ,,11 I lit I, Il, lld, I I1, Section 4. Term of Office. The term of office for each director shall be one (1) year, but the directors shall hold office until their successors have been elected and qualified. There shall be no limit on the number of terms a director may serve. Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy in the Board of Directors shall be filled by vote of the majority of remaining directors, even though they may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall be a director for the unexpired term ot' his or her predecessor or until his or her successor is elected. Section 6. Removal of Directors. At any regular or special meeting of the Corporation duly called, any director may be removed with or without cause by a majority of the directors and a successor may then and there be elected to fill the vacancy thus created. Section 7. Organization Meeting. The first meeting of a newly elected Board of Directors shall be held within ten (10) days of its election at such place as shall be fixed by the directors at the meeting at which such directors were elected, and no notice shall be necessary to the newly elected directors in order legally to constitute such meeting, provided a majority of the whole Board shall be present. Section 8. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held at such tknes and places as shall be determined from time to t/me by a major/ty of the d/rectors, but at least one (1) such meeting shall be held during each fiscal year. Not/ce of regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be given to each director personally, by marl, telephone or telegraph, at least five ($) days prior to the date named for such meeting. Section 9. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the President on three (3) days' notice to each director, given personally, by maR, telephone or telegraph, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of the meeting. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be called by the President or Secretary in like manner and on like notice on the written request of at least three 93) directors. Section 10. Waiver of Notice. Before or at any meeting of the Board of Directors, any director may, in writing, waive notice of such meeting and such waiver shall be deemed equivalent to the giving of such notice. Attendance by a director at any meeting of the Board shall be deemed a waiver of the time and place thereof. If all the directors are present at any meeting of the Board, no notice shall be required and any business may be transacted at such meeting. Section 11. Quorum. At all meetings of the Board of Directors, a majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the acts of the majority of the directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the acts of the Board of Directors except as otherwise provided in the Declaration, Articles 6 13¥0 B. Vice President_. Thc vice president shall act in thc place and stead of thc president in thc event of his or her absence, inability or refusal to act, and shall exercis~ and discharge such other duties as may bc required by thc Board. C. Secretary. The secretary shall record the votes and keep the minutes of all meetings and proceedings of the Board and of the members; keep the corporate seal of the Corporation and affix it on all papers requiring said seal; serve notice of meetings of the Board and of the members; keep appropriate current records showing the members of the Corporation together with their addresses, and shall perform such other duties as required by the Board. D. Treasurer.. The treasurer shall receive and deposit in appropriate bank accounts all monies should they exist of the Corporation and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution of the Board of Directors. ARTICLE VI BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; F'2SC. AL YEAR Section 1. Books of Account. The Corporation shall keep detailed books of account showing all expenditures and receipts of administration which shall specify any eXl:)enses incurred by or on behalf of the Corporation and the members. Such accounts shall be open for inspection by the members and other persons having an interest in any Lot during reasonable working hours and shall be audited annually by qualified auditors. The cost of such audits shall be a common expense. Section Z F'uscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be on a calendar year basis. Section 1. The By-Laws may be amended, at a regular or special meeting of thc members, by a vote of a majority' of a quorum of each class of members. Section 2. In the case of any conflict between the Articles of Incorporation and these By-Laws, the Articles shall control. The foregoing were adopted as the By-Laws of Teal Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota at a meeting of the Board of Directors on ., 19 .. 8 September 14, 1993 RESOLUTION ~3-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND AMEfqDING RESOLUTION 93-20; THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR TEAL POINTE WHEREAS, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's EnvirQnmcn~l Review Program Rules, Minn, Role~, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared and approved by the City of Mound and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has the authority to modify the project based on comments to the EAW and WHEREAS, based on comments to the EAW, the City Council has determined that further conditions to the project are necessary to ensure environmental integrity. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: A. The following conditions shall be added in numerical order to those stated in Resolution//93-20 and all shall be agreed to and/or fulfilled by the developer prior to Final Plat approval. 20. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landsc. ape Architect for review and approval by the City Staff. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement. 21. A Homeowner's Association shall be established and include one (1) representative from outside the development but within the adjacent neighborhood. 22. . There shall be no public or private docks on the shoreline of the adjacent wetland nor shall there be any dredging of the wetland to accommodate this development. September 14, 1993 23. Conservation easements shall be established to guide development of the property. The City Staff shall work with the developer and representatives of the neighborhood preparing the easements. Easements shall, at a minimum, preserve a buffer zone adjacent to the wetland, consisting of existing, predominantly unaltered vegetation. Removal of vegetation other than dead, dying or diseased plants shall be prohibited. Alteration to the terrain through grading activities shall be prohibited. 24. The Environmental Protection Agency's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the property. 25. To assist their review of the archeological study for compliance with the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, the City of Mound will ensure that the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council has received all needed documentation. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ,I i February 9, 1993 RESOLUTION 93-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 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 WHEREAS, 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 taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement, location, width of streets, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and 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 WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, the applicant will be participating in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and should the EAW identify significant environmental issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to final plat application, and WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed 36 February 9, 1993 project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations, and WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are being provided, and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with the existing land use in the area, and WHEREAS, the use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district and is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is exceptional in that it is irregularly shaped and has unusual topography, and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature vegetation which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography requires some variation from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the zoning code to allow applicant to preserve the natural trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, and WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the hardship created by shape and topography and to facilitate the preservation of vegetation, and WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same district, and WHEREAS, the granting of the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Ae Preliminary Plat approval, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Development Area including the designation of Ouflot A as a private street, lot frontage variances for Lots 1, 2 and 3, a variance for the length of Windsor Road and variances from the right-of-way and paved roadway width requirements for Windsor Road'including the cul-de-sac area are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements: A new preliminary plat drawing shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Mound. Said drawing shall be generally in conformance with 37 February 9, 1993 Exhibit 'A' except that it shall identify the retention of Cobden Road and Drummond Road west of Cobden Road as public right-of-way. The portion of Outlot C lying outside of Cobden Road (as shown on Exhibit 'A') shall be dedicated as public right-of-way. The developer/project owner shall participate in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) with the Responsible Governmental Unit in compliance with the Environmental Reviev~ 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 charged to the developers escrow account. If the completed EAW identifies significant environmental issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat which shall be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submission of the final plat application. The developer shall submit to the City of Mound, a copy of a letter prepared by the State Archaeologist or designated representative thereof, addressing the probability of the location of indian burial mounds within the project site. Any mounds or other artifacts discovered during construction shall be addressed in the manner identified within Minnesota State Statutes. 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 District, the Minnesota Depa~ment of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Health and all other applicable regional, State and Federal agencies. All lots shall be required to observe the front, side and rear yard setbacks as shown on the preliminary plat. 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. 38 0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. F~ruary9,1~3 Outlot B as shown on the preliminary plat shall be dedicated to the City of Mound. The developer shall not receive park dedication credits for the conveyance of Outlot B to the City of Mound since the property lies below the 929.4 contour. A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the 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, Sulxl. 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 the Proceeding Subsequent Action pertaining to the vacation of portions of Drummond Road and Windsor Road within the confines of the property boundaries generally shown on Exhibit 'A'. 39 February 9, 1993 16. 17. 18. The developer shall maintain a positive cash balance in the developers escrow account to cover the costs incurred by the City of Mound in reviewing compliance with the conditions of approval. If at any time the funds in the account arc d~lcted, the City shall suspend all review for compliance with the aforementioned conditions until such time as additional funds are deposited. Approval of Title by the City Attorney. The Developer is to sign a Development Contract and furnish to the City a performance bond in an amount 125% of the cost of the improvements to cover grading, drainage, utility and street construction as per plans approved by the City Engineer. 19. A comprehensive search shall be performed to identify any existing wells on the property. A licensed well driller shall properly abandon any unused wells in the plat. Such abandonment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Councilmember lessen was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk 4O i~ ~i~ J," l, :,i j! !~. iii' tJ iz th 'ii Il t;I 'i! t, 'l!~ tl L-__ 040.0 ,st i PROJECT TEAL POINTE' '1 ! .I -. i ; RESOLUTION ~93-20 EXHIBIT ' B" 1994 Ed Shukle~ Clt~ Manager City of Hound $34~ Harwood Road Mound, MN $$364-1687 ks; Teal Points £inal plat review'- public hearing Dear Mr. Shukle~ It has come to my attention that tho issue of final plat approva~ for Teal Points may be scheduled before the City Council as early as April 12, 1994. A procedural issue that should be addressed by staff and the City Council ]t~ discussing the final plat is whether a public hearing should be conducted. Although a public hearing is not legally required, the public interest in this development has been considerable. Furthermore, publication of the agenda in the Laker usually allows only a few days for Mound's citizens to prepare comments and plan attendance at the council meeting. The HandbooM For ~ cltles states on page 242~ "The planning commisolon should review the final proposed plat to determine its conformance with the approved preliminarM plat. Followiag a publio hearing, the council should review the entire p~oJect, including plans and specifications ..." T~erefore, please conduc~ this agenda item as~ou would for other pUblic hearings, wit~ published notice in ~he Laker (at least two weeks prior to the hearing~ and written no, ice ~o surrounding property owners. ThanM you. . casey bridge Lane 472-1099 47~-477l (fax) - Please inser~ this letter in t~e Cit~ Council agenda packet in tho event tha~ s~a££ elects no~ to require a publio hearing. RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR A RETAINING WALL AND STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVON DOCK SITE #43420 WHEREAS, Douglas Smith, owner of 4849 Island View Drive, has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to replace an existing retaining wall, approximately 2 feet in height, with a new wood timber wall, approximately 3 feet in height, 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 portion of Devon Common is a B Classification, meaning: Shoreline traversable along the water's edge; access points available to traversable shoreline, and WHEREAS, the permit history on this property dates back to 1976 for a retaining wall, and since that time there has been a succession of new walls permitted and installed, and WHEREAS, the existing stairway on the commons portion needs maintenance, this can be accomplished between the owner and the Building Official, and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a five (5) year renewable Construction on Public Lands Permit for a maximum 3 foot high retaining wall. The 5 year renewable permit is approved with the following conditions: The new retaining wall shall be properly screened from view with plantings as approved by the City Planner. A landscape plan must be provided and approved prior to construction. The plan shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 1353 April 26, 1994 Proposed Resolution Page 2 5 The existing stair over the riprap be removed to allow for riprap completion to be coordinated with the Parks Director. A new stair shall be constructed for access to the dock following the riprap installation by the applicant at the applicant's expense. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as required by the Building Official, and must also be inspected and approved by the Building Official. The wood walkway be removed and this area restored to green space no later than July 1, 1994. This work shall be inspected and approved by the Parks Director. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the retaining wall and stairways. 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 permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 14, i 994 DOUGLAS B. SMITH, 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. LOT 3. BLOCK 14. DEVON. PID #25-117-2411 0036. DOCK SITE #43420. REQUEST FOR RETAININQ WALL Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to replace existing retaining wall, approximately 2 feet in height, with new wood timber wall, approximately 3 feet in height. The permit history on this property dates back to 1976 for a retairdng wall, since that time there has been a succession of new walls permitted and installed. This request results in a higher wall and we assume some added fill with plantings to somewhat level off the area and reduce the slope. The slope of the hill side at this time resembles the natural slope on the adjacent site to the east. There is minor erosion due to the dilapidated lower wall and from what appears to be excessive use. If possible, the existing stairway over the riprap should be removed to allow the riprap to be completed then reinstalled to code. This must be coordinated with the Parks Director. The wood walkway adjacent to the riprap should be removed (note photographs). Staff is working with the applicant to remove this and insure that turf is established. The existing stairway on the commons portion needs maintenance, this can be accomplished between the owner and the Building Official. All personal items should be removed from the commons and stored within buildings, off of the commons. Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a five (5) year renewable Construction on Public Lands Permit for a maximum 3 foot high retaining wall, preferably of a pre- engineered masonry product. The 5 year renewable permit is approved with the following conditions: The new retaining wall shall be properly screened from view with plantings as approved by the City Planner. A landscape plan must be provided and approved prior to construction. The plan shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The existing stair over the riprap be removed to allow for riprap completion to be coordinated with the' Parks Director. A new stair shall be constructed for access to the dock following the riprap installation by the applicant at the applicant's expense, according to code. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The wood walkway be removed and this area restored to green space no later than July 1, 1994. This work shall be inspected and approved by the Parks Director. o The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the retaining wall and stairways. 6o 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. 7. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Applicant, Doug Smith, stated that he will be using timbers for the retaining wall in order to match the existing retaining walls on the property. Mr. John Reckinger, abutting neighbor to the east, was also present. Both Mr. Reckinger and Mr. Smith expressed a concern about the condition of the riprap and the trimming of the trees on the commons in front of their houses. The Parks Director stated that he will meet with them at the site to discuss the riprap and the repairs needed. Mr. Smith agreed to comply with the staff recommendation, however, questioned the types of plantings that were expected for the landscaping plan. Fackler commented that staff will work with him on this issue. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the requested permit aa recommended by ataff. Motion carded unanimously. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M!NNESOTA55364-~687 6'12~ 472-0600 FAX t6~2i 4720620 STAFF REPORT DATE: April 14, 1994 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official ,~'~; Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ APPLICANT & ABUTTING OWNER: Douglas B. Smith ABUTTING ADDRESS: 4849 Island View Drive, Lot 3, Block 14, Devon, PID #25-117-2411 0036 COMMONS: Devon Common DOCK SITE: 43420 CLASS: B: Shoreline traversable along the water's edge; access points available to traversable shoreline SUBJECT: Construction on Public Land Permit Applicant's Reauest Replace existing retaining wall, approximately 2 feet in height, with new wood timber wall, approximately 3 feet in height. Background The permit history on this property dates back to 1976 for a retaining wall, since that time there has been a succession of new walls permitted and installed. This request results in a higher wall and we assume some added fill with plantings to somewhat level off the area and reduce the slope. The slope of the hill side at this time resembles the natural slope on the adjacent site to the east. There is minor erosion due to the dilapidated lower wall and from what appears to be excessive use. printed on recycled paper Other Issues Recoonized bY Staff If possible, the existing stairway over the riprap should be removed to allow the riprap to be completed then reinstalled to code. This must be coordinated with the Parks Director. The wood walkway adjacent to the riprap should be removed (note photographs). Staff is working with the applicant to remove this and insure that turf is established. The existing stairway on the commons portion needs maintenance, this can be accomplished between the owner and the Building Official. All personal items should be removed from the commons and stored within buildings, off of the commons. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of a five (5) year renewable Construction on Public Lands Permit for a maximum 3 foot high retaining wall, preferably of a pre-engineered masonry product. The 5 year renewable permit is approved with the following conditions: The new retaining wall shall be properly screened from view with plantings as approved by the City Planner. A landscape plan must be provided and approved prior to construction. The plan shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The existing stair over the riprap be removed to allow for riprap completion to be coordinated with the Parks Director. A new stair shall be constructed for access to the dock following the riprap installation by the applicant at the applicant's expense, according to code. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The wood walkway be removed and this area restored to green space no later than July 1, 1994. This work shall be inspected and approved by the Parks Director. o The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the retaining wall and stairways. o 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. 7. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The abutting owners have been notified, end this is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 26, 1994. JS:pj ,il I It I I m~ , I Revised 2/18/92 (Public.Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, FaX: 472-0620 Distr ibut ion: _~ Building Official 31~_.-~~~-I-% Watershed DNR LMCD MN 55364 Date Received ~-~ ~ . Park Meeting Daatte ~'Y~--~[Q--q~ city Council D e .~-7~Z_-c{~ TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one):  CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMYF - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. .... PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMrI' - to maintainor repair an ~ existing structure ,--' LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, fill, etc. ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY q~V/ -- ./'~/,~,~,C/ 6//~_~-~-, O~ER'SN~E ~~ ~mM%~j~ OWNER'S DAY PHONE . ....... LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND DOCK SITE # BLOCK PID # SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION PHONE # APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK ~t __ CONTRACTOR"S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR' S LICENSE # VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE : V~L "2 ~~ 3 /M'-"""~'7 ~e.%~ ' ' ~ignature of Appli ~'CO~S~ION ' ' A~roved CITY COUNCIL Approved Denied Denied Date.d..Z.[./..,~...7./Z.3. DATE DATE ISLAND '"40.00'" ~ VIEW DRIVE DENOTES I~ON MONUMENT IN~SAN.S. M.H LOT ~, 8LOCK ASSUMED I00.00 p~OPOSED ELE~ I ~ ~A~E MIN/VETONKA PHEL PS BAY ~c<o~bs ¢--co~ ~oo_~ /~c:.; I~.., ~~: ~~01 0 Rev£aed 2/18/92 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SHEET 43420 ADDRESS OF ABUTTING Smith, Doug 4849 Island View Dr OWNER' S NAME Motmd MN 55364 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: LOT(S) BLOCK ADDITION L ~3 (~/~ NAME OF PUBLIC LAND ~_ ~JJ C~-~ SURVEY ON FILE? ~! NO PHOTOGRAPHS ON FILE? ~ SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION NO AUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE UNAUTHOR I Z ED ENCROACHNENTI~ COMPLETED BY: I /,I DATE SXDEI N S · W &CCK $ SOII, Y BUI~DI#G BX'I'STING i~JOR PROPOIIBD BETB&CKIjl z~ f_+_/-- I'ROI'IT I N S '~ .,-,. ,dP" ~- ,~' */- SIDEr N S J M SIDEr N $ J ACCESSORY BUILDIN~ 15-B PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND "BATCH #3" WlOTA COMMON, PEABODY LANE, WATERSIDE COMMON, LONGFORD ROAD, KENMORE COMMON, AND EXCELSIOR LANE and; WHEREAS, The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, 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 Park and Open Space Commission reviewed these permits and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve Public Land Permits for "Batch #3" as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: Unless otherwise noted in the "Comments/Recommendation" column on the attached "Batch #3", permits shall be approved according to (14) on the Decision Flow Chart, "Grant Permit up to 5 Years and Renewable." b. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. c. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. April 26, 1994 EXHIBIT A Batch #3 Public Land Permits Resolution #94- WIOTA COMMONS, CLASS D 13810 1749 AVOCET LANE Bob & Sharron Riebe ELECTRIC LIGHT REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES. (Note: outlet & pump has been tabled by Park Commission) I I PEABODY STREi, CLASS D 20050 5500 BREEZY ROAD WOOD/TIMBER Michael Kraemer STAIRWAY APPROVE. CONDITION IS SOUND. _ L~ WATERSIDE COMMONS, CLASS D ~20670 5488 TONKAWOOD OUTLET & REMOVE: INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES AND 4~ Royal Maffatt ELECTRIC LIGHT POWER SUPPLY LINE IS UNDER CITY STREET. 22180 2137 ASHLAND LANE MISC. PLANTINGS APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE SIZE. Beverly Vanlaanen & TREES {Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings) 23150 2163 FAIRVIEW LANE BRICK FIRE RING OWNER SHALL RELOCATE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. Sharon Weber 2218C ..... 2315C I I LONGFORD ROAi, CLASS C 30450 4832 LONGFORD RD ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR Richard Carlson & PUMP REMOVE. / EXCELSIOR LANE, CLASS D ~ 31950 2654 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR Bill Thorson & PUMP REMOVE. 32040 2700 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR Ron Purdes & PUMP REMOVE. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 14, i 994 BATCH 3: W~ota Common. Peabody Lane, Woterside Common. L<)noford Road. Kenmore Common. and Excelsior Lane Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the report for Batch 3. City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private structures located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Staff recommended approval of Public Land Permits as listed on 'Batch #3', as follows: Unless otherwise noted in the 'Comments/Recommendation' column on the attached 'Batch #3', permits shall be approved according to (14) on the Decision Flow Chart, 'Grant Permit up to 5 Years and Renewable.' 2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Par and Open Space Commission Minutes 4. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. All these requests will be forwarded to the City Council for final action on April 26, 1994. The Commission determined to review each dock site individually. WIOTA COMMONS, CLASS D ~-a PUMP_ I APPROVE PERMIT PENDING_U_PDA_~,..T._.O,~,.O~c- REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES. - The Parks Director clarified that there are not other lights, outlets or pumps on Wiota Commons, and suggested the Park Commission review the guidelines for lights. As questioned by Ahrens, Fackler noted that staff does not feel this light complies with *'1 of the Guidelines for Allowing Lights on Public Lands, which states, "Lights are allowed only to illuminate substantial safety hazard areas such as stairways with an excessively steep incline, and for substantial security reasons." Bob Riebe explained to the Commission that he would like the light, outlet, and pump to remain. He explained that the light was installed in 1984 by Glen Neddemeyer and that it is installed to code. The pump is attached to the dock in the summer and is removed in the winter. The pump utilizes the electrical outlet on the light, and the pump is hooked up to the underground sprinkler system. Their property is the end of the commons that abuts properties with private lakeshore, and they all have lights just like this one so he does not see how his light would look out of place. Casey questioned if the outlet could be moved onto private property and how this would work, mechanically. The applicant stated that an extension cord would have to run from the outlet, across the commons, to the pump. Schmidt noted that the LMCD is reviewing their light policy and maybe this issue should be tabled until they complete their policy review. Darling summarized that this light is on public land and questioned if the light gives the impression that this is private land. He also questioned how this light pole compares to a bird house which was previously reviewed, and stressed the need for consistency of standards by the Commission. It was noted that the light pole is 120' + I- from the applicant's house. MOTION made by Casey to recommend approval of staff recommendation for removal of the light, and to table the portion of the request relating to the outlet and the pump in order to determine the respective benefits. Motion seconded by Darling. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 14, 1994 Casey requested that the cost for removal of the outlet and pump be provided by tho applicant. Ahrens commented that the cost should not be 8 consideration. Mr. Riebe stressed that fact that the pump is used to water the commons area and it would be an injustice to not approve the pump and outlet which have existed for ten years. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Dariing, Casey, Meyer, Geffre, and Steinbring. Those opposed were: Byrnes, Ahrens, and Schmicit. Casey commented that he would like to see the mechanics of how the pump works because he cannot see the burden or hardship for the landowner to place this equipment on their own property. There was some discussion about the difference in taxes between private lakeshore property and properties that abut the commons. PEABODY STREET, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 20050 5500 BRFFTY ROAD WOOD/TIMBER APPROVE. CONDITION IS SOUND. STAIRWAY Michael Kraemer was not present. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. WATERSIDE COMMONS, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 20670 5488 TONKAWOOD OUTLET & REMOVAL RECOMMENDED - INCONSISTENT WITH ROAD ELECTRIC LIGHT GUIDELINES AND POWER SUPPLY LINE IS UNDER CITY STREET. Royal Maffatt was not present. The Parks Director informed the Commission that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Maffatt, and due to the wire running under the street, he has agreed to remove the electrical service, and they will be petitioning the City to have a street light installed in this area. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Casey, to recommend removal of the outlet and elm:Mc light, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 22180 2137 ASHLAND LANE MISC. PLANTINGS [ APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE SIZE. & TREES I Note: Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings. Beverly Vanlaanen was not present. Casey clarified that 'increase size' means that the number of plantings shall be increased. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval of the plantings ~t recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimoudy. Par~ and Open Space Commission Minutes ,4pril 14. 1994 REMOVE. Willard Botko was not present. The Parks Director commented that the outlet and pump for Dock Site # 13810 was tabled, therefore this request should be tabled. Casey commented that he does not view this item the same as the other because there is not a pump involved. The Parks Director noted that Jon may have talked to the applicant, but he or the Dock Inspector did not. The Dock Inspector noted that this area of commons is about 50 feet deep, and it would not be too much of a hardship for this resident to move the electrical service back. Staff noted that the intent is to provide a ten day notice to property owners, however, property owners for this Batch received only one day notice of the meeting. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Casey to table this item due to lack of notice to the owner. Motion carried unanimously. j23050 J 2151 APPLE LANE J ELECTRIC OUTLET Location of this light was questioned. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Geffre to table this item due to lack of notice to the owner. Motion carried unanimously. JAPPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR REMOVE. 23090 2181FAIRVIEWLANE BOATHOUSE WITH ELECTRICAL WENCH AND WOOD RAIL SYSTEM INTO LAKE. ELECTRIC MGHT & OUTLETS. FENCE & HEDGE. THIS CASE PENDING. FOR INFORMATION ONLY. SEPARATE LEGAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. No action was taken by the Commission on this item, it was for information purposes only. ~23150 I 2163 FAIRVIEW LANE J BRICK FIRE RING I OWNER SHALL RELOCATE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Geffre, to recommend relocation of the brick fire ring, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. i /3tJ Park and Open Space Commission Minut~ ~ 14, 1994 DOCK SITE I ABUTTING ADDRESS 30450 ! 4832 LONGFORO ROAD LONGFORD ROAD, CLASS C ENCROACHMENT I COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERILY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR & PUMP REMOVE. Richard Carlson was present, and stated that the pump and electricity has been hooked up for 16 years and he has never had any problems with it. The pump is mounted next to the dock and is removed in the winter. The outlet is located next to the dock, it has an underground service from the house. MOTION made by Dading, seconded by Ahrens, to recommend the electdc outiet and pump be allowed to remain, as recommended by staff. Motion carded 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Dading, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbdng. Casey abstained. Casey stated that he would like to know more about the financial impacts and other impacts of moving the service back onto private property. [30710 I 4816 LONGFORD I GARDEN AREA I ROAD I INote: Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings. APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE SIZE. Donald Wartman was not present. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend approval of the garden area as recommended by staff. Geffre commented that it was difficult to determine where the garden area and type of plantings this time of year, and she also felt this area of public land had the appearance of private property. In addition, the garden area is bordered by timbers, is approximately 12' x 10', and during discussions by the Park Commission, this is not something that was recommended that did not give the appearance of private property. Casey agreed and does not see this garden area as being consistent with the Commission's objectives for the commons. Darling suggested the item be tabled until the planting guidelines are established. Casey suggested the item be denied until guidelines are established, because if it is tabled, does this give the Wartman's permission to continue the use of this area as a garden? Fackler confirmed that the applicant would be allowed to continue the use until action is taken. Ahrens withdrew her previous motion. MOTION made by Casey to deny the request until a planting policy is established, then the applicant may come back and apply for a permit, according to the planting policy. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to table this item until a planting policy is established. Motion carded 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Dading, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schnddt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbdng. Casey was opposed. I I nj i ,I li~, J Jl Park aM Optn Space Comm~ion Minuet KENMORE COMMON, CLASS D Staff noted that this item was withdrawn as Mr. Sidwell will be removing the electrical. EXCELSIOR LANE, CLASS D 31950 REMOVE Bill Thorson was present, and explained to the Commission that the outlet is in a box, the electrical wire runs underground. There is a pump which is attached to the dock in the summer. The Parks Director commented that this is an area where permanent docks are installed and they stay in year- round. MOTION made by Dadlng, seconded by Steinbring to recommend approval of the item aa recommended by ataff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Ahrene, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Mayer, and Steinbdng. Casey abstained. Ron Purdes was present. The Parks Director noted that this area also has a permanent dock. MOTION made by Ahrens seconded by Byrnea to recommend approval of the item as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Ahrena, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbdng. Casey abstained. Mr. Purdes commented that he has lived at this property for ten years and was never aware of the permit requirements, but if he was aware, he would have been more than happy to comply. There was power on the dock when he purchased the property. 13,7o CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-!687 (612 472-0600 FAX ,612~ 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 14, 1994 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission, an/d ~p~plicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official_'~ - ' Jim Fackler, Parks Director Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Update of Public Land Permits - "Batch #3" Background/Comments City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council· Special permits are required for private structures located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Please find attached "Batch #3", this is a listing of dock sites that have private structures such as stairways, lights, or some other type of encroachment, located on public lands. These encroachments have been inspected by the Building Official and Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Public Land Permits as listed on the attached "Batch #3", as follows: Unless otherwise noted in the "Comments/Recommendation" column on the attached "Batch #3", permits shall be approved according to (14) on the Decision Flow Chart, "Grant Permit up to 5 Years and Renewable." 2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. April 14, 1994 " .... ~atch 3 ,~age 2 4. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Note: files and photographs are available at City Hall and will be on hand at the meeting. Please call Jon Sutherland or Jim Fackler if you have any questions. Please refer to the Flow Chart and Use Plan for discussion. The abutting owners and dock site holders have been notified. The recommendation from the Park and Open Space Commission will be heard by the City Council on April 26, 1994. Batch #3 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 4/14/94 WIOTA COMMONS, CLASS D DOCK SITE 13810 ABUTTING ADDRESS 1749 AVOCET LANE ENCROACHMENT OUTLET & PUMP COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION APPROVE PERMIT PENDING UPDATE TO CODE. ELECTRIC LIGHT REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES. PEABODY STREET, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTFING ADDRESS I ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 20050 5500 BREEZY ROAD I WOOD/TIMBER APPROVE. CONDITION IS SOUND. STAIRWAY WATERSIDE COMMONS, CLASS D COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION DOCK SITE 20670 ABUTTING ADDRESS 5488 TONKAWOOD ROAD ENCROACHMENT OUTLET & ELECTRIC LIGHT REMOVAL RECOMMENDED - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDELINES AND POWER SUPPLY LINE IS UNDER CITY STREET. 22180 2137 ASHLAND LANE MISC. PLANTINGS APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE & TREES SIZE·. 22360 2149 CARDINAL LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR REMOVE. 23050 2151 APPLE LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR REMOVE. 23090 2181 FAIRVIEW LANE BOATHOUSE WITH ELECTRICAL WENCH AND WOOD RAIL SYSTEM INTO LAKE. ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLETS. FENCE & HEDGE. THIS CASE PENDING. FOR INFORMATION ONLY. SEPARATE LEGAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. 23150 2163 FAIRVIEW LANE BRICK FIRE RING OWNER SHALL RELOCATE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. LONGFORD ROAD, CLASS C DOCK SITE ABUTFING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 30450 4832 LONGFORD ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR ROAD & PUMP REMOVE. 30710 4816 LONGFORD GARDEN AREA APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE ROAD SIZE'. 'Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings. ""~tch //3 Jblic Land Permits April 14, 1994 PAGE 2 KENMORE COMMON, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 31600 4608 CARLOW ROAD ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR REMOVE. EXCELSIOR LANE, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 31950 2654 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR & PUMP REMOVE. 32040 2700 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR OUTLET/PUMP REMOVE. HOOK-UP Public Land Permits p. lot4 CITY OF MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION Guidelines for Allowing Lights on Public Lands 7. 8. 9. Lights are allowed only to illuminate substantial safety hazard areas such as stairways with an excessively steep incline, and for substantial security reasons. The light shall be limited to illuminate only the area specified and must be shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. Ughts must be installed by a licensed contractor and installed to code. If there is an alternative location for the light on private property, it shall not be allowed on public property. The applicant must provided the City with a survey or a scaled site plan showing the location of the light after it is erected. The light is t° be maintained by the applicant. Abutting neighbors shall be notified of meeting date when a request is proposed to be heard. The light shall conform to Zoning Ordinance Section 350:730 relating to Glare (copy attached). The character of the commons shall be taken into consideration. ~ITY QF MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE: "Section 350:730. Glare, In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not b.e directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights which as light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candles (meter reading) as measured from said property line.' LMCD REGULATIONS: 'Subd. 12. Lighting. Multiple docks or mooring areas and commercial docks shall be suitable and adequately lighted in accordance with district regulations. No oscillating, rotating, flashing or moving sign or light may be used on any dock. Dock lighting shall not be directed toward the Lake in such a manner that it impairs the vision of or confuses operators of watercraft. No lighting in the area of the Lake shall 0e installed or directed so as to affect adjoining dock use areas or create a hazard to navigation. (rev. 10/10/9I) I it I1 I, ,11 ll~ , I ., Exhibit C ] ~gS ~RO~SED I~KO~NT ~THKt AGENt? IF YES, ~Cgl~ ~PROV~ ~OH AGEN~ ~ & ~ISTIHG - ~NSTRUCTION ~ l($) DEWY I(6) BXq~ST. ~ TES DE~ FUILIC ~S (Gev) LAND ALTERAT loll (srldtn$, rstaininl  IS ~U~ST ~1 A ~AT ~(71 GSE OK ~I~ING? VILL ~ ~C[ ~D ~NCO~GE ~ USE OF ~E fU~LIC f~LlC ~ D~FIN~ BY ~ US~ LEGt, L R. tVl~d (3.$) YrS , TiS S~K)U1.D T~E CITY KILD OB. I~IrTAINT IUd4Ct (repair exist- ins structure) ~I~ATI~ Of S~UC~ (to re~tu "es toN) J 1 ~E USE Of ~[ PUBLIC PUBLIC ~ DEFIN~ lt~ST. -9- Batch ~3~ 4-~4-94 13810 Robert Riebe 1749 Avocet Lane Mound, M~ 55364 23050 Richard Peterson 2151 Apple Lane Mound, MN 55364 23090 David E~tinger 2181Fairview Lane Mound, MN 55364 23150 Sharon Weber 224 East Main St. Anoka, MN 55303 31950 William Thorson 2654 Shannon Lane Mound, MN 55364 20050 Michael Kraemer 5500 Breezy Road Mound, MN 55364 30450 ~ Richard Carlson 4832 Longford Road Mound, MN 55364 20670 Royal Moffatt 5488 Tonkawood Road Mound, MN 55364 30710 Donald Wartman 4816 Longford Road Mound, MN 55364 22180 Beverly Vanlaanen 2137 Ashland Lane Mound, MN 55364 31600 Scott Sidwell 4608 Carlow Road Mound, MN 55364 22360 Willard Botko 2149 Cardinal Lane Mound, MN 55364 32040 Ron Purdes 2700 Shannon Lane Mound, MN 55364 13-117-24 ( HARR :[ SONS GOVT LOT '3 2-C -I I !) 1 ! (~) '6S. (4) NO 4641~61 ( LOT ~9 (~9) S MO 1222 OUTLET Z (~) $ (5O) (40) GOVT LOT 4 (9) NOTE, DEIAIL OF )LOC~S 3 & 5 FiARR I SON SHORE S, SEE RECORDi PLAT. 13, LOT ~zco~o Rb GOVT LOT 6 .......... 17-24 5-A I I I 13~0 (~iARR£SONS I$11 AVON OR ~J RO ) j ~U 40 50 50 '' 40 40' ~) 50 '. RD CARLOW Ig RD ,0 ,50 (47) lO8 $ ( wc ~o K[LDARE : RD O( RD CARLOW RD K OOC NO tO30g~7 ROSCCUUON 16 ( *81)%~ ..,%'I (63) :."'..' ' ~D GOVT LOTS 3 & 4 (6) 19-11, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 14, i 994 REVIEW 1995 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, explained that the 1995 Dock License forms are the same as 1993 and 1994 except for date changes, and a minor change on his memorandum to the Dock License Holder, which states, "Please be considerate to neighbors when you are leaving the lake at night.' McCaffrey also noted that he will verify the LMCD fees for 1995. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Dading to recommend approval of the 1995 Dock Ucense forma, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Jl i~ Ill J, ,~1, , I{i , J 1995 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF NOUND, 5341 MAY~OOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1995, (must be ~ostmarked by February 28, 1995). Applications received on March 1, 1995 and before April . are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the third (3rd) priority category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31st will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will be placed in a third (3rd) priorty category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal application BY FEBRUARY 28, 1995 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by March 31. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See information on back for senior citizen rates. All information pertaining to you must be completed or the application will be denied. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS ! ! J RENEWAL: 1994 Dock Site ~ ,' I NEW APPLICATION: Indicate preferred area: I__1 Permanent Resident (owner) ' ' *Summer Resident Owner (paying fee for renter) ' I Renter *SUMMER RESIDENT'S MAILING ADDRESS: NAMEOFPERSONSHARINGDOCK: MOUND STREET ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: E C~ECK ONE: J__J Permanent Resident (Owner) J__J Summer Resident J__J Renter List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft License Number, make and size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses: BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE 1 2 3 4/jet ski L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long 7.50 $11.25 $15.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $18.75 over 40' and up to 48' long = $22.50 over 48' feet long = $26.25 Pemits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof of boat ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. l~SD~kLicen~App~¢ation This is an application only. TYPE OF DOCK No dock can be installed until a location is granted. BASIC FEE I--I I I I--I I I I--I Straight Dock ..................... L or T Dock ...................... U or H Dock (not available in all areas) ........ $150 · O0 $200. O0 $235.00 straight dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' or 'H' Dock I --I I I I I FEE AND LEGALITY OF DOCK WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR OR PARK COMMISSION. SENIOR CITIZENS (65 years or older at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50. Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, i.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus $30.00 share fee. SENIOR CITIZEN NAME BIRTH DATE BASIC FEE: 81-3260 $ SHARED DOCK $30.00:81-3260 $ L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: 81-3200 LIGHT FEE: 81-3260 LATE PENALTIES: 81-3260 $ TOTAL DV, Y~: XX-XXXX $ (MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF MOUND) LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd. 2 f., if this license is not renewed at expiration (February 28, 1995), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenance from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant asrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. Also, if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. DATE Signature DATE Signature (shared dock holder) RETURN THISAPPLICA~ONWITHAPPLICABLEFEEANDCOPY OF MNLICENSETOTHECITYOF MOUND BYFEBRUARY2grli. lit I, ,I , I~, , ,~ u (INFO 12/3/92) CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION The City of Mound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to operate approximately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be a permanent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at City Hall on the first working day of the year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior year during December each year. See dock application for current fees. These fees are due with the completed application by February 28th. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses per the Mound City Code. aa. Last Priority. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. a. First Priority~ An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. b. Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. c. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. d. ~ninistration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. Ail applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a minimum late fee of ..... $20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident moves to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. RULES AND REGULATIONS (PORTION OF CITY CODE SECTION 437) Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September i and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and Approved by the City Council. Subd. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. Subd. 5. Suspension of Eliqible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. ..... Subd. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Buildinq.. No more that one dock shall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment builoing or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. /385 (INFO 1~3/92) Subd. ?. Construction Materials[ Use of Car Tires. All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe o= create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. (ORD. 240-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. Ail notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. Dock Storaqe. No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section, dock poles or dock hardware on any public road, street, park or Commons except for winter storage in approved areas. Subd. 11. Removal Deadline. Ail private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no late~ that November i of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. Subd. 12. Dockinq of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437~15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a water depth of 48", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.49 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more that 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. Ail docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the topographical conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. $38-1989 - 1-2-90) Section 437=20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set fortt in this Section 437. NOTEz The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property. I I [ I, ,I t, i~. 1995 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 PHONE,: 472~0600 NAME OF APPLICANT: ADDRESS: BUSINESS NAM~: BUSINESS ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK ADDITION PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION: 1. A scaled drawing showing the size, shape, and type of dock proposed, and the location and type of buoy(s) to be used. 2. A scaled drawing showing off-street parking provided for each three rental boat stalls, buoys or slips. 3. A statement outlining the manner, extent and degree of use contemplated for the dock proposed. 4. Payment of permit fee must be included with this application. 5. All applications received on or after March 1 shall be subject to a late fee of $20. NEW APPLICANT FEE .............. $200.00 BASIC RENEWAL FEE .............. $150.00 NUMBER OF SLIPS IN WATER X $5.00 = NUMBER OF BOATS STORED ON LAN------~ __ X $2.60 = BUSINESS NAME DATE APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612~ 472 0600 FAX (612i 472-0620 NOTICE Ail dock site holders, abutting and nonabutting, are required to pay their dock fees by March 31, or their site will be made available to new dock applicants per City Code Section 437:05, Subdivisions 8 and 9 relating to priorities. If the dock fees are not paid by February 2S, the normal 1&re fees will apply. REMINDER... Construction of any kind on any public lands, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public lands, is UNLAWFUL unless a special Construction on Public Land Permit is issued by the City Council. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving a special Maintenance Permit from the City, in accordance with Section 320 of the City Code. Applications for remodeling, maintaining or repairing existing boathouses, retaining walls, stonework, decks, landscaping, trimming of trees or brush, or other types of improvements on public lands may be obtained from the Building Department. QUESTIONS ? ? ? CALL 472-0600 printed on recycled paper Mound City Code Section 320:00 Section 320 - Private Structures an~ Private Construction Activities on Public Lands section 320:OO. special permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Per~i~. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. Ail special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Reqv_i~inq a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. Ail stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City. Subd. 3. Public ?.~-d Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other Structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. Ail applications for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. Ail structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. $54-1991, 12-23-91) Subd. 5. Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 6. Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. $62-1993 - 4/19/93) 4/19/93 CITY of MOUND MEMORANDUM 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-" 687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612i 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April , 1995 Dock License Holder Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector 1994 Dock Site # Boating season is upon us once again! The dock site number listed above has been assigned to you for the 1993 season. If you need help locating your site, please call me and I will assist you. Your dock license plate is not enclosed, I will personally attach your license plate to the dock after I have inspected it to ensure it conforms to City Code requirements relating to construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days to correct it. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock license. Docks must be securely installed and built of safe, sound materials. Boats, dock sections, pipes and other materials cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. Tires are not allowed. Each individual dock license holder must maintain the cleanliness of their dock site area. The area must be free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation which has accumulated on the shoreland. The grass at the shoreline must be maintained and trimmed. Please be considerate of neighbors when you are leaving the lake at night. Please be aware of the information on the back of this letter regarding your responsibilities as a dock holder and Mound City Code Section 437 relating to Dock Licenses. Thank you for your cooperation in making the public lands safe and attractive to help everyone have an enjoyable boating season. printed on recycled paper (LTRTOAP 12/3/92) YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER Put in your own dock that meets City specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Aquatic plants that are protected by law require permits prior to removal. Remove Eurasian Water Milfoil from the shoreline around your dock. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other materials cannot be stored on public land during the boating season, and must be removed by June 1. Winter storage is allowed in most areas, if neat and orderly, not obstructing area or creating a hazard. Response to request to correct infractions must be made during the time stated or dock permit will be in jeopardy. Submit with your application photocopies of all valid Minnesota Watercraft Licenses for each boat to be kept at your dock site, this must be done each year or a license will not be issued. 7. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is not ..... recommended to be used on public property. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13. Licenses and permits are Non-Transferable. Dock licenses issued by the city are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. A copy of your Minnesota Watercraft License for each boat must accompany your application. SAMPLE OF WATERCRAFT LICENSE: CITY of MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 612) 472-0600 FAX 1612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April , 1995 Dock License Holder Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector 1993 Dock Site # Boating season is upon us once again! The dock site number listed above has been assigned to you for the 1993 season. If you need help locating your site, please call me and I will assist you. Your dock license plate is not enclosed, I will personally attach your license plate to the dock after I have inspected it to ensure it conforms to City Code requirements relating to construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days to correct it. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock license. Docks must be securely installed and built of safe, sound materials. Boats, dock sections, pipes and other materials cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. Tires are not allowed. Each individual dock license holder must maintain the cleanliness of their dock site area. The area must be free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation which has accumulated on the shoreland. The grass at the shoreline must be maintained and trimmed. Please be considerate of neighbors when you are leaving the lake at night. Please be aware of the information on the back of this letter regarding your responsibilities as a dock holder and Mound City Code Section 437 relating to Dock Licenses. Thank you for your cooperation in making the public lands safe and attractive to help everyone have an enjoyable boating season. printed on recycled paper DOCK1 (11/4/92) YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER Install your own dock that meets Mound's specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other material cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. They must be in the water or removed from the public property by June 1. No tires will be allowed on docks. Response to correction notices must be made within the time specified or your dock license will be in jeopardy. Only boats registered to your dock license may be moored there. Other boats are in danger of being impounded. NOUND CITY CODE SECTION 437:~0, SUBD. L3. "Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their household. No dock licensed by the City of Mound located on public streets, roads, parks or public commons may be rented, leased or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If the licensee or permit holder rents, leases or sublets or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of the dock, the license shall be revoked. 1995 MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICATION CI~I OF MOUND, 5341 NAYWOOD ROAD, ROUND, lin 5536¢ DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return by February 28. Applications received after this date are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. Renewals not received by April 1, NO PERMIT will be issued for this year. All information pertaining to you must be filled in or permit will be delayed. APPLICANT · S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS 1993 BUOY LICENSE HOME PHONE WORK PHONE ,__,'--' Permanent Resident (owner) ,'--~ *Summer Resident ' ' Owner (paying fee for renter) '--' Renter ! ! ! ! *SUMMER RESIDENT'SMAILINGADDRESS: REQUIRED INFORMATION: List owner, watercraft license number, type of watercraft, length of watercraft, and L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. No permit will be issued without a photocopy of your DNR watercraft license. OWNER'S NAME WATERCRAFt LICENSE// MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long $12.00 $18.00 $24.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $30.00 over 40' and up to 47' long = $36.00 over 48' feet long = $48.00 1995 License Fee for a sailboat mooring buoy site will be $150.00 plus the correct L.M.C.D. boat fee for the season. DESCRIBE LO~ATION OF BUOY SITE: Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance, City Code Section 437, 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 site, I violate City Code Section 437. This is an application only. No buoy can be installed until a location is granted by the Dock Inspector. SIGNATURE FEE PAID $ DATE PENALTY $ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (6121472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NO TICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 94-12 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AL & ALMA'S NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing on May 24, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the City of Mound offices at 5341 Maywood Road to consider an amendment to a conditional use permit issued to Al & Alma's on February 28, 1984 (Resolution No. 84-26) for the property located at 5186 Tuxedo Blvd., legally described as Lots 22 & 23, Whipple Shores, PID #24-1 17-24 34 0006. The requested amendment is to modify the Resolution, as follows: ..... c .... The maximum number of boats which may be stored in front of Lots 22 and 23, Whipple Shores shall be four, and the maximum length shall be 52 feet for m~t-beet ~hree of the boats. 63 feet for one boat. and only these boats may be stored on this property." All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk ........ rbliehed in "The Laker" May 9, 1994. Mailed to property owners within 350' by May 14, 1994. prlnted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364.1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 21, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BEACHWOOD ROAD RESIDENTS ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER LMCD Car/Trailer Parking Agreement At the City Council meeting of April 12, 1994, the City Council again reviewed a proposed LMCD Car/Trailer parking agreement. This agreement basically assures the LMCD and the Department of Natural Resources that the City of Mound will assist in identifying usable car/trailer parking spaces as the DNR attempts to find 700 car/trailer parking spaces around Lake Minnetonka. The agreement basically calls for identifying as many spaces as possible within 2000 feet of the Mound Bay Park Access. The City of Mound has identified 43 car/trailer spaces within that distance. Ten of those parking spaces are located on the north side of Beachwood Road. Sometime ago, you came before the City Council requesting that parking not be permitted on the south of Beachwood Road. In the discussions at the April 12th Council meeting, the City Council suggested that you be contacted with regard to this matter to solicit your input as to whether or not these ten parking spaces ought to be identified as available for car/trailer parking. It is the intent of the City not to sign the north sign of Beachwood Road, that these are car/trailer parking spaces. However, there would be a sign at the access identifying car/trailer parking spaces within 2000 feet of the access. These 10 parking spaces, if the City Council approves the LMCD car/trailer parking agreement, would be indicated as available at the access site. Before the City Council acts on this matter, we would like to hear from you either in person or in writing. The City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 26, 1994, it begins at 7:30 PM, at Mound City Hall. If you have any questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. ES:Is p~nted on recycled paper May XX, lgg3 1.2 RECYCLOTTO ~INI~R The Mayor presented Mark Semeja, 4941 Edgewater Drive, with 200 Westonka Dollars. 1.3 MARK MOTZKO, 4882 LESLIE ROAD, LOTS 11t 12 & WYCHWOOD, PID %24-117-24 41 0178t VARIANCE CASE %93-014= 13; BLOCK ~____QUEST The city Manager explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-55 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 4882 LESLIE ROAD~ LOTS 11, 12 & 13, BLOCK 21, WYCHWOOD, PID %24- 117-24 41 0178, P & Z CASE %93-014 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 PETITION FROM RESIDENTS LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF BEACHWOOD ROAD - RE= NO PARKING ON SOUTH SIDE OF STREET The City Manager explained that a petition has been received from the residents of Beachwood Road requesting that no parking signs be installed on the south side of that street. The reasons are because of car/trailer parking on the weekends on both sides of this road causing mail not being delivered, difficulty in getting out of the driveways and the possibility of emergency vehicles not being able to access the street. Several of the petition signers were present. The city Clerk stated that presently the north side of the street is supposed to be no parking so this will have to be changed. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-56 RESOLUTION APPROVING NO PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BEACHWOOD ROAD FROM BARTLETT BLVD. TO THE CUL-DE-SAC AND REMOVING NO PARKING FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF BEACHWOOD ROAD FROM BARTLETT BLVD. TO THE CUL-DE-SAC The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 111 PRESENTATION OF 1992 FINANCIAL AUDIT - GARY GROEN, ABDO, CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-O620 April 8, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER LMCD PARKING AGREEMENT Sometime ago this matter was brought before the City Council at the request of the LMCD. As you recall the LMCD through a subcommittee has been working on developing parking agreements among the municipalities dealing with public access to the lake that are within cities to eventually arrive at the number of 700 car/trailer parking spaces within the Lake Minnetonka area. After working with LMCD staff and DNR personnel, we have now identified 32 parking spaces that are within 1500 feet of the Mound Bay Park access and 11 spaces which are within 2000 feet of the access giving a total of 43 spaces that can be identified for use as car/trailer parking. Attached is a proposed Lake Access Parking Agreement between the LMCD and the City of Mound as it relates to the Mound Bay Park access. I am recommending that the City Council approve this parking agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:Is I'tOl LAKE HZNNETONK& CONSERVATION DZSTRICT Lake Accese ParkLng Agreement Conservation Dtatrier CL~CD) end the ( both pubXta oorporattOfll organized and City of Mound existing under the WKEREAS the LHCD and ( City of Mound ) are Jointly Goncerned v~th providing public boating access to Lake HLnnetonka, meeting the Parking Standards for Like fi/nnetonka, and WNEREA$ fha LHCD end ( City of Mound ) reoognlze that & goal o~ 7e~ oar/trailer epaoea viii be provided tn the victnitY of present and future access sites around the lake on as equitable · baals if poaoible, NOW, THEREFORE, l% ts agreed by the LMCD lad ( City of Mound ) that the oondittona for Gat/trailer perking ~or the public access %dent/fled on the oheckll'et identified as Exhibit "A' and Perking Sl~a Plan ~den%if/ed am Exhibit · n" meet Parking S~andarde on the checklist ae lnd~oated, IN WITNESS YHEREOF~ the LRCD and ( CStyof Mound have caused thtl agreement to be duly executed this ~lstda¥ of ~_ May : ~ 15 94 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTI AGENCY/CZTYt_ By~ City of Hound lO CheokZ%o% for Svt%uatLng Like ~lnnetonkl' Aooeee Keme . Mound Bay Park m mm AGceaf C~ty =,_ City of Hound . Lake Zone Ho, Off-w~.reet,, 'off Iooeae eL%e - . · greol iw oooep~mb~e 1~ veh%ole Lo parked on grm~ed or paved war,mae. ) O~ street, remo~ from BaGger I~te, , · · -0- · -0- · Distance Ln %est from nooses wife ~ On-arrest, Ieee %hen l, seo fee%m · Dewigneted signed C/T only, oount leox of -O- C/T p&rk%ng apicew iVl%llb%l · · · · No% signed, oount 75% of wpaoem mvailable d, On-lariat, 1,591%get to 2,000 fel%l. . · Designated l~gned C/T only. oount lee% of C/T parking epioee ivol%ib%e · -0- · Not signed, oouflt 75X of wploew ~v&~lable - Vehiole Only Parking Spioem - these ooun% up %0 lex of total nvnber o~ C/T tplcel on 1o%! · of wtofldird vehiolsg mpioee g' x # o~ hindtoipped vehicle spaces l~' x la' 0 · Tote% · of vehio~e only epaoee · · , · _...- Count ~otil vehlole only IpaVea or LOX of %o~a~ ¢/T parking epioea tn lots Total, oar/trailer parking epauea it lite GOOP£RATZNO PROVZS%O~St I, Aocese sL%e plan L~lue%ri%ing sigh C/T apses v%th adequate thereof, egress, sn~ maneuvering mpa~e te kep~ on ~tle sad ourrent vtth LaCD. 2. Slgnige prey%dad it nooses site lw o%eer, gamy updmtLng ~n cooperation with LMCD. All spices Ire available on ~nree~rtcted, firm%- Gone, first-served basle, ~ron ~emorl&l Day to Fifty peroen% (Se~) of iploee meetAng Parking G%andarde are ivst~lble vee~de~s. Ail on-street parking spa~ea neat ~he relieving l%andirdlt e, Hlnimun length o~ 50 %eat per space b. Adequmte ihoulder v&dth ~o preolude door open~ng info ~ra~ftc lone. acceptedt II II t, ~age 2' ' Or Eve~lt~ng"Llke ~nne~onke Cheok~l!~ ~ -------,~er perking Agreenent o. ~l~e pedeotriln route to io=eme'poin~ provided, On a~ree~ olr/~riiXer pmrkSng mpaoee ere d. ' trlted lnd klp~ outrank' on I plan by. A %amper&fY G/T por~ng remervee k enay/~itY ..... ~-.tree% perking or .. ' g acceeo m~e P~"~ o~: ;~.~..laneted para,ag Lh Id on-i~reet de~gne~_._.4~4e8 mlY require, vS%h · good ~ai~h exzor~ ~CD oX entioipa%ed ahingee, Snto ~hSa egreemen~ e. Ageno¥/~i~Y igreee~to enter ) ~or m perSod o~ ~yeire {Xive yeere demLred .$n recQgnSt~on o~ the vaZUa~e re~rea%lone~ U LANGDON 8; Il Il II STAT[ Mound Bay Park Boat Landing 6( C00~$ Idlewood Access hlend Twin Park CITY OF MOUND, MOUND BAY PARK Car/Trailer Parking Inventory. Identified June, 1993 Amended Oct, 1993 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 22, 1994 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR STORAGE - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT As you know the City of Mound has been negotiating with the City of Minnetrista to develop a Joint Powers Agreement to share outdoor storage of public works materials at the City of Minnetrista's site located to the south of the existing public works building and city hall off of County Road 110 west in the City of Minnetrista. We began negotiating last fall and have reached a tentative agreement with the City of Minnetrista. Attached is the proposed joint powers agreement outlining a variety of provisions for both cities to begin sharing this site for public works outdoor storage use. The City of Minnetrista reviewed this proposed agreement at their April 18, 1994 regular city council meeting and approved it conceptually subject to four conditions: Develop a written operating policy outlining the use of the site in more detailed fashion, i.e., how the front end loader is to be used, who is responsible for maintenance on the loader, etc. 50/50 responsibility on the repair of the access road leading into the site. This would involve major breakup of the roadway, which probably wouldn't occur for a number of years. Specify within the operating policy responsibility for the compost site. the joint Specify the liability language with regard to the insurance provision. Please note that the language in the proposed agreement regarding insurance needs to be revised based upon comments from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) who represents both prln{ed on r.~c¥cled po~per Minnetrista and Mound. We have language that they have suggested and I have not had the opportunity to share this with Curt Pearson as of yet. Before final approval is given to the agreement, this language will be incorporated into the insurance provision. Attached is a resolution which conceptually approves the agreement subject to the above four outstanding issues. Please note that Exhibit "A" referred in the resolution is a map of area too large to copy. John Cameron will distribute this at Tuesday night's meeting. It is our intent to have the above matters resolved sometime in early May so that both Minnetrista and Mound city councils can approve the final agreement by the end of May 1994. We will then be bringing a request to go out for bids on the construction work that will need to be done to prepare the site for use. If everything goes as planned, we will be in the site by late summer, early fall. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:is RESOLUTION C2i.~.v~.L~ APPROVING JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MOUND AND MINNETRISTA MINNESOTA TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA WHEREAS, the City of Mound is fully developed and is limited in finding areas to operate an outdoor storage area for public works activities; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has made numerous attempts to find another location to house its public works outdoor storage materials that are currently stored at Lost Lake in the center of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Minnetrista is a developing community which has a 13 acre parcel located at 7701 County Road 110 West, containing the Minnetrista city hall, Minnetrista public works building/material storage site and the Waconia Ridgeview Paramedics building; and WHEREAS, the location has ample space to allow the City of Mound to share a portion of the Minnetrista public works storage site; and WHEREAS, the political leaders of the communities have met and have determined that it is in the best interest of both cities to enter into an agreement to jointly develop and operate the outdoor storage area for public works materials in the City of Minnetrista in the areas shown on exhibit "A" attached to this agreement. WHEREAS, it is the intent of this agreement to set forth the duties and responsibilities of each of the parties and to broadly outline the method of operation; and WHEREAS, it is the understanding of the communities that after the area is established and has operated for a period of time, it may be necessary for the communities to more closely detail or modify the provisions contained in this agreement; and WHEREAS, both of the cities and their city council pledge to work in a joint effort to resolve any problems which may come up in the operation of the facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby c~-cT~ut!!i approves the attached Joint and Cooperative Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota intends to sign a final agreement subject to the following issue~ being resolved: Development of an operating policy that will outline specific activities of operation at the site by both Minnetrista and Mound. 'ree to a 50/50 responsibility on the ac ~ (please note these wo that may c ~time into ' of the major repairs ). ~intenance of the Agree to compost si' both Minnetrista and y language as it pertains to insurance within the )roposed insurance provision. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk WPLUM TEL: $$8-2625 F~pr 26,9zl lZ~:55 No.OOZl P.02 JOINT AND COOPERATIyE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MINNBTRISTA AND MOUND, TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR ~ORAGE AREA [~INNESOTA STATEMENT OF INTENT REGA~/)ING AGREEMENT The State of Minnesota has created a Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation Committee to encourage Cities and Counties to share services to more effectively provide services for their local governments. The City of Mound is fully developed and is limited in finding areas to operate an outdoor storage area for public works activities, and the City of Minnetrista is a developing community which has a 13 acre parcel located at ??01 County Road 110 West, containing the Minnetrista City ~al}, Minnetrista Public Works Building/Materials Storage Site, and the Waconla Ridgeview Paramedics Building, and has ample space to allow the City of Mound to share a portion of the Minnetrista Public Works Storage Site. The political leaders of the communities have met and have determined that it is in the best interests of both Cities to enter into an agreement to Jointly develop and operate the outdoor storage area for public works materials in the City of Minnetrista in the area shown on Exhibit A which is attached to this Agreement. It is the intent of this Agreement to set forth the duties and responsibilities of each of the parties and to broadly outline the method of operation. It is the understanding of the communities that after the area is established and has operated for a period of time, it may be necessary for the communities to more closely detail or modify the provisions contained in this Agreement. Both of the Cities and their City Councils pledge to work in a joint effort to resolve any problems which may come up in the operation of the facility. AGREEMENT The City of Minnetrista, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Minnetrista", and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Mound", are governmental units having power to construct and operate outdoor storage facilities to carry out their responsibility for maintaining streets and public utilities within their corporate boundaries. I. - General Purpose The general purpose of this Agreement is to provide a method whereby Minnetrista and Mound can jointly plan, control, and construct an outdoor storage area for the storage of public works materials utilized by the Cities in maintaining their streets and public utilities. PLUM TEL: 338-2625 Flpr 26,94 14:55 No.O04 P.03 II. - Expansion of Facility This Agreement is between Minnetrista and Mound, but nothing shall preclude the parties from mutually agreeing to expand the facility for other governmental agencies if it is deemed in the best interest of both parties to do so. III. - Operating Commission The Minnetrista Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer and the Mound Mayor and City Manager shall be the Operating Commission to operate the facility. It is antxcipated that the administrative officers of the communities will be able to work out most of the day to day operating problems, but if there is a need to include the elected officials, the Mayors of the two communities shall join with the administrative officers in an effort to resolve any problems. It is understood by both parties that their City Councils will have ultimate control over any amendment to the Agreement or to any change in funding or contract details. IV. - Storage Area The parties hereby agree that the area set forth in Exhibit A shall be set aside as a joint outdoor storage area for public works materials. Each member municipality shall have the general area outlined on Exhibit A which shows the area where their materials will be stored and the area for which that municip~lit~ shall be responsible to ' · operating this ub, i- and. good ~,,y=j~uooa =nat the parties will se-re--~Y-~<.~ ~"¥z~{~' I~ zs further no: De a o mi -' - ~ ~uc ~nelr materials and there will c m ngl~ng of the materials. It is further understood that Mound will own and have a piece of equipment which will consist of a loader which shall remain on the site at all times. Mound will be responsible for all maintenance, insurance, and other costs for said piece of equipment. If Minnetrista desires to use the equipment, a rental arrangement shall be agreed upon which shall be at rates consistent with current market rates to rent the same or similar equipment. The types of materials which it is anticipated the parties will store and use for their street and utility departments will include but will not be limited to the following: sand fill; Class 5 gravel; binder rock; winter mix; sea/coat aggregate; rip rapping material; wall rock. san · street sweeping material; and materials removed from trenches which ~; stored in an area where ~ust they can be dried out before being reused for future street repairs or other utility purposes. (The parties may want to expand this provision to limit or define what can be on the site.) . A written operating policy will be prepared and agreed to by the adminzstrative staffs of the parties covering operations on the site. Any disputes over operating policies shall be referred to the City Councils for resolution, and if they are unable to agree the dispute shall be submitted for mediation or as a final resolution it may be referred for arbitration. QPLUM '"'. , .. 1,,, , LI TEL: .~:38-2625 Flpr 26,94 14:55 No.O04 P.04 V. - Feasibility Report The firm of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. has prepared a Feasibility Report dated January, 1994, which lays out various options for the Minnetrista/Mound storage area. The parties hereby agree that as a part of said Feasibility Report, the engineers laid out preliminary cost estimates and work which would be required on the site. The following alternate work is hereby agreed to as set forth in Alternate 2 and outlined on page l0 of the Feasibility Report 'and is hereby selected as the work that the parties have agreed should be done on the site, and the costs will be paid from any grants awarded for the project or 100% of the costs will be paid by Mound (estimated at $114,000). The work set forth in Alternate B and outlined on page 11 of the Feasibility Report requiring a complete reconstruction of the access road is agreed to by the parties, and the costs of said road reconstruction will be paid from any grants awarded for the project or 50% of the costs will be paid by each of the parties (estimated at $31,700), but in no event shall this cost exceed $35,000. Minnetrista shall be responsible for maintaining the access road and shall pay 100% of the cost of said maintenance. VI. - Cost Sharing The initial improvements consisting of work outlined in Alternate 2 and Alternate B shall be shared by Minnetrista and Mound on the following basis: Mound - 100% of Alternate 2 or as paid for by any grant. Mound and Minnetrista - 50% each of Alternate B or as paid for by any grant. Future improvements and maintenance of the site outlined in Exhibit A shall be shared by Minnetrista and Mound on a 50/50 basis for the first five years after this Agreement becomes effective. After the initial five year period, the parties agree that there will be a review of the operation and the cost distribution. The growth possibilities for Minnetrista and other factors may determine how the site is being utilized, and if it is necessary to change the cost sharing arrangements. Nothing contained in the original Agreement implies that it will be necessary to change cost sharing arrangements for the operation of the site, but the parties to the Agreement desire to have this provision included, which will allow for a reopening and renegotiation on cost distribution. Minnetrista shall be responsible for ~PLUM TEL: 338-2625 Rpr 26,94 1~:55 No.OOZl P.O5 C® D® maintaining the compost site and ~ shall l~ ~ ~9~ of the cost of said maintenance. Nothing contained in this subsection shall preclude the parties working out an operating policy for the compost site which may be agreed to by the administrative staffs of the parties. Either party may in the future suggest that additional improvements be made on the site, and both parties shall then commence discussion through their Operating Commission and report to their City Councils on suggested Improvements. The improvements shall not be made without the mutual consent of both parties and agreement by both parties as to how the improvements are to be paid for. It may be that in the operation, one member may want to make improvements on their portion of the site at their sole expense, and said work shall be permitted after the planned improvements have been discussed with the other party to this Agreement to determine that the improvement will not adversely affect the site from an environmental or operating standpoint. (1) The cost of operating a loader which is deemed advisable by the parties to be retained on the site shall be paid by Mound. See Section IV above regarding use or rental by Minnetrista. (2) ~ Liability insurance and other necessary insurance coverage for the operation of the site shall by Minnetrista~ and-the Cl~y-a~ ~hall pay 50% 'e-f- ES ~ ~a~e~ . zn~ cal~a_~_gn of Min~ b__y shall ~ be ,res ons~ Or M-93_P~do__rt_9oio~ otbet e~p!!_~a ox persons ~-~a~una aS~fOr~ein~ ~oe~and 9xpgnse,~~~ hold ~rmless ~n~ ~PLUM TEL: :3:38-2625 26,94 14:55 No.O04 P.06 ac~on ~ prfl~_q_9_~_~_~_~_~ ~or ~he p_u~Dose ~ ~ ~.h~tsoe~er af, j~ter ~onnection with ~R her~ndef ~ ~nd. ~emntftca~ion~ound~Minnetris~a. b~ resp~nsi~~~eo~ ~ ~ause ~ cc~ion of ~ kind or ~aris~ou~ ~ ~~ence ~-~o~ 9r ~efe~a~ ~s ~e cos~ ~nd and indemni~y and - ~~ound ~ro~ ~°r~purpose~~~~o~ con~ec~ig~ with performance hereunder ~inne~ris~ Application ~ ~n~ ~ee~ ~ w~xve~ gf ~u~e~ Ch~p~er-4~6. I~ is understood by ~he par~ies ~ha~ each par~y remains individually responsible for i~s employees and agents who are on ~he si~e. I~ is a further finding of ~bis Agreemen~ thst when Minne~ris~e and/or Mound employees or agents are working in ~he are~ described in ~xhibi~ A or u~ilizing common areas ~o gek ~o or from ~he area, said member shall be responsible for ~he ac~s of ~heir employees and agents, and ~he~e is no~ an in~en~ ~o have ~oin~ li~bili~ for ~c~s ~akin9 place on ~he ~oin~ly opera,ed ei~e. (I~ is in~ended by ~his provision ~ha~ one City shell not be responsible for ~he negligen~ ac~s of an employee of ~he o~he~ @PLUM TEL: 338-2625 FIpr 26,94 14:55 No.O04 P.O? VII. - Mediation and Arbitration Either Minnetrista or Mound, being aggrieved by the determination ~f_the 0~ratin~ Commission or any other matter which leads to a dispute oetween the parties, agrees that they will work cooperatively to attempt to resolve said disagreement If the parties cannot resolve a dispute, they agree to consult and work w~th a mediator to attempt to resolve the problem. If after 30 days it is impossible for the parties to agree after mediation, either party being aggrieved may ask the Operating Commission for the matter to be resolved through arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall be established and shall consist of three persons; one to be appointed by Minnetrista and one to be appointed by Mound and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. In the event the two persons so selected do not appoint a third person within fifteen (15) days after their appointment, then the Chief Judge of the Hennepin County District Court shall have Jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either or both of the two earlier selected, the third person to serve on the Board of Arbitration. The third person selected shall not be a resident of either Minnetrista or Mound. The arbiters, expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not including attorneys, fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally between Minnetrista and Mound. be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Arbitration shall the Minnesota Statutes. Act, Chapter 572 of VIII. - Duration Each member agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement until December 31, 2014, and shall be continued thereafter unless either party gives the other party two years' notice of cancellation of the agreement. The parties agree that a two year notice requirement is necessary so that the parties may find individual solutions to this storage problem. This Agreement may be terminated prior to December 31, 2014, by the consent of both parties. IX. - Dissolution Upon dissolution of the Agreement~/1Personal property of the Cities jointly being used on the premises be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand in any Operating Account, shall be distributed to Minnetrista and Mound in the proportion to which they are then contributing to the costs of operating the site. X. - Effective Date This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon filing of a certified copy of the Resolution of each City Council approving the Agreement with the City Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Minnetrista. .WPLUM TEL: :3:38-2625 ~pr 26,9zl lz1:55 No.O04 P.08 IN WITNESS ~{EREOF, the Cities. of Minnetrista and Mound, Minnesota, by action of their governing bodzes, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 412 and Section 471.59. CITY OF MINNETRISTA Its Mayor Its City Administrator/ Clerk-Treasurer CITY OF MOUND By.__ Its Mayor By__ Its City Clerk Feasibility Report for the City of Mound Outdoor Material Storage Minnetrista City Hall/Public Works Site Prepared For: The City of Mound, Minnesota January, 1994 Iql/ Section I - Introduction The City of Mound has operated their outdoor material storage for many years from the Lost Lake site on County Road 15. Mound has actively investigated numerous sites over the past several years as an alternative to the Lost Lake site. This report has been authorized by the Mound and Minnetrista City Councils and will include preliminary design and cost estimates to relocate Mound's outdoor storage of materials to the area south of Minnetrista City Hall. This area is presently used by the City of Minnetrista for their outdoor material storage and as a compost site for a number of cities. ~c~ion II - Existinq $ite~ Lake site - Mound The area presently used by the City of three acres. It is used to store the following material. This list was prepared by the Public Works several years ago, but has not changed significantly time. Mound covers approximately quantities of Department since that Sandfill - 1,000 tons. This is used to fill all street openings. This includes watermain breaks, sewer forcemain breaks, gate valve repair, manhole repair, water shut-off repair, storm sewer repair and, in certain cases, yard repair. Most of the sandfill is delivered for $4.90 per ton. Class 5 - 400 tons. This is used for the last 2 feet of fill for all street repairs. When we pick this up we pay $4.25 per ton. If we have it delivered, the cost is $7.65 per ton. 1-1/2" binder rock - 50 tons. This is used for pipe bedding when the soil is wet, the bottom of a watermain break when it is extremely muddy and is sometimes mixed with Class 5 in the last 2 feet of closing up a street opening. Cost is $4.35/ton when we pick it up or $7.75 per ton delivered. Winter mix - 24 tons. This is soft bituminous fill that is used as a temporary patch when Class 5 or 1-1/2 binder cannot be used. One example would be repairing a street opening on a County road. Seal Coat Aggregate - 2,000 tons. This is used for sealcoating the City's roads and is purchased and stockpiled. Rip Rap - 500 to 700 tons. Most of this is used by the Parks Department for shoreline protection and miscellaneous repairs. It is usually purchased in the winter at a 15% to 20% discount and delivered before road restrictions are put in effect. Wall Rock - 30 to 50 tons. This is extra material kept for on-going retaining wall maintenance. Sand - 50 tons. This material is used by the Parks Department for beaches and sand boxes. Street Sweepings. Two primary sweepings during the year produce a large volume of material. The first street sweeping in the spring produces approximately 1,200 tons of material, comprised mostly of winter sand. This material is stockpiled and used during the year by both Public Works and the Parks Department for miscellaneous maintenance and fill projects. 2 Be The seal coat project each year also generates approximately 600 tons of excess aggregate. This material is also stockpiled and used for miscellaneous projects during the year. Some is mixed with other material and used as fill for street repairs after watermain breaks. 10. Trench Material - Watermain breaks produce saturated material unsuitable as backfill in the street. This material has to be hauled away and stockpiled for future use after drying out. This is the same material mixed with the excess seal coat aggregate and then reused as fill for future street repairs after watermain breaks. 11. Snow Storage - All the snow removed from the Central Business District parking lots and the downtown sidewalks is stored on this site. This requires approximately one acre of storage area, not including access to it. Minnetrista City Hall/Public Works Site The outdoor storage of materials by the City of Minnetrista would include most of the same types of materials. The ma3or difference would be in the quantity required, for example, Class 5 aggregate. Minnetrtsta would use much more then Mound, because of the greater mileage of gravel roads. The opposite is true for seal coat aggregate, whereas Mound would have more miles of paved roads to seal coat and maintain. 3 Section III - Site Evaluatipn Minnetrista City Hall/Public Works The entire site contains 12 acres of which approximately six acres lies south of the bituminous parking lot at the Public Works garage. Of this six acres, Z-1/Z are presently used for storage of material and as a compost site. The remaining 3+ acres is partially wooded, vacant land which lies 2§ to 30 feet above the present storage area. This portion of the property would be very difficult to use without major grading. For this reason, we have investigated two alternates. Alternate No. 1 would make use of the existing flat area where Minnetrista presently stores material, while Alternate No. 2 addresses use of the remaining property. Due to size limitation, a number of activities carried out by the City of Mound at the present Lost Lake site would not be feasible on this property. They would include snow storage, and seal coat aggregate storage. The amount of street sweepings and rip rap stored may also have to be reduced in Alternate No. I because of the limited space. Alternate No. 1 In order to make full use of the present site, the stockpiled materials will need to be confined in a smaller area by use of bins. This can be accomplished by using precast concrete retaining wall sections of the same type used at Mound Public Works to contain their winter salt/sand mixture. Enclosed with this report is Exhibit B, which shows a proposed layout using these precast sections to construct bins to store both Minnetrista and Mound materials. The plan also shows proposed placement of the other miscellaneous stockpiles for each City. The area currently used for compost would remain in the same location. There may need to be some limitation on the amount of harvested milfoil delivered to the site, but we see no problem with the normal amount of leaves and grass clippings ~ompoSted~. ~""The "~Stima%ea ~c0St for this alternate is 8102,000.00, a breakdown of which is included on Exhibit C. Alternate 2 This proposed plan would make use of the remaining property south of the present storage area. As previously mentioned, this area is 25 to 30 feet above the storage area currently used by Minnetrista. The entire property south of the bituminous lot adjacent to the Public Works building would need to be regraded. The higher area at the south end of the property would be lowered, using the excavated material to raise the elevation of the present storage area. The earthwork would be balanced, thus eliminating the need to remove any material from the site. The topsoil could be ~sed to construct berms on the perimeter of the site. This alternate would provide the storage area for both cities, without the necessity of bins. The use of berms and landscaping would screen the area from adjacent properties. This alternate is estimated to cost $114,000.00. An itemization of this cost estimate is included in Exhibit C. The natural drainage for the entire storage site is to a small pond of approximately 0.4 acres in size. A controlled outlet was installed in a dike between the pond and drainage ditch when the new City Hall was constructed. This pond acts as a detention area to temporarily store storm water runoff from the storage area. In the future, modifications to this pond may be required if more restrictions are placed on stormwater runoff. Both proposed plans include a berm along the easterly side of the storage site to further direct all runoff to the pond. This berm would be constructed of material excavated from the site. One additional item of improvement that may need to be addressed is the condition of the existing entrance from County Road 110 to the Public Works garage and storage area. The major portion of this driveway appears to be in very poor condition and wil! only continue to deteriorate with the additional truck traffic generated by the shared storage area. The problem appears to be in the subgrade, which may require complete reconstruction or at least something temporary such as subsurface draintile. For discussion purposes, we have included, in Exhibit D, a cost estimate for draintile and overlay as a temporary repair. Also included is an estimated cost for complete reconstruction of an access road from County Road 110 to the material storage area. B. Lost Lake Site - Mound All activity at this site would be relocated to the new site at Minnetrista City Hall/Public Works, except possibly the snow storage which could continue until the property is sold or alternative sites are found. It would be possible to use a number of smaller sites located in different areas of town, such as the City-owned property west of Commerce Boulevard and adjacent to Lake Langdon or possibly City parks. Other privately owned properties may also be available, which should be further investigated. The City also uses Lost Lake for their City-wide recycling, which is held twice yearly. This activity could also continue until an alternative site is available. C. Additional Storage Required - Mound As previously mentioned, the Minnetrista City Hall site would not accommodate the storage of seal coat aggregate and in the case of Alternate No. 1, little or no rip rap storage. The City of Mound would need to re-evaluate their present procedure for seal coating. Currently, all the necessary aggregate is stockpiled in one location at Lost Lake. Either new locations will need to be found for stockpiling, or the Contractor will have to be responsible for delivering the aggregate during the actual seal coating. The short-term storage of rip rap is another problem that could be solved by having the material delivered as it is needed. As PreViOuSly mentioned, this will raise the cost of material by 15% to 20%. The price of seal coat aggregate also rises substantially if not delivered in off-peak times and stockpiled until applied. Previous cost analysis showed a savings of almost $20,000 over a 3- year period by the City purchasing and stockpiling seal coat aggregate. The salt/sand mixture for winter use would continue to be mixed and stockpiled in the enclosure at the Public Works garage. 7 Sec%ion ZV - Eauipment The distance separation of Mound's material storage from their garaged equipment appears to create the need for an additional loader. Presently, the one loader easily accommodates both the garage and Lost Lake site, because they are only two blocks apart. The winter time appears ~o be ~he major problem because a loader ~s required at the garage to load sand and at the same time may be needed at Minnetrista to load clean fill and winter mix for repairing streets after watermain breaks. There will even be times in the summer when a loader is required simultaneously at the storage site in Minnetrista and on projects in Mound. In discussions with both Public Works, it does not appear that a shared loader at the Minnetrista storage site would be feasible unless it remained there most of the time. Both cities have a need for a loader at the storage site and on projects at the same t~me. One alternative we see is for Mound to purchase either a new or used loader and then move their present one to the Minnetrista storage site. It would then be possible for both cities to use this machine, maybe working something out so it could even be stored inside when not in use. The estimated cost of a new and used loader is included in the preliminary cost estimate, Exhibit C, attached to this report. 8 Section V - Conclusions ~nd Recommendations Combining the two cities' outdoor material storage at one site appears to be a feasible solution to Mound's long-standing dilemma of replacing the Lost Lake site. On the negative side, there is the initial expense to make the move to Minnetrista, along with some additional operating costs, due to travel involved. On the positive side, not only is the downtown eyesore eliminated, but some monetary value could result in the two cities combining their purchasing power to achieve lower prices for materials. Moving the materiel'storage from Lost Lake will make this property immediately available for development, which is something the City has pursued for a number of years. The shared material storage would also be one of the first steps toward the goal of consolidating City services. ,il I IL I, ,I , Ed i PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ALTERNATE NO. ! SXTE WORK - EXISTING STORAGE IkRE~ 1. Clear and Grub Trees 0.25 acres @ $2,000/Ac 2. Site Grading 1,200 CY @ $ 3. Class 5 Gravel 2,000 TN @ $ 4. 10' Precast Concrete Panels - Storage Bins 3,525 SF @ $ 5. 8-1/2' Precast Concrete Panels - Storage Bins 3,760 SF @ $ 7.65/SF 6. Contingencies ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR SITE WORK (Alt. No. 1) ALTERNATE NO. 2 SITE WORK - REGRADING ENTIRE SITE 2. 3. 4. Clear and Grub Trees Common Excavation Class 5 Gravel Landscaping Contingencies 2.50/CY 7.00/TN 8.00/SF 2.3 Acres @ $2,000.00/AC 34,000 C.Y. @ $ 5,000 TON @ $ LUMP SUM ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Administrative & Fiscal Cost TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR SITE WORK (ALT. NO. 2) EQUIPMENT - FRONT END LOADER Option A - New Purchase Option B - Used Purchase Option C - Rental $ 500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 28,200.00 $ 28,764.00 $ 7,536.00 $ 82,000.00 $102,000.00 $ 4,600.00 1.20/CY $ 40,800.00 7.00/TN $ 35,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 8,600.00 $ 94,000.00 8114,000.00 $ 90,000.00 40,000 to $ 60,000 $ Exhibit C 2. 3. 4. 2. 3. 4. 5. o o ALTERNATE A ACCESS ROAD - TEMPORARY REPAIRS 4" Draintile Class 5 Gravel Bituminous Patching 2" Bituminous Overlay Contingencies 500 LF @ $ 8.00/LF 50 TN @ $12.00/TN 25 TN @ $50.O0/TN 130 TN @ $30.00/TN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE B ACCESS ROAD - COMPLETE RECONSTRUCTION Bituminous Removal Common Excavation Granular Borrow Class 5 3" Bituminous Base 2331 - Type 31 2" Bituminous Wear 2331 - Type 41 4" Draintile Contingencies 1,100 SY @ $ 1.50/SY 700 CY @ $ 2.00/CY 400 CY @ $ 6.00/CY 500 TN @ $ 8.00/TN 200 TN @ $26.00/TN 125 TN @ $28.00/TN 500 LF @ $ 8.00/LF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 4,000.00 600.00 1,250.00 3,900.00 950.00 $ 10,700.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 14,000.00 1,650.00 1,400.00 2,400.00 4,000.0O $ 5,200.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 2,250.00 24,400.00 7,300.00 31,700.00 11 Exhibit D April 12, 1994 ~ORA~D~ To: From: Subject: National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. League Washington, D.C. of 20004 Cities (202) 626-3000 Fax: (202) 626-3043 Officers Se(~ond V~oe Presk3~3t Ha Cor~n Immedate Past President Glec~a E. Ho. el Mayo~, Orlando, Flonda Executive D~acto~ Mayors of Direct Member cities Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues Sharps James ~ ~_ _ ~~e~ Amend//t~he/N~~-LC/Byla~s At its July 16-17, 1993 meeting in Minneapolis, the NLC Board of Directors accepted the report of a special Bylaws Committee which made a series of recommendations to amend the NLC Bylaws. At the March 12, 1994 Board meeting, the Board approved for submission to the members language to implement the report of the Bylaws Committee and amend the NLC Bylaws. The Bylaws Committee was appointed in March 1993 by then-NLC President Donald M. Fraser and was chaired by Past President Bob Bolen, former mayor of Fort Worth, Texas. This package includes specific language to amend the Bylaws, a ballot which must bo returned to _uT~ headquaFters by Hay 23, X994, and a postage-paid reply envelope to return your ballot by the deadline. The proposed Bylaws Amendments are as follows: Amend Section 1 of Article I to clarify NLC's corporate definition as an "instrumentality of government" for tax purposes. This amendment was recommended by NLC's tax attorney. Amend Sections 1 and 2 of Article III to clarify the distinction between the NLC officers and the NLC Board of Directors. This amendment adds language to clarify the make-up of the NLC officers, based on existing practice, and moves language from Section 1 to Section 2 regarding the annual election of Board members, as distinguished from Officers. Pa~t Presidents: Sidney Bilrthelemy, Mayor, New Odeans, Louisiana · F~d Harris, on, Mayor, Scotland Neck. North Carolina · Cilthy Reynolds, CounC~lwoman-at-Large. Denver, Co,areal. · J:Nrector~: Lucy T. Allen, Mayor. Louist>Jrg. North Carolina * Ann Azarl, Mayor. Fort Colhns. Colorado · Lock Beachum, Sr., Councilman, Youngstown. Ohio · Don Donofnghoven, Executes Director, League al California Cities * Jimmy Burke, Mayor. Deer Park, Texas · Anthony Ceplzzi, City Commissioner. Dayton, Ohio · Cart Cia~, Executive Director, Wyoming AsS.--arian of Municipalities · E. W. Cromertle, II, Councilman, Columb{a, South Carolina · Charles A. OeVsney, Mayor. Augusta, Georgia · John Divine, Commissioner, Saline, Kansas · William Mayor, Bradenton. Flonda · Martin Gilman, Alderman, North Little Rock, Arkansas · Robert R. Jefferson, CounOlmember. Lexington, Kentucky · $tev~ E. Jeffrey, Executive Director, Vermont League of Cities and Towns ° Welter F. Kelly, Town Council Pres,3ent Fishers, Indiana · &bbs Lend, Mayor Pro Tern, West Hollywood, California · Gragor~ Le~hutka, Mayo~, Columbus, Oh~o · Shells JacksOn Lee, Councilmember at-Large. Houston, Texas · liens Llebermen, Mayor, Lauderhill. FIor~a · Sylvia L. Lovely, Executive Director, Kentucky League of Cities · MIIlie MacLe~xl, Council Member. Moorhead. Mmnesota · Maryann Maheffey, City Council Pres~ent, Detroit. Michigan · Thames M. Menino, Mayor, Boston. Massachusetts · Th.mae F. Morales, Jr., VmS Mayor, Avondale, Arizona · J. Ed Morgan, Mayor, Hattiesburg. MississiPP~ · Kathr~n Neck, Wce Mayor, Pasadena. CaMornia · James P. Nix, Mayor, Faith.ce, Alabama · Mal~ PInkett, Council Member, New York, New York · Sharon P~eet, C~/Direoto~. Little Rock. Arkansas · Carolyn Retto, Council Member. Tudock. California · Bill Revell, Mayor, Oyersburg, Tennessee · L. Lynn Rex, Exeoutive Director, League of Nebraska MumOpalities · Alicia M. Sanchez, Councilmember, Port Huron. M~::h~gan · Raymond C. ~ttig, Executrve Director, FIonda League of Cities · We.draw Stanley, Mayor, Flint, Mioh~an · Frank Sturzl, Executive D~restor, Texas Mumcipal League · Den Thompson, Executive D~rector. League Wisconsin Municipalities · Max W. Wells, Councilmember. Dallas, Texas · Jim W. White, Counciimember, Kent, Washmgto~ · Jack B. Williams, Mayor, Franldin Park, Iltin(~s Mayors of Direct Member Cities Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues April 12, 1994 Page Two Ce Amend Section 5 of Article III to increase the size of the Nominating Committee from 11 members (including the chair) to 15 members (including the chair) and to specify that the most immediate past president will serve as chair. The committee recommended increasing the size of the Nominating Committee to involve more NLC members in the nominating process while maintaining a manageable size for meaningful discussion and deliberation. De Amend Section 7 of Article III to permit individuals who leave public office after having served on the Board of Directors and the Advisory Council to resume services on the Advisory Council upon return to elective office. The amendment deletes the phrase "who remain" from the current language. Ee Amend Article IV, Sections 1, 12, and 3 to clarify procedures for membership meetings and add a new Section 6 to Article IV to establish procedures for meetings of the Board of Directors including definition of a quorum. These clarifications were recommended by NLC's general counsel to ensure that the Bylaws conform to the statute under which NLC is incorporated on issues such as meeting notices and to clarify the distinction between member meetings and Board meetings. It is extremely important that you exercise your voting right by casting your ballot. The number of votes you are entitled to cast is indicated on the enclosed ballot. Ballots received at NLC headquarters by May 23 will be tabulated and certified by two members of the Board of Directors and the results announced by mail early in June. If you have any questions about the proposed amendments, please contact Christine Becker, Deputy Executive Director, at (202) 626-3017. Enclosures II i ilk I, ,~ , ~d , I Il RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE NLC BYLAWS (Note: new language is underlined and de/eted language is in brackets.) Amend Section I of Article I to read as follows: Section 1. NAMES, OBJECTS, AND MEANS. The National League of Cities is aD instrumentalitv [membership organization] of general purpose local governments and state municipal leagues dedicated to advancing the public interest, building democracy and community, and improving the quality of life by strengthening the capacity of local governance and advocating the interests of local communities. Amend Sections I and 2 of Article III on Officers and Board of Directors to read as follows: Section 1. LEAGUE OFFICERS. The officers of this National League shall be a president, a first vice president, a second vice president, the immediate past president, ~11 past presidents while in elective office in a city, and the Executive Director, [and members of the Board of Directors]. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and shall hold office at the pleasure of that Board. The Executive Director shall be the secretary and treasurer of the National League. The president, first vice president, and the second vice president elected at the annual meeting shall hold office for one year or until their successors are qualified. [Twenty members of the Board of Directors shall be elected each year to serve for a term of two years or until their successors are elected and qualified.] The term of office of all newly-elected and designated officers shall commence immediately on adjournment of the annual meeting. Section 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. There shall be a Board of Directors consisting of 40 members and the National League president, first vice president, and second vice president, plus all N~tion~l League past presidents in elective office in a city, which shall conduct the affairs of the National League when representatives of the membership are not assembled, including, by a majority vote of the Board of Directors members, determination or modification of national municipal policies on national legislation affecting cities. The Board of Directors may refer to the membership by letter ballot any matter which is not otherwise provided for in these bylaws, the voting thereon to be as provided in Section 5 of Article IV. Twenty members of the Board of Directors shall be elected each year to serve for a term of two years or until their successors are elected and (~ualified. The term of office of all newly-elected Board members shall commence immediately on adjournment of the annual business meeting. The president and first vice president shall be chairman and vice chairman respectively of the Board of Directors. Section 5. ELECTIONS. The elective officers and Boar~ of this National League shall be 'elected in the manner provided for in Article IV; provided that nominations for elected officers and Board members shall be made by a nominating committee of not less than [seven] six nor more than [eleven] fourteen officers of member leagues, state league cities, and member cities and the most immediate past president, [who] all of whom shall be appointed by the president. The most immediate past president ~h~ll serve as chair of the nominating committee. The nominating committee shall make its report in writing at least four hours before the scheduled election. Amend Article III, SeclJon 7 to read as follows: Section 7. ADVISORY COUNCIL. The Board of Directors shall establish an Advisory Council (consisting of previous members of the Board of Directors [who remain] in municipal elected office), the duties, responsibilities and leadership of which shall be determined by the Board of Directors. Amend Article IV on Meetings, Voting, and National Policies to read as follows: Section 1. MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS. The time, place, and program of the annual or special meetings shall be determined by resolutiorl 0f the Board of Directors. The president mav also call a special meeting. Notices of meetings of members shall be delivered or mailed by first-class mail to the last known address of all members not less than thirty (30) nor more than [ninety (90)] sixty (60) days before such meetings provided that any notices required by this section may be waived before such meetings. Section 2. MEMBER VOTING. Section 3. ~ QUORUM. Section 4. MEMBER RESOLUTIONR ON POLICIES. Section 6. BOARD MEETINGS. Notices of meetings of the Board of Directors shall b~, delivered or mailed by first-class mail to the last known address of all members of Board of Directors not less than five (5) nor more than forty (40) days before such meetings, unless otherwise re(]uired bv law, provided that any notices required by this section may be waived before such meetings. A ma!oritv of directors present at a meeting shall constitute a ouorum, provided that a (~uorum consists of no less than one-third of the directors then in office. The act of the ma!ority of the directors present at a meeting at which a (~uorum is present shall be the act of the Boarcl of Directors, unless otherwise re(~uired by the articles of incorporation or these bylaws. 1¥31 OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR MEMBER CITIES On Changes to the Bylaws of the National League of Cities April 12, 1994 Do you favor amending the Bylaws of the National LeagUe of Cities as proposed below in Amendments A through E? A. Definitions Amend Section 1 of Article I to clarify NLC's corporate definition as an "instrumentality of government" for tax purposes. YES NO B. Officers and Board of Directors Amend Sections 1 and 2 of Article III to clarify the distinction between the NLC Officers and the NLC Board of Directors. C. Size of the Nominating Committee Amend Section 5 of Article III to increase the size of the Nominating Committee from I l members (including the chair) to 15 members (including the chair) and to specify that the most immediate past president will serve as chair. D. Advisory Council Amend Section 7 of Article III to permit individuals who leave public office after having served on the Board of Directors and the Advisory Council to resume service on the Advisory Council upon return to elective office. E. Board and General Membership Meetings and Voting Procedures Amend Article IV, Sections 1, 2, and 3 to clarify procedures for membership meetings and add a new Section 6 to Article IV to establish procedures for meetings of the Board of Directors including definition of a quorum. Signature for member city: Mayor's Signature Mayor's Name City State Number of votes cast / Date. ,, ,1994 Return in the enclosed envelope to: National League of Cities Attention: Donald J. Borut 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Your signed ballot must be received by May 23, 1994, ff it is to be counted. /¥$2. $25.00 One Week ,,~ $75.00 One Month :~ $150,00 One Year Date or Length of Time for which License is Requested LICENSE # · ~},~:~5~ ~t)/e//{/~ ]::::~'~' CITY OFMOUND $341 MAYWOOD ROAD ~),.J.. Yr/o/OE/v (_,'O~_5 MOUND, MINNESOTA, $$364 R ES ~/:/~ C__~/~/, TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE APPLICANT NAME: . .z. // DATE OF BIRTH: / .-~.~'.~ HOMEADDRE$S: ~_ '~.~7~ ~:~. ~-~ ~_. ~,~,".~_c/~d~ DR. LIC.#: . '2/2/7~. -- -'~ HOME PHONE #: ~'.,~.2 TYPE OF BUSINESS OR DESCRIPTIONOFTHINGSTOBESOLD: I3ik k to tD f3 [iFF: -~ c} BUS1NF_3S NAME: k/ ~ {_t~ BUS. PHONE #: ~c~..9, BUSINESS ADDRESS: .;;Ldo0/,6/ (?--!??~._ ~--~,..~a ~ SALES TAX//: PLACE BUSINF3S IS TO BE CARRIED ON: RESIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE LAST (5) YEARS: SALES PEOPLE NAMES & DRIVER'S LICENSE # REFERENCES: ,, (GIVE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PHONE # OF THREE) SIGNATURE OF A/PPLICA~// OFFICE USE ONLY AUTHORIZATION ,I I I i ,I ,,t I ti RESOLUTION NO. 94- April 26, 1994 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE L~WFUL G~BLING PERI, IT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST TONI~t LIONS BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves a One Day Off-Site Lawful Gambling permit application for the Northwest Tonka Lions on June 18, 1994, at Harold J. Pond Sports Center, 2121 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN. 55364. April 26, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves a One Day Off-Site Lawful Gambling permit application for the American Legion Post #398 on June 19, 1994, at Mound Bay Park, 5801 Bartlett Blvd., Mound, MN. 55364. (3/5/93) ,11 I DEPOT RENTAL AGREEMENT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-0600, Fax 472-0620 DATE o, usE, DATE OF USE: RECEIPT #: DEPOSIT: $200.00 FEY #: DATE KEY RETURNED: THE UNDERSIGNED AGREES TO OBSERVEALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE DONE TO THE ABOVE PUBLIC FACILITY, AND FOR PROPERTY CLEAN-UP OF THE BUILDING AND SURROUNDING GROUNDS AS DESCRIBED IN THE RENTAL POLICY. NO LIQUOR IS ~nT~WED IN ANY OF THE CIT~ PARKS OR BUILDINGS. RENTER'S SIGNATURE DATE ..... ************************************************************************** DATE OF INSPECTION: APPROVED BY: REASON FOR NOT RETURNING DEPOSIT: DATE DEPOSIT RETURNED/RECEIVED: *************************************************************************** Rental Fees $200 $100 ~er day $50 per day $25 per day FREE Cancel lat ions.: DAMAGE ANDCLEAN-UP DEPOSIT. Your deposit check will be held by the City of Mound and returned to you by mail after inspection of the Depot by the Parks Director. NON-MOUND RESIDENTS for sample sales, plus the purchase of a Peddlers License. CIVIC AND NON-PROFIT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FORM OTHER COMMUNITIES for rummage sales, parties, craft sales, etc. MOUND RESIDENTS for private use, parties, rummage sales, craft sales, etc. Also for churches and Sunday schools on approval of the City Council. MOUND WESTONKA COMMUNITY CIVIC AND NON-PROFIT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS (provided clean-up is made after the meeting) such as, but not limited to the following: Jaycees, K.C.'o, Lions, Rotary, Free B's, Women's Sewing Guild, Garden Clubs, Women's Clubs, Westonka Chamber of Commerce, Historical Society. One day is considered 7:00 a.m. to midnight. $25 of the rental fee wiXX not be rofundea if a reservation is cancelled with less than 30 days notice. HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. , 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-0347 RECEIVED APR 2 2 1,9 April 21, 1994 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Each year the Westonka Senior Center celebrates National Older Americans Month by having a special week of activities in May. We would appreciate if your city could declare the week of May 2 through 6th as Westonka Senior Center Week. Thank you for your wonderful support and confidence for these many years. We are proud to be a place where seniors can come to receive services and give back to their communities. The Westonka area is a fine place to grow old! Sincerely, Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. Board of Directors A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetri~a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK MAY 2 - 6th WHEREAS, we need to realize now, more than ever, what a resource our older Americans are, and that the abilities of older Americans to invest our country with their knowledge, creativity and experience cannot be denied; and WHEREAS, senior centers offer valuable service to the community in providing our senior citizens the benefits of good fellowship, encouragement and support, the opportunity to help themselves and each other, and offering service of access to community services as needed; and WHEREAS, tile month of May has been proclaimed Older Americans Month, and communities across tl]e country are giving special recognition to the role of senior center; THEREFORE, the City of hereby proclaims May 2 through 6th as "WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK" in our com- munity to honor our senior citizens, and to commend those who staff our senior center and who have been so successful in their efforts to assist our senior citizens to continue their involvement with and contribution to the community. 1¥3 BILLS- April 26, 1994 Batch Batch 4033 4042 Total bills $198,852.25 143,437.90 $342,290.15 oo oo oo II I I I I I I II ~ O0 o 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O~ ! ! ! o ggooogggoog~~o J ?TTTT~TT?,, Z C Z uJ 0 z 0 e ZZ hm I uJ ,mi it , I~, , I Ii ..1',-", .< 0 z ~.~.J OCt:: Z 0 ,-4 ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o I ,tn I Ik I, ,I , ti, , I # l L CL. ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ooo ooo ~§ ooo oo o o o ~ Z Z I Z I 0..t 0..I ,-*Z ~Z Zrr- Z~-- o °°~°°~~°°°°~ ???????~?????????,, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII o ! Z 0 0 · 0 ,-~ I I _J -J Z <Z Z .< 'r I ! Z hi I ~...--I ZZ On.' lea I, ,Il J i ,Iii , , N, , I 0 ¢~, ~,0 0 CO ~.4 ~ .-.4 Z 0 0 ~Z ~,. T Z aO 0 ~ Z Ct: 0 · I.~J t,,.~ ~"~0 III J J I II z Z Z Z ~ Z ~ _J z .::3 0 Z 0 0 3:: ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o t,u~ ~ I ZZ o ~1: Z Z o ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I / I II I I IIIIIIII I ! I I I II I I IIIIIIII I I UJtJ ,~0 ~,D I ZZ z I lS'l I mi IlL I Il L . ZZZZZZZ~ ~ 0 ~,..I ZZ On,- 1 ~4 ut,-- Z Z uJ~ Z 0 0 UJ I- t Itlg3 gg~g~gggoooogoo o §g o oo o 00000000000~ I I I I I I I I I oo o o =~o o ~ ~ ~ ~ oo o > Z Z ZZZ Z ~ ZZZZ 0 ~Z ~Z ~ ~ ~ ~°°°~ ~ ~ _,1 z "=3 ~j..~ 'J33E >- D. ,n I It ,I ,,t I H Z ~ 0 0 ) ~ ~ ~ Z ZZZ ZZZ ~Y 000~ CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT March 1994 25.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments March 1994 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,231,780 0 0 9,450 217 1,009 59,850 9,401 15,275 884,960 0 27,013 49,500 1,891 3,647 65,000 5,152 9,375 60,800 1,094 2,256 15,000 8O4 2.624 PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED (1,231,780) 0.00% (8,441) 10.68% (44,575) 25.52% (857,947) 3.05% (45,853) 7.37% (55,625) 14.42% (58,544) 3.71% (12,376} 17.49% TOTAL REVENUE 2,376,340 18,559 61,199 (2.315.141} 2.58% FIRE FUND 308,817 27,506 RECYCLING FUND 108,050 2,769 LIQUOR FUND 1,300,050 93,359 WATER FUND 380,000 21,719 SEWER FUND 680,000 53,329 CEMETERY FUND 5,650 0 DOCKS FUND 72,000 16,890 89,219 (219.598) 28.89% 8,774 (99,226) 8.12% 267,748 (1,032,252) 20.69% 76,352 (303,648) 20.09% 1 64,385 (515,615) 24.17% 400 (5,250) 7.08% 67,560 (4,440) 93.83% 04/15/94 rev94 I I , ti CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 26, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOYCE NELSON, RECYCLING COORDINATOR SPRING RECYCLING This spring we had 1,554 cars come through our gate on Friday and Saturday, April 22nd and 23rd. We did not accept any brush or scrap wood on these two days, due to traffic backup and space available at Lost Lake. Last spring we had over 3,600 cars and we accepted brush, scrap wood. We collected 389 appliances this spring compared to 309 in 1993. We filled 5 of the 80 cubic yard roll-offs with furniture and mattresses, compared with 6 last spring. I don't have any tonnage figures for Goodwill, TV's, tires, scrap metal or carpet yet. We collected about 2 tons of phone books and one 55 gallon container of household batteries. Every spring and fall we think up new ways of getting our Recycling Days organized to handle more cars and keeping up with the volume of stuff that comes in. This spring worked very well with rotating the 80 cubic yard roll-offs. prinled on recycled paper PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ~612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA KNOWN AS "PELICAN POINT" NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, §341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 1994 to consider a Preliminary Plat for a Planned Development Area located at the "Easterly side of Tuxedo Boulevard, south of Lakewinds Development and north of Dorchester Road." The name of this proposed development is "Pelican Point". Pelican Point is a proposed 40 unit zero lot line Twinhome residential development. Following are the existing legal descriptions of the properties involved in the proposed development: Island: PhelPS Island Park, 1st Division Lot 73. That part lying Southeasterly of Channel. Main Lot: Phelps Island Park 1st Division. Lots 19 to 34 inclusive also including adjacent private street and private alley and that part of Lot 73 lying northwesterly of channel also commencing at the intersection of the northeasterly line of Lot 19 extended with westerly line of private alley adjacent to said Lot 19, thence southerly along westerly line of said private alley to its intersection with the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 34, thence northwesterly along the extension of the southwesterly line of said Lot 34 to a point distant 286.8 feet southeasterly from the point of intersection of said line with the southeasterly line of Tuxedo Road thence northeasterly 20 feet parallel with said road line thence northwesterly 286.8 feet parallel with the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of said Lot 34 to the southeasterly line of said road thence northeasterly along said road line to the northeasterly line of said Lot 19 extended thence southeasterly 299.1 feet to the point of beginning. Small Lot: Unplatted 19-117-23. Commencing at the point of intersection of the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 35 Phelps Island Park First Division with the northwesterly line of private alley adjacent to said lot, thence southwesterly along said alley line to the westerly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 38 of said plat thence northwesterly 200 feet along said extended line, thence northeasterly 200 feet to a point in said northwesterly extension of said northeasterly line of said Lot 35 a distance of 266.8 feet along said extended line with the southeasterly line of Tuxedo Road, thence northwesterly 266.80 feet along said road line thence southeasterly 286.8 feet parallel with said northwesterly extension of said northeasterly line of said Lot 35 thence southwesterly 20 feet parallel with said road line thence southeasterly to the point of beginning. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Plans are available for viewing at Mound City Hall. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker' May 30, 1994, and mailed to property owners within 350' by June 3, 1994. pr~nted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT March 1994 25.00~ March 1994 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 63,130 2,273 28,979 34,151 45.90% Promotions 2,000 0 0 2,000 0.00% Cable TV 1,380 0 99 1,261 7.17% City Manager/Clerk 180,330 20,920 42,722 137,608 23.69% Elections 11,320 57 1,821 9,499 16.09% Assessing 48,350 260 282 48,068 0.68% Finance 151,080 16,165 33,614 117,466 22.25% Computer 24,200 730 7,570 16,630 31.28% Legal 81,500 6,488 11,491 70,009 14.10% Police 795,240 90,339 189,596 605,644 23.84% Civil Defense 5,400 139 473 4,927 8.76% Planning/Inspections 157,850 15,653 30,691 127,159 19.44% Streets 397,520 51,242 108,922 288,598 27.40% City Property 102,860 8,095 19,433 83,427 18.89% Parks 136,620 10,014 27,882 108,738 20.41% Summer Recreation 33,930 0 0 33,930 0.00% Contingencies 40,000 658 1,028 38,972 2.57% Transfers 134,240 10,027 30,080 104,160 22.41% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,366,950 233,060 534,683 1.832.267 22.59~ Area Fire Service Fund 240,190 20,049 53,548 186,642 22.29% Recycling Fund 104,330 10,350 30,127 74,203 28.88% Uquor Fund 190,840 20,987 55,295 135,545 28.97% Water Fund 834,990 58,574 124,032 710,958 14.85% Sewer Fund 1,390,280 119,715 281,195 1,109,085 20.23% Cemetery Fund 5,240 812 1,055 4,185 20.1 3% Docks Fund 53,680 4,258 17,876 35,804 33.30% exp94 04/1 5194 G.B. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1994 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, and Lisa Bird; City Council Representative Liz Jansen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: JoAnn Boeser, Bernard Boeser, Steven Berkey, Sandy Berkey, Karolee Goodrich, Craig Goodrich, Jim Welbourn, Kathryn Welbourno Brian Schebler, Sue Schebler, Alan Gilbertson, Bill Gilbertson, Marilyn Byrnes, Richard Flam, David & Nancy Piela, Paul & Patricia Meisel, Larry Hauskins, Patrick Furlong, Jon Lynott, Ralph McMillan, Chris Kulenkamp, Harlan Pygman, Steve Coleman, Richard Garozzo, George Gulso, Dan Hessburg, Dan Brewer, Father Mike Tegeder, and others who did not sign-in. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 1994 were presented for approval. Bird noted that she should be listed as being present at the meeting. MOTION made by Weiland seconded by Bird to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 1994 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #94-13: GILBERT~ON CONSTRUCTION INC., 5926 HAWTHORNE ROAD, LOTS ~ & 4, BLOCK 10. PID #23-117-24 42 0044. MINOR ~UBDIVISION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create two new parcels. As proposed, Parcel I has an area of 9,667 square feet, and Parcel 2 has an area of 9,870 square feet which both exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet in the R-lA zone. It appears that homes can be built on the proposed lots without the issuance of any setback variances. This is further supported by the fact that the applicant is not seeking any variances as a part of this proposal. Koegler noted that the home immediately east of the proposed subdivision has a non- conforming rear yard setback that could be corrected as part of the subdivision. He stated that at the time of the staff report, staff understood that the property immediately to the east was owned by the applicant. On Monday, April 11th, staff was informed that the adjacent non-conforming lot was owned by the brother of the applicant who does not have any interest in the subdivision. Therefore, the Commission may want to further discuss item #1 of the staff report-which suggests shifting the eastern line of the subdivision 6.67 feet. Staff also recently learned that the applicant desires to retain the existing non-conforming home on Parcel 2 until such time that a new home is built. As a result, the Commission will need to consider variances to the existing side lot line and the proposed rear lot line. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision subject to conditions. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, the following motion was suggested: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the minor subdivision for Case #94-1 § subject to the following conditions: Planning Comm~lon Minutes at,~ 11, 1994 The eastern lot line shall be moved westerly a minimum of 6.67 feet to create a conforming rear yard setback for the applicant's existing home. In accordance with this requirement, a revised survey drawing and legal descriptions shall be prepared and submitted to the Building Official prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The existing garage and home on existing Lot 4 shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution, or as an alternative, the applicant shall post a suitable security to the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to demolish the structures and restore the site. The applicant shall submit a revised survey at an appropriate scale delineating the house locations with proposed elevations. Such survey shall also include the locations of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain and existing and proposed service locations. A final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a ten (10) foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the above described easements, prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The easement documents shall be filed concurrently with the approval resolution. Costs associated with the review on the part of the City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15 prior to release of the approval resolution. Park dedication fees in the amount of $1,000 ($500/lo0 shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of the approval resolution. Mueller questioned if a variance would need to be granted if the house on Lot 4 is allowed to remain for any period of time. Concern was expressed that if a variance is granted, could the house remain forever? The Building Official reviewed the condition of the dwelling and noted that it is small, it has minor plumbing and electrical problems, but it could be considered habitable. Alan Gilbertson stated that they plan to develop Parcel I first, and then if everything works financially, they hope to develop Parcel 2 the Spring of 1995. He is receptive to some type of requirement that the house be removed by a certain date. He stated, however, he does have a concern about the deficient unit charges. He would like this fee waived as he does not feel he should have to pay on a 14 year old bill, and these charges were not recorded on the property. In addition, he feels he should only have to pay one park dedication fee as he is creating only one new lot. The Commission noted that it is not their place to discuss fees and these issues could be raised at the City Council meeting. In reference to the moving of the lot line, the applicant stated that the adjoining property is not owned by him, but by his brother, and the property is nonconforming in other respects also, and would prefer to leave the line as proposed. 2 PJ~uU~ Cow~L~lo~ Mi~w~ ~ ]1, 1994 MOTION made by Vose, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of th, minor subdivision as recommended by staff, with the following modifications to the conditions: 1. Delete. J The existing garage em~keme on existing Lot 4 shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution ......o..... ._a .A.o_.~ °~'- -:°- The existint, home Lot 4 shall be remove~l ---,'-'~'-'-' '-, -- -- .... on within 18 months of CiW Council aox}royal of the minor subdivi~on, and soma true of uuarantee of removal shall be suDulied urior to release of the a~mov~l resolution. Also, language should be added to include recognition of the newly created nonconforming setbacks for the existing dwelling structure. MOTION carded unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. CASE #94-14: MARILYN BYRNES, 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 38, WY(~HWOOD, PID #24-117-2442 002~1. VARIAN(~E FOR GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a garage that will be conforming to setbacks. Variances to be recognized include a 4.6' setback from the dwelling to Bedford Lane. Bedford Lane is an unimproved 15' wide access to Brighton Commons, a 6' side yard setback is required, resulting in a 1.4' variance. This request also results in a hardcover variance of 898 sq. ft. with total site hardcover at 49% and a lot area variance of 1,350 sq. ft. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a portion of Bedford Lane and the city commons property as additional green space. With the additional area the hardcover calculations are conforming at just less than the 30% allowable by ordinance. The proposed garage is of minimal size and it has been the city's policy in the past to promote garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. The applicant's site plan details a 3 to 4 foot blacktop driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane. This encroachment is not blocking the access, but should be recognized at this time. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow construction of a 20' x 18' detached garage, with the condition that the driveway encroachment into Bedford Lane be allowed to remain subject to the understanding that if any work in the access is needed, the city is not responsible for restoration of the asphalt. Mueller confirmed that the existing shed will be removed. The size of the proposed garage was confirmed to be 20' x 18'. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Muller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, taking into consideration for the lot area variance and hardcover variance that there is undevelopable green space adjacent to this property known aa Brighton Common. MOTION carried unanimously. 3 I'iannin~ Commission /ll~ri111, 1994 This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. ~ RIgHARD T. I=LAM, 2025 ARBOR LANE. LOT 5. SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & UNO0tUIST'S RAVENSWO00, PIg//13-117-24 41 0034. VARIANCE FOR DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to reconstruct an existing non conforming deck on the lake side of the existing dwelling. The proposed deck is to be reduced in size and will be setback 47' from the ordinary high water, resulting in a 3' variance request. This represents a 4.5' improvement to the existing condition and still allows the applicant a reasonable size and functional deck. A variance given in 1982' to construct the existing garage resulted in variances of 12' to the front yard and 2' to the north side yard. A 60' hard cover variance also needs to be recognized. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as it represents a positive improvement in the non conforming status of the property by increasing the setback to the lake by 4.5'. MOTION made by We~3and, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. ~ DAVID & NANCY PIELA, 1645 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 11 - 14, BLOCK 10. WOODLAND_ POINT. PID #13-117-24 12 0180. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. This request is otherwise fully conforming to the ordinance. The existing dwelling footprint results in a 2.69' setback variance to Eagle Lane, and a 16.58' setback variance to Jennings Road. City Engineer, John Cameron, has reviewed this request and noted that the City did not obtain easements for the 1978 Street Improvement Project. The City should have an easement over the west 5 feet of both Lots 13 and 14 to allow for some boulevard beyond the edge of the pavement for Dove Lane. A 5 foot wide by 10 foot long easement should also be acquired for the curb radius and hydrant on Eagle Lane at the intersection with Jennings Road. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it is conforming to the ordinance with the condition relating to the easements as noted in the City Engineer's report. The Building Official reviewed with the Planning Commission a revised survey showing a modified location for the garage received by the applicant just prior to the meeting. The applicant noted that the location was revised due to the elevation of the land and the amount of fill that would be needed for construction. The Commission noted that the revised location was an improvement. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller informed the applicant that there may be some costs involved in the filing of the easements. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. 4 Planning Commission Mlnut~ /IprE 11, 1994 CASE/P:J4-17: A, PAUl, & PATRI¢IA MEISEL, 5501 BARTLETT BLVD.. LOTS 22 & 23. AUDITORS ~UBD. NO. 170. PID #24-117-24 23 0007, VARIANCE FOR AODITION. Building Official, Jon Suthedand, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow the construction of a single story addition consisting of a kitchen and dining area, and a second story addition approximately 21' x 8' over a portion of the existing for the master bedroom. There are several existing nonconforming issues relating to this property, as follows: Principal S~ructure: Front N: Okay = 100' + to street. Side W: Okay = 40' to side. Channel E: Existing Structure = 41' setback to OHW variance variance Rear S: Lakeshore S: Proposed Addition = 24' setback to OHW Encroachment of 7.9' to required 15' setback. 34' setback to OHW = 16' variance. = 9' = 26' Cabin / Little House: Front N: Side W: Channel E: Rear S: Lakeshore S: 1.2' setback to Bartlett = 18.8' variance. Chimney encroaches 1' over line (4' setback required). Okay. Okay. Okay. Garage (detached): Front N: Okay = 24.4'. Side W: Okay. Channel E: 14' +/- to OHW = 36' setback variance. Rear S: Okay. Lakeshore S: Okay. FLOODPLAIN: According to the survey, a portion of the existing crawl space of the dwelling is in the floodplain, however, the main floor and the addition is not. two hardcover calculation sheets were received from the applicants. The proposed expansion is shown to be setback 24' to the channel that goes between Lake Minnetonka and Lost Lake. The applicant has submitted two hardcover calculation sheets. The second sheet with conforming calculations considers the boulevard that is a privately held commons, and the cobblestone paver driveway at 50% impervious surface. The manufacturer of the paver system states the amount of percolation can vary from 5% to almost 100%. The addition would encroach approximately 17' closer to the channel than the existing structure and it is proposed in this location partially to maintain the 50 foot setback to the main body of the lake and reduce the impact as much as possible. 5 II I I~ I, ,I .... Il, ~ Planning Commission Minuttt Ai~ril 11, 1994 It is difficult to define a hardship in this case, the only other rationale for granting a variance is practical difficulty. When considering practical difficulty, it must be found unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that resulting from lot size, shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owner has no control due to functional and aesthetic concerns. The owner states their need for the addition is to serve the use and function of the home and that due to the existing floor plan this is the only practical location. This property is uniquely situated, abutting both the main body of Lake Minnetonka and the navigable channel to Lost Lake. The proposed addition is conforming to the shoreline setback to the south of 50 feet. All of the existing structure are encroaching into the required setbacks, however they are very well maintained and are not likely to be removed at this time. The DNR/State Rule (6115.330)states, in part, that structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to adjoining setbacks provided the proposed building site is not located in the 25 foot shore impact zone. The proposed addition encroaches I foot into the shore impact zone. The existing garage on this parcel and the existing dwelling on the parcel to the east are both setback less than the proposed addition to the channel and are not likely to be removed, and RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request due to practical difficulty, with the following Findings of Fact: 1. Unique circumstances apply to this property due to the fact that it abuts a channel that is not the main body of the lake and therefore the visual impact from the lake is less. The proposed addition is conforming to the 50 foot setback to the main body of the lake. This property abuts a private commons area or green space, and when considered reduces the impact of the nonconforming impervious surface. Mueller noted that there are very few other properties within Mound that are located on channels and have this unique type of property. Also, the use of the channel will not be hindered, and the view will not be further restricted as the existing garage is already closer to the channel than the proposed expansion. Voss commented that he does not have a problem with the addition as it does not encroach closer to the channel than the existing garage. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the Findings of Fact. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 12, 1994. 6 Planning Commission Mlnutts April 11, 1994 CASE #94-18: LARRY & CHRISTINE HAUSKIN$, 1749 BLUEBIRD LANE. LOTS 13& 14, BLOCK 9. DRF, AMWOOD. PID #13-117-2424 0005, VARIANCE FOR PORCH & DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and to allow the construction of a three season porch over a portion of the existing deck area. This property received a previous variance in 1990 allowing the existing conditions. The proposed porch will follow the same 9.1 foot setback to the rear lot line where a 15 foot setback is required, resulting in a 5.1 foot variance. A portion of the existing deck will be removed and this will actually improve the impact to the rear by 3.1 feet. The applicant has explored other options and whether the expansion could be placed in another area without encroaching, however, due to the odd shape of the lot, the positioning of the house to gain lake views and the interior floor plan layout, in their opinion, it was not possible. It is difficult to find hardship in this case, however, there does appear to be a basis for a finding of practical difficulty due to the shape of the lot, aesthetics of the lake view, and the fact that this addition will add to the use and function of the property. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with the following findings of fact: A practical difficulty exists due to the shape of the lot, and functional and aesthetic concerns. 2. The proposed addition will enhance the owners use and function. Mueller expressed a concern that the proposed porch would obstruct the view of the lake for the house on Lot 17. Staff confirmed that the owner of Lot 17 did not receive notification of this request. It was confirmed that the setback to the top of the bluff is okay. Larry Hauskins, applicant, stated that he has talked with his neighbors and they have no problem with the proposed porch. Mueller suggested that the owners of Lot 17 be notified prior to this case being reviewed by the City Council. It was noted that trees could be planted which would block their view to the lake, and there is no ordinance against this. Voss stated that he fails to see a practical difficulty. MOTION made by Voss to recommend denial of the variance application due to lack of a practical difficulty. Motion seconded by Mueller. Jensen commented that this is a difficult case, and that she sees no hardship, but questioned if there is a practical difficulty. Hauskins stressed that the porch will be constructed over an existing deck and it will not encroach any further, it will add value to the house and will be a nice addition. He noted that in 1990 he was allowed to add a second story to his house with a 9.1 foot setback, why should this not be approved? 7 Planning Commission Minutes Apr~ 11, 1994 MOTION to deny carried 5 to 1. Those in favor of denial were: Mueller, Weitand, Michael, Jensen, and Voss. Bird opposed. Bird commented that she is new to the Commission, but she sees the addition as an improvement, it will increase the value of the home, and if there is no objection from the neighbors it should be approved. This case was scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994, however, at the applicant's request it will be reviewed at the May 10, 1994 meeting. ~ DON BONNICK~EN FOR CHRIS KULENKAMP, 4531 DORCHESTER ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 13. AVALON, PID #1~)-117-2331 0135. VARIANCE FOR PORCH & DECK~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for variances to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks requiring the following variances: 1 ) a 16.5 foot variance to the front yard for the accessory building, and 2) a 6.5' rear yard setback variance for the house. A fully conforming 12' x 16' four season porch and 6' x 10' deck is proposed. The existing nonconforming status of his property has been recognized by a previous variance, Resolution 891-99. This is a unique property where, technically, the front yard is Tuxedo Blvd., but the house faces Dorchester Road and also uses this as its access. The placement of the house and other buildings serve the property well and is functional. Strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommends approval due to the fact that strict application of the ordinance creates an undue hardship in this case. This property is an unusual case with the configuration of the abutting land on Tuxedo Blvd. and the fact that the house fronts on Dorchester that is technically the side yard. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Bird, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. CASE #94-20; JANIS & JOSEPH GEFFRE AND PATRICK & CHRISTINE FURLONG. 5028 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOTS 8.9. 10. SKARP & MNDQUIST'S GLEN ARBOR, PID #13-117-24 42 0015. MINOR SUBDIVISION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create sites for two new homes. Parcel I has an area of 10,831 square feet, and Parcel 2 has an area of 10,796 square feet. Both of these lots exceed the 6,000 square foot lot size requirement of the R-lA zone. No variances are being requested as part of the proposed subdivision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision subject to conditions: 8 Planning Commission Minutts /Ipril 11, 1994 All structures shall maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the delineated top of bluff line as shown on the Certificate of Survey dated March 28, 1994 as prepared by Frank R. Cardarelle. The existing house and deck structure shall be removed prior to the filing of the approval resolution, or as an alternative, the applicant shall post a suitable security with the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to demolish the structures and restore the site. Other than removal of the existing deck and related restoration, additional filling or grading within the bluff area shall be expressly prohibited, unless it is done in accordance with the provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance. Filling related to the removal of the deck structure will require a grading and filling permit. The application for said permit shall be accompanied by a landscaping restoration plan for the area. The applicant shall submit a revised survey identifying existing sanitary sewer lines, watermains, and existing and proposed services. Said survey shall be submitted prior to the filing of the approval resolution. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City including the following: 1) a five (5) foot width along all side lot lines, and 2) a ten (10) foot width along both the front and rear lot lines. The applicant shall prepare and have the City review the above described easements, prior to the filing of the approval resolution. The easement documents shall be filed concurrently with the approval resolution. Costs associated with the review on the part of ~he City and in recording the easements shall be paid by the applicant. Sanitary sewer and water services for Parcel I shall be installed prior to the filing of the approval resolution or as an alternative, a suitable security shall be posted with the City of Mound in an amount sufficient to ensure their installation. One deficient street unit charge shall be paid in the amount of $1,828.15 prior to release of the approval resolution. Park dedication fees in the amount of $1,000 ($500/lot)shall be paid for Parcels 1 and 2 prior to release of the approval resolution. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mu,liar, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. CASE #94-21: WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT. INC. ! FINA 0IL & CHEMICAL COMPANY, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD.. PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 22 0025. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND MOVING BUILDING PERMIT; PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Ko,gl,r, reviewed his report relating to this application. The Westonka Intervention Project is proposing to acquire the Fina gas station site at the corner of Commerce I lt,7 9 Ii, i I~ ,I, ,I t~, I n p/~ Corem/ss/o# M/m~ Blvd. end Three Points Blvd. They intend to move the convent building now located at Our Lake of the Lake Church to the old gas station site and remodel the structure as a shelter for victims of domestic abuse. This shelter would generally serve the Lake Minnetonka Area. The shelter will have a capacity of 15 (victims and children) and a staff component of 3 to 5, depending on need. The purpose of the shelter is to supply short term housing for victims of domestic abuse. When a domestic abuse situation occurs, the police department calls a volunteer advocate associated with the Westonka Intervention Project. The advocate transports the victim and family members to the shelter where they typically remain for 12 to 48 hours. After that time, most victims return to their own homes. It is expected that the shelter will typically operate at 70 to 75 percent of capacity. The Fina gas station site is located in the B-1 zone which does not allow the proposed use. Correspondingly, the applicant is seeking a zoning ordinance amendment to allow the use by conditional use permit. The application also seeks approval of the conditional use permit as well as a permit to move the structure. Therefore, in order for the structure to be moved to the proposed site and operated as a shelter, three separate approvals are required. These approvals include the following: Z0nina Amendment. In order for the proposed shelter to be moved and operated at the proposed location a zoning amendment will be required. The applicant seeks to modify the Zoning Code by adding "Community Residential Facilities" as a conditional use in the B-1 zone. This use is currently allowed by CUP in the R-3 zone. By definition, community residential facilities are uses that are licensed by the State. Accordingly, State Statutes contain provisions accommodating such uses within multiple family areas. Provisions in the Statute supersede local zoning controls. In this case, however, since the facility is not licensed, Statute provisions do not apply.' As a result, Mound is not compelled to approve the request based on a higher authority. Since the proposed shelter is not a community residential facility, it can only be relocated if the City is willing to modify the current zoning of the property to accommodate the proposed use in some manner. One method would be to specifically add "Domestic Abuse Victim Shelters" to the list of allowable uses by issuance of a conditional use permit. This would allow the use providing a conditional use permit could be obtained. ~onditional U~e Permit. The second component of the Westonka Intervention Project's application is the issuance of a conditional use permit. Obviously, this cannot occur without a modification of the current Zoning Code. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the shelter is subject to the criteria that is contained in Section 350:525 of the Mound Zoning Code. Movin~i of Buildinqs Permit. Section 330:25 of the Mound City Code requires a permit for any building that is to be moved. The ordinance requires that the structure be improved to meet all current building, plumbing, heating, and electrical code requirements. The ordinance also requires that the building to be relocated be "of the same general character and appearance as other buildings or structures in the vicinity". Relocation of the Our Lady of the Lake Convent building and its remodeling as a shelter will require issuance of a Moving of Buildings Permit consistent with the code requirements. 10 Plannln~ Comm~ion Minu~es April 11~ Koegler further commented on the zoning change, displacement of potential business, environmental concerns, building compatibility, the site plan, and land use compatibility/security measures. RECOMMENDATIQN Despite the fact that this case involves three separate approvals, the decision essentially becomes one of, "Is the proposed shelter (including the building) an appropriate use of the Fina Property?" If the answer to this question is no, further review of the issues is not required. If the Planning Commission is inclined to answer yes to this questions, a number of issues need to be addressed. If the proposed shelter is deemed to be an acceptable use of the Fina property, staff has concerns about specific details of the project. The main focus of the concern involves the appearance of the building. Issuance of a building moving permit requires a finding that the structure is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Since the surrounding properties contain a mixture of land uses including commercial structures as well as single and multi-family residential buildings, character is somewhat subjective and difficult to define. In the opinion of staff, however, the plain facade of the building is a significant issue and in its present form, the building would not enhance the general appearance in the area. Relocation of the building will require a number of improvements to comply with applicable codes. These improvements will principally impact the interior, rather than the exterior of the building. It is possible that these improvements will require the services of a registered architect to address code compliance issues. An architect may be able to suggest exterior modifications that would improve the appearance of the structure. Such modifications combined with appropriate landscaping could significantly improve the appearance of the existing building. The decision that must ultimately be reached by the Planning Commission needs to focus on the land use compatibility, zoning development and aesthetic issues that the project raises. As a result, two primary options are available. They are: The Planning Commission could determine that the proposed use is inappropriate in the commercial zone and/or it is incompatible with surrounding land uses and deny the request to modify the current Zoning Code. Findings of fact would need to accompany such an action. The Planning Commission could determine that the proposed use is appropriate on the Fina site and could approve the rezoning, conditional use permit and building moving permit subject to specific conditions that could be identified. If this action is favored, the Planning Commission will need to identify issues that need to be addressed as part of an approval action. Utilizing the Commission's list of issues, staff can prepare a supplementary report, either to be brought back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting to be taken directly to the City Council for their consideration. The report could contain written conditions that cover each of the identified topics. Suggested issues include, but are not limited to: 11 Planning Commission Minutes · 4P~ 11, 1994 Expansion of the proposed parking area preparation of a landscaping plan preparations of a plan for improvement of the exterior of the building; this could include required participation by a registered architect Submittal of an updated survey drawing Submittal of a grading, drainage and utility plan Compliance with MPCA requirements Submittal of security plans and additional operational information about the shelter Discussion Mueller clarified that another public hearing will be held by the City Council. Time line for approval was discussed. The Building Official commented that he has discussed with the Church the possibility of temporarily moving the convent building onto the parking lot on the church building which would still require a moving building permit and a public hearing, or a variance to Section 300 of the City Code. Regarding the site being "safe" according to the Pollution Control Agency (PCA), Koegler noted that eventually they will issue a letter to clear the site of contaminates, and this is not likely to happen this summer. Koegler asked the PCA if there is any reason why the City should not issue a building permit for some type of building activity on this property, and they answered "no". Mueller questioned if the height of the building has been confirmed to meet the code requirements. ross commented, as a person in the law enforcement occupation, that there is definitely a need for this type of a shelter in this area. He emphasized for all the people present at the meeting, that if this proposal fails, it should fail on the zoning aspects and the compatibility of the use of this land, not for the concerns of security. He did some informal research and contacted Inspector Morris of the Minneapolis Police Department and in charge of Domestic Abuse Division, and he stated there has never been a report of any abusers coming to any shelters; Carol Arthur with Domestic Intervention and she said this is no a concern and has never been a concern; Mary Uonteon(?) of Home Free and stated this was not a concern there also. It does not appear there is a problem with the abuser coming into the neighborhood or into an area where the victims are held. He suggested that staff do some more research in this area to come up with more statistics that could calm the fears of the citizenry. He does not feel that this is a proper use for this land, or believe it is compatible, but he does not want to see this issue fail due to security concerns. The shelter is needed, however, maybe it should not be located there. Koegler commented that Voss' comments echo the conversations he had with the Hopkins and Minnetonka's Police Departments. He believes that records from other cities could be made available at the request of Chief Harrell. Jensen questioned if the building would also be required to meet ADA codes. Koegler believed these codes would apply. Jensen questioned if the applicant's are aware of the tax implications. 12 Planning Commiss~n Minutes Al~ril 11, 1994 Chair Michael opened the public headng. Dan Hessburg, representative for the Westonka Intervention Project, came forward and addressed the City Planner's Report. He clarified that a victim is not taken to the shelter while the assailant is on the loose. The victim is never taken from the site of the incident unless there is an arrest made. So the victim is then transported by an advocate to the shelter. The victims remain in the shelter until a restraining order is obtained, which is typically overnight. When the conditions at home are considered safe, the victim is then returned by an advocate. The assailants do come from our community and from our neighborhoods and he would assume it is just as safe on the streets. In reference to staff's recommendation, Hessburg commented on the following: Expansion of the proposed parking area: At the time of application they were undecided relating to this issue, at any given time there will only be 3 to 5 employees/cars. There is plenty of room for adequate parking. preparation of a landscaping plan: He apologized for not having a plan due to the proposed location being changed at the last minute. They will develop complete plans as needed if the application is approved by the Planning Commission. preparations of a plan for improvement of the exterior of the building; this could include required participation by a registered architect: They have at their service a registered architect, Dan Brewer, who will work with the City to make the building suitable for that location. Submittal of an updated survey drawing: Mark Gronberg, will upon approval, do an updated survey. Submittal of a grading, drainage and utility plan: Will be prepared. Compliance with MPCA requirements: From his last conversation with Fina Oil, the wells are to be monitored through the end of the year. To-date the test reports have been more than satisfactory. A copy of the reports are on their way from Fina at this time. Submittal of security plans and additional operational information about the shelter: The organization has been operating as a volunteer group for the last ten years in Mound, and it will be taken over by a professional staff, and most likely as a satellite to one of the existing shelters. The security will be whatever the other existing shelters are presently using. He has never seen bars on any other shelters. He has checked with other shelters and he has not found any incidents over the last ten years of any problems with the operation of the shelters. Ovestions oosed to Dan Hessbura by the Commission Q: Are there funds available to improve the exterior appearance of the building, including landscaping? A: $40,000has already been donated, and more donations coming. The shelter has already received approval from the Minnesota Department of Corrections and the Department of Human Services for on-going funding of a budget that is in excess of $300,00. 13 Planning Commission Minutet Aprill~ 1994 Q: Are there three stories? A: The height of the structure is about 30 feet, and when it is on the new foundation will only be about 28 feet in height. The third story is only attic area and there is no intention of completing it at this time. Dan Brewer, Architect, confirmed the convent building height will be conforming, Q: What other sites have you looked at in the area, and why did you choose this site? A: They looked at approximately 20 sites around the community and they talked to people in the areas being considered. There was an opposition for people to have it right in the middle of a standard residential area. There was one site strongly considered in a residential area, however, the moving company said it was impossible to move it there due to site conditions. Both the Chief of Police of Mound and Minnetrista believe this site to be easily accessible, it is open and exposed. This site only abuts a residential zone on one side, and with the property design and modification of the exterior, this building should fit the area well. Their plan is to buffer the house from Three Points, the residence to the rear and the residence to the south. The road access is to be off of County Road 110. Public Comments Harlan Pvc~men. 1781 Jones Lane, recognizes the need for the facility, but he questions the location. Concerned about safety of the small children staying at the shelter and crossing busy Three Points Blvd. to get to the PDQ. Questioned if there would be a limitation on what this facility could be used for, can you restrict that it be used only by victims of domestic abuse? what will prevent this facility from being used for the housing of sexual deviants or drug offenders? Koegler confirmed that without further permits being obtained by the City, this property can only be used for a shelter for victims of domestic abuse. Steve Burke¥, 1768 Lafayette Lane. President of Driftwood Shores Homeowner~ Association which is located just east of the proposed site. The Association members are concerned about security and increase in traffic. Their Association has an outlot consisting of boat slips and an island picnic area connected to the shore by a dock which is accessible from Lafayette Lane. They are opposed to any facility that will jeopardize the security of the neighborhood. Kethryn Welboarn. 1747 Lafayette Lane, posed some questions to Mr. Hessburg, as follows: Q: Is this a State licensed facility? A: No. For the last 10 years the shelter has been operated by volunteers, it has been their goal to eventually have a professionally operated shelter. This shelter will be staffed by professionals. Q: Define professional, are these people licensed? A: The professionals are college accredited individuals with backgrounds in the field; State certified social workers 14 Planning Commission Minutes Al~ril 11, 1994 Q: Who makes the rules? A: Rules are set out by the Minnesota Department of Corrections and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The shelter will meet their criteria if professionally staffed. C. Welboarn explained that she has worked for MCC Behavioral Care for about 10 years now, and from the mental health problems she has worked with in her position, she can say that there are clinical reports confirming there has been a number of issues where the perpetrators show up at the places to get at the victims. Also, through an unproffesional survey by her with three psychologists, and through clinical reports, the security issue has been a problem. From the administrative side of this issue, she says there has been security and safety problems. Most centers are located in obscure areas and there is a reason for this because of safety problems and because you want to protect the victim. The gateway on the north side to Mound is not the best location. LyI0 Fuller, Secretary of Port Harri~Qn T~)wnh9me Association, has concerns relating to the zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and who is going to own the building after the responsibility is transferred, this needs to be clarified. He commented on Mr. Hessburg's statement regarding the funding they have available, and he understands the fiscal situation of budgets and questions what would happen to this facility and project if the funding goes away. He questioned if this is a tax-exempt corporation, he feels the City would be remiss if this property came off the tax roles. ADA requirements could raise hidden costs that could become an issue. He would also like to see a traffic study and he questioned if the Fire Marshal has looked at the ingress and egress on this property. Also, Hennepin County should look at the ingress and egress as this is no longer a Fina Station. He would also like to see information on watershed/water retention on this site. Environmental issues relating to the contaminated soil should be pursued. The removal of the contaminated soil was not done in 1990, it was done in the last 6 to 9 months. His neighbors have said that at times they get a fuel oil smell up into their basement probably through back-up and percolation through the soil. Also, across from their property there is a creek that many times has fuel oil glossiness on top flowing into the lake. He recommends more research before this project is allowed to be moved forward. He is in favor of denial of this application as outlined in staff's recommendation, Option #1. Steve Coleman of 5545 Three Points Blvd., which is the adjacent single family dwelling located east of the proposed site. He expressed a concern about the fencing or buffering to be proposed and wants to know how it is going to fit into the neighborhood. Richard Garozzo, 1772 Laf{~vette Lane, expressed the following concerns: Number of people to be housed could result in 2 to 3 trips daily. Location too close to an elementary school. Concerned about appearance of building on the site, could give prison. 15 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 19~4 The number of occupants seems to be high, too many people in a small area, too dense. More investigation is needed, and he feels the application is being pushed through too fast...~ Hessburg stated that they have been searching for a location for about nine months. Mueller questioned what would be a good location of the site. The land located next to the SuperAmerica was suggested. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, for the Planning Commission to vary from their Work Rules and allow the meeting to continue until 11:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Georae Gulso, 1635 County Road 11 O, questioned how many residents present were in favor of the request. The show of hands indicated that 95%(+/-) were not in favor of the proposal. Brian Schebler. 1759 Lafayette Lane, is opposed to the structure for aesthetic reasons, he does not feel it fits well with the area. Sue Schebler. 1759 Lafayette Lane, is also opposed due to security concerns, and the character of the house. Bernie and JoAnn Boeser, 1735 Lafayette Lane stated that they did not receive a notice, and they are concerned about what will happen to their property value. Craiq Goodrich. 1776 Lafayette Lane, had lunch today with a police sergeant, who told him to expect late night deliveries, and traffic in the middle of the night. He is concerned about the resale of his home, and the fact that he would have to disclose that there is a safehouse nearby. Raloh M~Millan. 1822 Commerca Blvd., is opposed to having the shelter in this location. He questioned Father Mike Tegeder of Our Lady of the Lake Church if the church is involved in this issue. Father Mike stated that they are involved in that they currently own the convent and will donate the building to the Westonka Intervention organization. Is the church's involvement done after the building is gone? The Westonka Intervention Program will still receive support from the parish. There is not a specific budget item for this program. They may help support landscaping or items like that. He stated that he is in favor of finding a good location for the shelter in the Mound area. Jon Lvnott. 4561 Manchester RQa(I, is a volunteer Domestic Abuse Advocate. Due to the busy nature of Three Points Blvd., he does not see this shelter as having a large impact on the already busy traffic. He stressed that this shelter will be used for "very temporary" housing for victims. The assailant will be in custody while the victim is placed in the shelter. He suggested that those concerned about security contact advocates of other shelters. 16 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1994 ~ further commented that the building does not meet the "general character and appearance as other buildings or structures in the vicinity" as stated in the City Code. He read a letter from a neighbor who was unable to attend, this individual also opposed for reasons already stated. Chair Michael summarized comments from the Citizens. ~ further commented that the needs for a shelter are currently being taken care of through other means, so if request is denied, the needs will still be taken care of by other means. ~JQAnn B0ese_r, further questioned who would maintain the property once the landscaping and building is established. Mueller verbally summarized a letter received from Michaela Diercks who is not in favor of the shelter. Dan Brewer, architect for the project, explained that he was asked to look at the structure to see if it would be appropriate to be used for housing and it was determined that it was. Also, as to how it would look on this particular site. Using the existing siding and trim, this building could look like a typical New England salt box, and these types of houses are all over this area. It would be possible to make this building look like a typical residence. The size of the building is currently exaggerated because it is located on top of a knoll and it is very plain. As far as ADA, it does have to meet all the ADA and UBC requirements. There is a problem with the second floor access which will have to be reviewed. Chair Michael hereby suspended the public hearing to allow for the option of re-opening the hearing at a subsequent meeting, if necessary. Mueller recommended that the City Council not set the public hearing for May 10, 1994at this time, as this may pressure the Commission to make a quick and hasty decision. MOTION made by Voss to table this item until the April 25, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting in order to allow the applicant to gather more information, including, but not limited to, detailed information on how the structure will fit in the neighborhood, and additional reports addressing security concerns, specifically, information acquired by the Mound Police Chief that he can obtain from other cities relating to the frequency of calls to existing shelters. Motion seconded by Mueller. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller added that he would like to see the reports from the MPCA due to arrive relating to the FINA property, and a report from the Fire Marshal. The Building Official commented that he would like to see an assessment of needs by the architect relating to how the building complies to the Building Code, ADA, and Accessibility. This could bring to the surface any unforeseen expenditures, i.e. if an elevator is required it may not be a feasible project. 17 Planning ~mmiss~n Minutes Ap~ 11, 1994 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 18 h(nn(pin human re(vice# w.st hennepin human services planning board 4100 vernon avenue south, st. louis park, minnesota 55416 920-5533 RECEIVED TO: Board Members FROM: Marcy Shapiro Enclosed is a thank you for your contribution as a volunteer on the Board of Directors. This is to express our gratitude for your volunteer work as a Board member of West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. Also enclosed is a memo outlining the steps to implementing the name change to Suburban Alliance. Please review it. May 16th is the date we complete the transition to using the new name. I'd also like to remind you of the party for Logan Sommers on Thursday, April 28, 1994 from 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. at the West Hennepin Human Services office. Please bring a snack to share. Hope to see you then. Volu t ' n eers, Minnesota's Magic VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK APRIL 17-23 1994 TO: Board Members We are ever grateful to you for the MAGIC you bring to West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. We recognize your contribution of time, talent and energy as a volunteer! We hope your work meant as much to you as it does to us. Thanks... The staff of West Hennepin Human I Services Planning Board' ~' w(~t hennepin human scrvic(~ ~OM: west hennepin human services planning board 4100 vernon avenue south, st. louis park, minnesota 55416 920-5533 BOARD MEMBERS, VOL~ STAFF MARCY SHAPIRO O~ ~WNAME FIIlionce On May 16, 1994 our name will officially change to SUBURBAN Al .1 .lANCE! We've been working on this project for nearly two years and have made several announcements so far to let people know about the change. The 20th Aniversary celebration book includes a story about th e name change and the current issue of HELPING HANDS newsletter features the change, as well. Now we need to change the greeting when we answer the phone, get new stationary and business cards, and send notices to all our m_ailln$ lists. In order for this transition to proceed smoothly we've developed a plan to let all our constituencies know that we're going to change our name. I've summarized the procedures below so you'll know what's going to happen, and when. A press release covering the name change will be sent to the suburban newspapers and other appropriate media by May 1. A post card with our new name and logo will be sent to approximately 5,000 people and organizations on our master mailing lists on May 6. 3. Stationary, cards, etc. will be available by Friday, May 13. Name change kits (20th Anniversary books, large poster, press release and name change card) will be sent to our network of fellow human services agencies and municipal offices the week of May 9-13. n I [ I, ,I ,,1~, i ii A reminder notice will be sent to all staff and volunteers, poster-type notices will be displayed around the office areas on Friday, May 13. On Monday, May 16, we'll start answering the phones "Suburban Alliance", and start using the new stationary and business cards. 7. We'll continue to print "West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board" on staionary and selected printed materials for about a year as people get used to the change. Tom Williams is helping out with the mechanical parts to this transition. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask him, TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 18, 1994 RECEIVED 1 g Lake Access Task Force and Interested Parties Task Force Chair James N. Grathwol~~ Draft Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force At the last Lake Access Task-Force meeting May 12, 1993, the Task Force directed that a report be drafted. The LMCD Lake Access Committee, the MN DNR and LMCD staff have all contributed to this draft report. The draft report is ready at this time for comment of the current Lake Access Task Force spokespersons. Interested parties may also comment. A meeting for public review of the draft report is set for: 7:00 pm, Wednesday, May 11, 1994 Norwest Bank Building Conference Room 135 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata Handicapped entrance on Wayzata Blvd. west entrance Task Force member cities and participating agencies will have an opportunity following this meeting to offer additional comment. Following an appropriate comment period, to be determined by the Lake Access Task Force spokes persons, a meeting of the Task Force will be called to consider final report acceptance. I want to thank each of you for the many hours of work you have put into this project. Your contributions have made this report possible. I believe we can take pride in the policy recommendations contained in the report. City and agency spokespersons are asked to please confirm their attendance by calling the LMCD, 473-7033, by May 9. Please bring the enclosed report for discussion purposes. ! look forward to thanking you personally on May 11. !11 , · J, ,I I , It I1 III DI:L/~T RECEIVED REPORT OF THE 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE To The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District DRAFT COPY April 15,1994 DRAFT DRAFT 1992 LMCD Lake Minnetonka Access Task Forc~ Report Rcvis~l Draft 4-15-1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 1 History and Background .................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................ 5 Task Force Goals ........................................................................... 5 Existing Access ............................................................................. 6 Goal of 700 Car/Trailer Parking Spaces ..................................................... 6 Elimination of Street Car/Trailer Parking .................................................... 7 Parking Standards for Car/Trailer Parking ................................................... 7 Parking Inventory ........................................................................... 8 Parking Agreements and DNR Cost Sharing ................................................. 9 New Access Sites .......................................................................... 10 Equitable Distribution ...................................................................... 10 Marina Potential for Lake Access .......................................................... 10 Proceedings Summary ........................................................................................................ 11 Acknowledgments ......................................................................... 11 DRAFT DRAFT , LI Revised Dral~ 4-15-1994 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Access to Lake Minnetonka via riparian homeowners, commercial marinas, yacht clubs, out lot docks, and municipal docks primarily for non-riparian property owners is significant in quantity and percent of overall access and generally of high quality. There is a lack of quality, free, reliable car/trailer parking for boats wanting to access Lake Minnetonka via boat launch ramps. There is not a lack of poor quality fi-ce car/trailer parking. Currently, there are over 700 spaces used on the busiest days. Poor quality parking results in residents complaining about boater's intrusive behavior and excessive traffic congestion. It results in extreme fi'ustration by boaters over the lack of a decent place to park to go boating on Lake M'lnnetonka This generates tension between the local community interest and the car/trailer boater interest. Ir'the car/trailers currently parked near the lake could be put in well organized places with adequate, safe parking conditions with car/trailer tumarounds, the local communities would benefit from reduced congestion and less intrusion on their neighborhoods. The task force reaffirmed the conclusions of two prior studies that 700 high quality, free, reliable car/trailer parking spaces are fair and reasonable for Lake l~fmnetonka and are achievable. The Task Force concluded that when quality free reliable car/trailer parking spaces are provided in a zone, ali other street car/trailer parking ought to be closed in that zone with enforced "no car trailer parking signs" Because over 700 car/trailer spots are used today, providing 700 quality free, reliable, car/trailer spaces will not increase the number of boats on the lake but actually create a modest reduction. Every other year, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is to certify (LMCD) Coy count) and publish on a map showing the locations and the number of fi'ce, reliable, car/trailer parking spaces that meet the standards established by this task force. Car/trailer parking meeting the physical standards noted elsewhere in this report will be certifiable by the LMCD as counting toward the 700 goal on the following basis. a. 100% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There is a parking agreement OR · The street or remote parking is posted "car/trailer only" b. 80% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There are signs at the launch ramp showing where to park. · There are street signs pointing out the direction to the launch ramp · The ramp and parking location can be put on an access map. c. 60% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · none of the above conditions are met DRAFT Page 1 DRAFT d. The LMCD will work cooperatively with the cities, Hennepin County, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to replace spaces should they be lost for car trailer parking. 10. Existing ramps without turnarounds that require backing car/trailers offbusy county roads or city streets should be closed only after a quality facility meeting the standards has been completed to replace it. 11. To achieve the goal of 700 car/trailer parking spaces cooperation is needed a. Additional parking agreements are needed for as many existing sites as possible. This may include payments by the DNR under cooperative agreements. b. Some street and remote lots need "car/trailer only" signs. c. Signs need to be placed at launch ramps showing where to park. d. Street signs need to be installed showing direction to the ramps. e. The LMCD and the DNR need to negotiate with some commercial marinas to provide free car/trailer parking for the public that can be certified. Negotiations may include payments by the DNR and/or other incentives by the LMCD. f. Make ready docks need to be installed at ramps where remote car/trailer parking is used. g. New access sites (launch ramps) need to be developed with the cooperation of the local cities, the LMCD, the DNR, and with other agencies of government. The majority of funding ought to come from regional and/or state sources. Cities are not usually expected to pay a significant portion of improved car/trailer parking even though their local community may benefit. The 1993 LMCD Car/Trailer Parking Inventory Total In Use that Meet Total 1992 Total in the Additional Total In Current and Total in Use that Reliability Future Use and Potential Use o~: Meets the: Standard & Planned Pla~n~n_ed Parking Space Car/Trailer AvailablePhysical LMCD to be LMCD Categories Inventory Today' Standard Certified Certified Certified In Access Lots 360 259 239 239 124 363 In Remote lots 93 93 70 43 27 70 On the Street 282 215 114 97 17 83 GRAND TOTAL 735 567 423 379 168 :516 13. For the new public access at Maxwell Bay successful cooperation with Orono and additional regional or state funding will be required. 14. Car/trailer access must be distributed equitably around the lake. When a community can not provide access, that community needs to help fund accesses in neighboring communities. Communities without access may be asked to pay an equitable share for maintenance to communities with car/trailer parking. DRAFT ?age 2 DRAFT 1~2 L/VI~L) LaKe/Vl~nn¢lOZlJtR A~ ItsK 1'01"~ Kt'port KCVlS~, ~ HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Launch ramps and car-trailer parking at Lake lVfmnetonka have been under discussion for many years. The Minnesota State Constitution states that the waters of the state will be free and open to the public. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in response to the Outdoor Recreation Act 1975 (Minnesota Statue 86A~01-11) established a policy ~o "provide free and adequate public access to all of /vfinnesota's lakes consistent with demand and resource capabilities". This policy has been carried out throughout the state, usually with the cooperation of the local community which usually sees a launch ramp with flee car/trailer parking as a benefit. To obtain this free access, the DNR set policies for what constitutes reliable, free car/trailer parking. The DNK attempts to utilize the following guidelines: 1. One car/trailer parking space for every 20 acres of lake surface Lake 1Wmnetonka's 14,000 acres requires a minimum of 700 spaces. 2. Ramps with remotes lots must have signs showing where to park the car/trailer. 3. There must be street signs on major roads near the ramp showing the direction to the ramp. 4. Car/trailer parking spaces must be in sight and less than 1500 feei fi'om the launch ramp. 5. Street or remote lot parking doesnk count. 6. Car/trailer parking spaces must be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 7. Car only spots for car-top boats don't count. 8. Parking must be free except in parks where the same fee is charged all park users. Because the DNR did not recognize existing car/trailer parking spaces that did not meet their standards they determined that there were only 143 car/trailer parking spaces on Lake 1Wmnetonka. They published information and testified before various bodies that there were only 143 car/trailer parking spaces for Lake 1Wmnetonka when there should be 700 minimum according to their standard of one per twenty acres. People outside the lake area communities got the impression that the Lake area was trying to keep people off "their lake" so they could keep it for themselves. The DNR continued to pursue a policy of trying to obtain launch ramps and car/trailer parking on Lake l~fmneto~. On the other hand, the local lake area communities believed counts showing 1,000 to 1,200 empty trailers attached to cars parked around the lake on the nice weekend days. They claimed there were substantially more than the 700 car/trailer parking spaces and the lake didn~ need any more car/trailer parking. In fact, they claimed that the boats off.the trailers were the major cause of the increased crowding on the lake. What followed was more than a decade of struggles between the DNR and the local Lake Minnetonka communities over launch ramps and free car/trailer parking. In 1982, the DNR announced plans to purchase property at King's Point to develop a launch ramp with free car/trailer parking that met their standards. The local communities claimed 1,200 car/trailer spaces existed and vigorously objected to the DNR plan. In 1983, an appeal to the governor resulted in the launch ramp project being canceled and a Governor's Access Study Commission being appointed to study access on Lake Minnetonka. (The King's Point launch ramp was built in 1987). The commission issued a report that: 1. Public parking availability is a crucial component of adequate boat launch facilities. 2. 700 car/trailer parking spaces is fak and reasonable for Lake Minnetonka. 3. Equitable distribution of car/trailer parking around the lake is desirable. 4. Parking standards for Lake Minnetonka may need to be adjusted. DRAFT Pase 3 DRAFT After the report was issued, there was no rush to build the 700 car/trailer parking places by any body or agency. The lake area communities believed there were more than the 700 car/trailer parking spaces called for in the report and the lake didn~ need another 700. They questioned why the local communities should pay to build car/trailer parking for people outside their area, even though community residents were also users. Because of the lack of action in providing for the needed car/trailer parking, the Metropolitan Council did another lake access study in 1986. It confirmed the 700 car/trailer parking space amount as being a fair and reasonable number. In 1987, as a result of no action in providing ear/trailer parking spaces and no plans to build them, the Metropolitan Council told the LMCD that they would seek state legislative action for a regional or state agency to take over governing of Lake Minnetonka to be assured the car/trailer parking was provided, unless the LMCD prepared a formal plan showing how the car/trailer parking would be accomplished. The LMCD believed the car/trailer parking could not be considered without developing an overall long range management plan for the lake that would include adequate free car/trailer parking. The LMCD Management Plan was published at the end of 1990 and approved in December 1991. The LMCD Management Plan which the DNR, the Metropolitan Council, the cities and many others helped develop, reaffi~ed the 700 car/trailer parking space goal as being fair and reasonable. Three additional fundamental points were discussed: 1. For Lake Minnetonka 700 parking spaces would be both the minimum and the maximum. 2. Once the 700 car/trailer spaces are established, other street car/trailer parking ought to be eliminated. The cities and the county will be encouraged to erect and enforce "no car/trailer parking" signs as long as the 700 goal continues to be met. 3. The LMCD, with assistance from the DNR, should review the existing parking quality standards to determine if some adjustments could be made for the special situation on Lake Minnetonka. In the fall of 1991, the DNR took an option on property on Maxwell Bay with the intent of developing a launch ramp with free car/trailer parking. Objections surfaced in the city ofOrono. Orono tried to persuade the DNR not to exercise its option on the property until a plan for the entire lake was developed according to the LMCD management plan. At this time, the LMCD was just beginning to organize its Access Committee. When the DNR purchased the Maxwell Bay property, the DNR commissioner wrote a letter to both the LMCD and the city of Orono. The letter stated that the DNR would postpone development of the Maxwell Bay property until a task force appointed by the LMCD developed a detailed plan for car/trailer parking for all of Lake Minnetonka. DRAFT Page 4 DRAFT a m m ,m ,~l .... ~ 1992 LMCD Lake Mirmetonka Access Task Force Report Revised Draft 4-15-1994 INTRODUCTION The Lake Access Task Force was recommended by the commissioner of the DNIL and convened by a LMCD resolution in January, 1992. The purpose of this task force was to develop a detailed plan to meet the lake access objectives in the LMCD Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD invited representatives fi.om 1. Its member cities 2. Govemmem agencies sharing responsibility for the management of Lake Minnetonka, including; the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin Parks, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and others. 3. Interested citizen's groups such as the Minnesota Sportiishing Congress (MSC), Fisherman Advocating Intelligent Regulation (FAIR), the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association (LMLOA), and others For a roster, see APPENDIX 1, page 12 Subcommittees of this group conducted detailed studies and submitted their reports to the task force. Meetings began in March of 1992 and continued through May of 1993. Staff from the LMCD and the DNR assisted. Participants gave generously of their time and support. The LMCD Lake Access Committee drafted this final report. Appendices to this report contain information to document: 1. Task Force spokespersons (ORIGINAL DESIGNEES) 2. Existing public access sites and commercial marinas (map 1) 3. Standards for car/trailer parking; 4. 1992 Current and Potential Car/Trailer Parking Inventory 5. Model Parking Agreement 6. DNR Landowner's Bill of Rights 7. DNR Accluistion Procedure 8. Access site criteria for evaluation 9. Lake Zone Map 2 10. Proceedings summary TASK FORCE GOALS The goals adopted by the 1992 Task Force were to: 1. Review all types of existing boater access to Lake Minnetonka.* 2. 33Tlrm the prior goal of 700 certifiable car/trailer parking spaces for reliable fi'ce public access to Lake Minnetonka. 3. Affirm the Management Plan goal of closing street parking to car/trailers as the 700 car/trailer parking goal is reached. 4. Establish standards for certifying car/trailer parking that meet the special needs of Lake Minnetonka and the boating public. 5. Conduct a reliable, detailed inventory of existing car/trailer parking spaces. Count potential car/trailer parking spaces. 6. Develop a model car/trailer parking agreement and obtain agreements where possible. 7. Explore prospective access sites and develop a list of sites for potential development. g. Review the principle and define equitable distribution. 9. Examine the possibility for commercial marinas to provide some flee public car/trailer parking. DRAFT Page 5 DRAFT * The focus of this Task Force was on the free public access to the lake via car/trailer parking at boat launch ramps. In the process of this study, a review was made of many other kinds of access. )see APPENDIX 2, page 13). EXISTING ACCESS The Task Force reviewed the studies done by the LMCD, DNR, task forces, 1991 and 1992 LMCD boat count, the 1992 LMLOA car/trailer count study, and the 1993 Jabbour aerial car/trailer survey. The following table categorizes access to Lake Minnetonka. Boat Storage Count and Nice Weekend In Use Boat Count by Origination 1992 Max Ave Percent Boats Percent of Boats Peak Peak of Stored Stored that are Count Use Boats at docks Active on the Water Count On the & Kacks Water Where Boats Originate (4) (1) Max Peak Avs Peak (2)(5) (3)(5) (5) Riparian Residents & Out Lots 5,973 9% 6% 530 379 29 Comm'l Marinas & Yacht Clubs 1,862 29% 21% 549 392 30 Municipal docks 1,012 33% 23% 329 235 18 Car/trailer launch ramp N/A 421 300 23 TOTAL KEF 1,829 1,306 100 1. From 1992 LMCD Boat Count adjusted by estimating empty racks & unrented slips at Commercial Marinas, Yacht Clubs, and Municipal docks 2. Single Weekend Day Peak Use Study: 1984=1836, 1986=2142, 1987=2252, 1992=1829 3. Average Weekend Peak Use Study: 1984=1318, 1986=1453, 1987=1370, 1992=1306 4. Active maximum peak use count uses estimate assuming the average peak use proportions remain constant for the maximum peak use. 5. 1992 LMCD/DNR aerial count of boats in use on nice Saturday and Sunday afternoons. GOAL OF 700 CAR/TRAILER PARKING SPACES The task force confirmed the goal of 700 reliable free car/trailer parking spaces and agreed with the goal of closing street parking to ear/trailers as the 700 car/trailer parking goal becomes established. This agrees with the 1991 LMCD Management Plan. It is compatible with the policy of one parking place for every 20 acres of water surface. It is the minimum number of spaces required under the DNR public water access program in the metropolitan area. The goal of 700 was first established by the task forces of 1983 and confirmed in the study of 1986. It is conservative, considering that the demand for boating recreation exceeds 1 parking space per 20 acres of water on most of the metropolitan area lakes. Compared to standards in other parts of the country, it is also conservative. Some states provide 1 parking space per 10 acres of water surface. DRAFT Page 6 DRAFT 1992 LMCD LaKe Mz~¢~ Access las~ l-or~ Report The Task Force considered lowering the goal. The Lake lVIinnetonka Lake Shore Owners Association (LMLOA) believes that 700 parking spaces would increase boat density and reduce the enjoyment of the lake by lakeshore users. Talcing into consideration that there are over 700 car/trailer spaces used to access the lake now, and street parking will be eliminated when the 700 goal is reached, the net effect will be fewer boats on the lake and no increases in density. Thus, the 700 goal was reaff.umed. ELIMINATION OF STREET CAR/TRAILER PARKING There was consideration in the LMCD Management Plan whereby other street car/trailer parking would be eliminated as the goal of 700 was being established, and when the 700 goal was complete, all other street parking ought to be removed as a way of limiting crowding on the lake. Task Force data made clear that currently, on a good day many more than 700 car/trailers are parked around the lake. Therefore, when the 700 goal is met and other street parking is abolished there will be a net decrease in boats on the lake from car/trailers. PARKING STANDARDS FOR CAR/TRAILER PARKING Earlier task force parking standards for quality, reliable free car/trailer parking for Lake 1VFmnetonka were reviewed. Access design, location of parking, security of personal property, and safety of boaters maneuvering their car/trailers, were among considerations discussed in reaching agreement on the physical standards. After much discussion the Task Force adopted the following physical standards: see APPENDIX 3,: pages 14 and 15: 1. 700 is a fair and reasonable number without increases in the fi~ture. 2. Car/trailer parking must be within 2000 feet of the ramp. 3. Street or remote lot car/trailer parking over 1500 feet from a ramp must have a make ready dock.. 4. 350 of the 700 spaces must be available 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. 350 must be available on weekends, and 350 may have limited hours. 5. Up to 10% of the spaces at any one ramp location may be spaces for cars only (assumes cartop boats). 6. Parking must be free except in parks where the same fee is charged all park users. 7. Ramps off.busy highways or streets must have a turnaround to prevent car/trailers from backing down fi'om busy roads. The Task Force agreed that every other year the LMCD should take a physical inventory of the actual car/trailer parking around the lake and certify the number that meet the above physical standards as well as reliability standards listed below.. Car/trailer parking space meeting the physical standards listed in APPENDIX 3 will be certifiable by the LMCD as counting toward the 700 goal on the following basis: a. 100% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There is a parking agreement OR · The street or remote parking is signed "car/trailer only" b. 80% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if: · There are signs at the launch ramp showing where to park. · There are street signs pointing out the direction to the launch ramp. · The ramp and parking locations can be put on an access map c. 60% of the street or remote lot parking spaces will count if none of the above are met. DRAFT Pase 7 DRAFT 1992 LMCD La~e Minnetonka Access Task Force Report RcWsed Draft 4-15-1994 The changes fi.om prior standards allow the Task Force greater flexibility in certifying more car/trailer parking spaces. As can be seen in this report, the number increased from 143 to 516. PARKING INVENTORY To determine the number of existing and potential car/trailer parking spaces capable of being certified to the newly adopted standards, data was gathered fi.om a variety of sources and in a number of ways. Site lists were provided by LMCD member cities. Site visits were made and aerial photographs were used. Spaces inventoried included: 1. Parking in on-site lots at existing lake access points 2. Available on-street parking within 2,000 feet 3. Off-site lots, public and private 4. Future additional committed spaces 5. Car/trailer parking spaces potentially available The total potential car/trailer parking spaces {/ertifiable to the new physical standards was 735. (The original inventory is in APPENDIX. 4 page 16). Substantially higher numbers of car/trailers are being parked fi.ce at peak times in good weather than the inventory has identified. The 1993 LMCD Car/Trailer Parking Total In Use Total 1992 Total in that Meet the Additional Total in Current andTotal Use that Reliability Future Use and Parking Space Potential In Use or Meets the Standard & Planaed Planaed Categories Car/TrailerAvailable Physical LMCD to be LMCD Inventory Today Standard Certified Certified Certified in Ac, c,~ ss North Arm 65 80 80 80 0 80 Grays Bay Gsway 37 37 17 17 0 17 Grays Bay Dam 20 20 20 20 0 20 Spring Par~ 148 86 86 86 0 86 Kings Point 0 32 32 32 0 32 Pholps Bay 10 4 4 4 0 4 Honn. Rog. Park 80 0 0 0 48 48 Maxwoll Bay N/A 0 0 0 76] 76 SUBTOTAl. 360 259 239 239 124 363 In Remote lots Carsons Bay 93 93 70 43 27 70 On the Street · North Arm 31 31 31 31 0i 0 Williams St. 40 40 40 40 0 40 Cooks Bay 110 43 43 26 17 43 Wayzata Bay 101 101 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 282 215 114 97 17 83 !GRAND TOTAl- 735 567 423 379 168 516 DRAFT Page 8 DRAFT 1992 LMCD La~e IVhnnetollga ACCESS la. sK roi'ce Fei)oFt The Task Force recognizes there is additional car/trailer parking beyond 2000 feet that is available today and not part of the above count. It, also, recognizes there are additional small launch ramps in use and available today that are not in the above count. This report adopts a new and lower inventory in an effort to be very conservative after consultation with Hermepin County and the cities. The revised total inx~entory of 516 car trailer spaces represents parking that is available now, or that can reasonably be made available on a stable long-term basis. There are approximately 379 car/trailer parking spaces currently available and that are being certified by the LMCD. Of these, approximately 282 spaces are in public access lots. An additional 97 spaces are in on-street parking sites. Approximately 168 future spaces are either committed or negotiable. Note that when Maxwell Bay is completed, 31 on street spaces will be eliminated. This results in a total of 516 potential car/trailer parking spaces that are now believed to be available or planned and which meet the new parking standards and that can be certified by the LMCD. Parking agreements need to be reached with communities, counties, agencies and private commercial marinas to convert some existing parking from uncertified to certified. PARKING AGREEMENTS AND DNR COST SHARING One result of the 1986 task force was the improvement in the process that secures parking spaces at or near existing public access sites that can be considered to be ~reliable". To make new or existing parking reliable over the years a parking agreement can be secured with the property owner that requires the car/trailer parking to remain available in place unless canceled under the agreement. If the parking spaces are lost, a good faith effort will be made to replace them with other parking spaces somewhere else. The LMCD and the DNR will assist communities to relocate them. The Task Force continued this recommendation and developed a currem model agreemem. The Lake Access Parking Agreement form and checklist for evaluating public access parking agreements are provided in APPENDIX 5, page 17-19. These agreements should be between the LMCD and the local unit of government or property owner. The DNR will assist with these agreements by providing funding where appropriate. The DNR can share cost with cities and/or agencies on access and parking facilities improvement, including land acquisition. The DNR by cooperative agreement can reimburse cities for dedicated to free car/trailer parking. The DNR Landowner's Bill of Rights describes the procedure used by the DNR in the purchase of potential access sites. The Lake Minnetonka acquisition process is the DNR commitment to work cooperatively in this area. (see APPENDIX 6 and 7 pages 20-24) The first agreement was signed in May of 1993 with the City of Minnetrista. The agreement with that city was for a total of 44 parking spaces at the following sites: 1. Williams Street in Halsteds Bay: 40 car/trailer parking spaces 2. Tuxedo Boulevard in Phelps Bay: 4 car/trailer parking spaces Other sites also have a high potential for adding to reliable parking by agreement, namely: 1. Orono: a. Hennepin County North Arm ramp and on-site lot (80 spaces) b. County Road 51, serving Hennepin County North Arm ramp (31 spaces) 2. Spring Park Bay, Spring Park, with accompanying county maintenance yard nearby in Orono (86 spaces) 3. Deephaven: a. Carsons Bay, Minnetonka Blvd. ramp with city maintenance lot (30 spaces) DRAFT Page 9 DRAFT 1992 LMGD Lake lViinnctonk~ Access Task Force Report ReVised Draft 4-15-1994 b. Carsons Bay, l~nnetonka Blvd. ramp with school lot on V'mehill Road (40 spaces) 4. Wayzata: Wayzata Bay County Road 16 ramp, County Road 16 (40 spaces) $. Mound: Mound Park Bay ramp, Cooks Bay (43 spaces) NEW ACCESS SITES The Task Force recommends the following sites as having the potential for becoming lake access sites. The Site Evaluation Criteria are provided in APPENDIX 8 page 25. Potential Sites 1. Tonka Bay City Dock, channel to Gideon's Bay 2. Timber Lane, Gideons Bay, Shorewood 3. Mai-Tai Restaurant Site, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior (,property was sold) 4. 456 ArlingWn Ave., Wayzata Bay (private residence), Wayzata $. Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, Mound 6. Lo~ Lake, Cooks Bay, Mound 7. Advance Machine, West Arm, Spring Park Grays Bay Causes, ay The unimproved substandard public access on Trunk Highway 101 will not be redeveloper as planned. This represents a setback for public access development. The 32 spaces planned for the causeway had been considered committed. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has abandoned plans to improve the site. However, Wayzata and Minnetonka are continuing discussions about improvements at the site. Max~ell Bay Up to 76 additional car/trailer parking spaces may be provided when the launch ramp is in place at Maxwell Bay, Orono. This site continues to be examined. DNR Trails & Waterways and the City of Orono are negotiating to purchase alternate properties. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Subcommittees discussed equitable distribution of car/trailer parking at Lake Mirmetonka. The principle adopted in earlier task force reports of dividing the lake into zones with equitable distribution was endorsed. (see APPENDIX 9, page 26). Each city is encouraged to contribute to the overall goal. If it cannot contribute it may be asked to make voluntary payments for maintenance to those cities who do provide car/trailer access. MARINA POTENTIAL FOR LAKE ACCESS During the summer months most marinas have relatively empty boat storage lots that have the potential for parking car/trailers if the marina has a launch ramp. Many now provide some fee based boat launching service. These marinas could possibly provide some free car/trailer parking and ramp use to the public. The operators or owners might expect some type of reimbursement. The DNR could possibly provide funding and the LMCD will cooperate. The Task Force identified six conditions and issues to be considered in determining the potential flee public access use of marinas: 1. Ability to extend existing capacity. DRAFT Page l0 DRAFT 2. Extent to which a marina already serves the public through fee paid access. (Fee paid public access does not meet the definition offi~ee and open public access.) 3. A~mde of nearby homeowners toward public access use. 4. Duration of public use, considered for a trial basis only until proven feasible. 5. Management issues, such as reserving parking for public use, and compensation to the marina owner consistent with public access operations and public policy. 6. Possible DNR funding constraints from annual operations budgets and overall cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS The Lake Access Task Force study is documented in a proceedings summary. This chronology highlights the various subcommittee, committee, and Task Force meetings which took place among city agency, and community organizations. These groups participated in the research, deliberations and consensus findings. See APPENDIX 10, pages 27-35. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study depended upon collaboration of community representatives, municipal, regional and state officials. Task force meetings provided a public platform for full discussion of access to Lake Minnetonka. Subcommittee members invested extensive volunteer hours. All participants deserve recognition. The Task force thanks every individual and organization for their comributions. DRAFT Page l l DRAFT NAME 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE DESIGNATED SPOKESPERSON (Original Appointees by Organizations) POSITION/TITLE Appendix 1 ORGANIZATION James N. Grathwol (Task Force Chair) Richard Engebretson Lucille Crow Alan M. Albrecht Ann Perry Tom Markle Wally Clevenger Skip Johnson Gabriel Jabbour Kristy Stover Jerry Rockvam Veto Haug Jerry Schmieg Barry Petit Nick Duff Tad Jude Douglas Bryant Don Germanson Thomas S. Maple Gary Larson John F. Schneider Beverly Blomberg Board Member Mayor Mayor Mayor Planning Director City Council Mayor Mayor City Council City Council Mayor Mayor Mayor City Council Mayor Commissioner Superintendent President Manager Co-Chair President Orono Resident LMCD, City of Excelsior City of Deephaven City of Excelsior City of Greenwood City of Minnetonka City of Minnetonka City of Minnetrista City of Mound City of Orono City of Shorewood City of Spring Park City of Tonka Bay City of Victoria City of Wayzata City of Woodland Hennepin County Hennepin Parks Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Associaton Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Fisherman Advocating Intelligent Regulation MN Sportfishing Congress Maxwell Bay Residents Dennis Asmussen Mike Markell Gordon Kimball Martha Reger Larry Kiilien Donald W. Buckhout Eugene R. Strommen Rachel Thibault AGENCY STAFF Director Water Recreation Supervisor Regional Supervisor Area Supervisor Regional Supervisor ADR Coordinator Executive Director Adminis. Technician MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways MN DNR Trails & Waterways State Office of Planning LMCD LMCD Page 12 I,LI X tU -d J II J~ ~ JJ I-]m~ LAKE M1NNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Existing Public Access Sites and Commercial Marinas 1 2 2A 3 4 5 6 6A 7 $ 9 10 11 12 12A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20A 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Beans Greenwood Marina* Causeway - Hwy. 101 Chapman Place Marina Cochrane Boat Yards* Crystal Bay Service* Curlys Minnetonka Marina Deephaven, City of Dennis Boats* Gayle Marina Grays Bay Access (by Dam) Grays Bay Resort & Marina Halsted Drive Access Hendrickson Bridge Access Howards Point Marina Kreslins* Kings Point Access - DNR Lakeside Marina Minnetonka Boat Rental* Minnetonka Boat Works (W) & (O)* Mound, City of North Shore Drive Marina Rockvam Boatyards Sailors World Marina Schmitts Marina* Shorewood Yacht Club & Marina* Spring Park Access Excel Marina Tonka Bay Marina Wayzata, City of Windward Marine* Tuxedo Road Access St Albans Bay Grays Bay Cooks Bay St Albans & Excelsior Crystal Bay Lower Lake South Carsons Bay Lower Lake South Maxwell Bay Grays Bay Grays Bay Halsted Bay North Arm South Upper Lake St Albans Bay Halsted Bay Maxwell Bay Harrisons Bay Wayzata,Tanager,Browns Bay Cooks Bay Maxwell Bay Coffee Cove Smiths Bay Excelsior Bay Gideons Bay Spring Park Bay St Albans Bay Lower Lake South Wayzata Bay Browns Bay Phelps Bay *No launching facilities 11/17/93 PARKING STANDARDS Appendix 3 LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES The 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force has adopted the goal of 700 long-term reliable spaces for car/trailer parking in the vicinity of present and future access sites at Lake Minnetonka. The Task Force further agrees that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) implement these standards for identifying and counting of car/trailer parking spaces and monitor progress toward the 700 goal on a continuing basis. The following set of standards has been adopted by the Task Force for application to Lake Minnetonka: All spaces must be within 2,000' of a public access point. For car/trailers parked between 1,500' and 2,000', a temporary boat mooring facility at the ramp site for a number of boats equal to 10% of the parking spaces must be provided. Ali parking locations away bom the access site should be provided with a long-term agreement, three year minimum, with five years more desirable, on file with the LMCD. Within that time availability, if any designated spaces need to be removed, they must be replaced with comparable spaces. The location of parking spaces, either off-street or on-street away from the access site, must be identified by clear, aesthetically attractive, consolidated, capable of being inexpensively updated, signage. All off-street spaces must be illustrated on a plan on file with the LMCD. The plan shall clearly indicate each car/trailer space and adequate ingress, egress and maneuvering space. Parking space minimum size standards (in feet): Vehicle only 9 X 19 (Handicapped 12 x 19) Car/trailer 10 X 40 Off-street designated trailer parking on grass is acceptable if vehicle is parked on graded/paved surface. All spaces must be available on an unrestricted, first-come-first-served basis, 700 reliable spaces will be available from Memorial Day to Labor Day from 5 pm on Fridays until midnight Sundays, and on holidays. Fifty per cent of reliable spaces will be available weekdays. Hours of availability will be determined by LMCD in cooperation with the DNR. Vehicle-only spaces (no trailer) on public access parking lots can be counted toward the total goal of 700 car/trailer spaces provided that the number of such spaces counted for any given lot does not exceed 10% of the total number of spaces on that lot. (Example: Out of 50 total parking spaces on a lot, seven are for vehicle only. Only five of the seven may be counted toward the goal of 700 [i.e., 10% of 50=5].) Page 14 LMCD PARKING STANDARDS FOR LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES All on-street spaces should meet the following additional standards: 6.1 Minimum length of 50 feet per space. 6.2 Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into a traffic lane and to provide a safe route to the access point. 6.3 Of the total non-designated (non-signed) on-street parking spaces, only 80% are considered to be reliable in order to account for non-access related public parking. 6.4 Designated and signed on-street car/trailer parking spaces will be counted 100% for car/trailer use. 6.5 On-street car/trailer parking spaces must be illustrated on a plan by street name on file with the LMCD. Page 15 0 Z Z Z 0 Z Z OI 0 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1993 Lake Access Model Parking Agreement This Agreement is made between the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and the ( ) both public corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the LMCD and ( ) are jointly concerned with providing public boating access to Lake Minnetonka, meeting the Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonka, and WHEREAS the LMCD and ( ) recognize that a goal of 700 car/trailer spaces will be provided in the vicinity of present and future access sites around the lake on as equitable a basis as possible, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the LMCD and ( ) that the conditions for car/trailer parking for the public access identified on the checklist identified as Exhibit "A" and Parking Site Plan identified as Exhibit "B" meet Parking Standards on the checklist as indicated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LMCD and ( agreement to be duly executed this , day of ) have caused this .... 19__. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT: AGENCY/CITY: By. By. Page 17 Checklist for Evaluating Lake Minnctonka Public Access Car/Trailer Parking Agreements Access Name Access City Lake Zone No.. Car/Trailer (C/T) Parking by Location: a. Co Off-street, on access site ................. (On-site designated trailer parking on grass is acceptable if vehicle is parked on graded or paved surface.) Off-street, remote from access site * Distance in feet from access site On-street, less than 1,500 feet: * Designated signed C/T only, count 100% of C/T parking spaces available ............ * Not signed, count 75% of spaces available On-street, 1,501 feet to 2,000 feet: * Designated signed C/T only, count 100% of C/T parking spaces available ............ * Not signed, count 75% of spaces available # of spaces Vehicle Only Parking Spaces - these count up to 10% of total number of C/T spaces on lot: # of standard vehicles spaces 9' x 19' .. # of handicapped vehicle spaces 12' x 19' .. Total # of vehicle only spaces Count total vehicle only spaces or 10% of total Cfi' parking spaces in lots whichgv~r is less 5. Total, car/trailer parking spaces at site ............ COOPERATING PROVISIONS: I. Access site plan illustrating each Cfi' space with adequate ingress, egress, and maneuvering space is kept on file and current with LMCD. Initial as accepted: Signage provided at access site is clear, aesthetically 'attractive, consolidated for easy updating. All spaces are available on unrestricted, first- come, first-served basis, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, 5:00 pm Friday until midnight Sunday. Fifty percent (50%) of spaces meeting Parking Standards are available weekdays. Page 18 EXHIBIT A Checklist for Evaluating Lake Minnetonka Public Access Car/'rrailer Parking Agreement 4. All on-street parking spaces meet the following standards: a. Minimum length of 50 feet per space. b. Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into traffic lane. c. Safe pedestrian route to access point provided. d. On-street car/trailer parking spaces are illustrated and kept current on a plan by street name on file with the LMCD. A temporary boat mooring facility is provided at the ramp site for a number of boats equal to 10% of the C/T parking spaces at the site for C/'F parking spaces between 1,501 feet and 2,000 feet. New facilities must meet Federal A.D.A. requirements for handicapped persons. Agency/city reserves the right to make changes in access site plan off-street parking or on-street designated or non-designated parking as public policy priorities may require, with a good faith effort to replace lost C/T spaces at the earliest possible date, notifying the LMCD of anticipated changes. LMCD and MN DNR agree to cooperate with city/agency in relocation of lost slips, including locations elsewhere in the lake, and at other access. o City retains approval privilege on any actions of an agency regulating parking allowances or restrictions on county or state highways affecting C/'T parking in the vicinity of an access site. Agency/city agrees to enter into this agreement for a period of~ years (five years desired) in recognition of the valuable recreational opportunities offered on Lake Minnetonka. Page 19 · ii, , li~ I ,Ii Appendix 6 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LANDOWNER'S BILL OF RIGHTS State parks, water access sites, wildlife management areas, state forest, fisheries projects, recreational trails, canoe and boating routes, wild and scenic rivers, scientific and natural areas and the State water bank program all provide recreational opportunities for the general public or protection of the State' natural resources. Each of these programs authorizes either the purchase of the fee title to land or the purchase of a lesser interest in land, such as an easement. Selling land to the Department of Natural Resources is in many ways similar to selling it to a private party, but in other ways is different from standard real estate transactions. Because of the many Federal and State laws that govern land acquisition, it often takes eight months to a year and a half to sell land to the Department of Natural Resources. These laws were designed both to protect private landowners' fights and to assure that public money is well spent to serve the public interest. This letter describes the Department of Natural Resources' land acquisition procedure. Please keep it for future reference. Land Identification The management programs select the tracts of land which they feel would most help them to carry out their programs. Once your land has been identified for purchase, you will be contacted by a Department of Natural Resources representative who will explain what your land would be used for if it is purchased and will also explain the land acquisition to you. You are free to decide whether or not to sell your land to the State. If you are willing to consider selling it, the State will have your land appraised and you will then decide if you want to sell it at the appraised value. If you do not want to sell your land to the State, you are under no obligation to do so. However, you may be contacted again in the future to see if you might have changed your mind. A~raisal Process The State will hire a qualified appraiser to determine the fair market value of your property. You will be invited to accompany the appraiser during his or her inspection of the property, if you so desire. You also have the fight to hire and appraiser to provide an independent opinion of value for your property. You will be notified of the deadline for your appraisal to be submitted if you would like it to be reviewed along with the State's appraisal. After the appraisals are reviewed, a fair market value will be established as just compensation for your property. If your land is purchased by the State, you may be reimbursed up to $500 for the cost of your appraisal providing you submit a copy of that report and a paid receipt for it. It is not necessary for you to submit your appraisal for review in order to be reimbursed for it. Page 20 Lail(iowners ]Jill o! i<i{~l$ Negotiation Process The State is not allowed to discuss thc price until after the appraisal is completed and will not discuss the price with anyone but the landowner or his agent. Documents regarding the purchase of your property will be public records once the purchase is completed. At the beginning of the negotiation period, you will be given a summary of the approved appraisal. This summary will include the final conclusion of value, the total number of acres and types of land appraised, the valuation of all buildings and improvements being purchased, and any special elements of value. The same person who appraised your property for the State will not act as a negotiator for its purchase. l:'urchase Procedure The Department of Natural Resources will acquire your property by means of an option, which is an offer from the landowner to sell. The option, including all special provisions, legal descriptions and elements of execution, must be reviewed by the State as to its legality and acceptability. The State shall have 15 days after receiving an option to notify the landowner in writing if the option is not approved and the reasons therefore. If you are not notified of an option's disapproval, you should assume it is approved. Unless you request otherwise in writing, the option period shall be no more than two months if no survey is required. If a survey is required, the option period shall be no more than nine months. These time limits do not apply to wildlife management areas that require county board approval. The option period begins on the last date on which the option is signed by a landowner. Before the end of the option period, the State shall decide whether or not to purchase the land and shall notify the landowner of its decision by either a Notice of Election to Purchase or a letter explaining the reasons for not purchasing the property. If the State does not elect to purchase property on which it has approved and accepted an option, it will pay the landowner $500.00 after the option period expires. After signing the option, you have one month to mail or deliver an Abstract of Title to the Department of Natural Resources. If your land title is registered, you should submit your Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title plus a Registered Property Abstract instead of an Abstract of Title. The State will have the abstract brought up to date at its own expense. Within one month from the Notice of Election to Purchase or delivery of the Abstract,whichever is later, the Attorney General will provide a title opinion which will identify any defects in your title to be cleared up before the purchase can be completed. You will then have 120 days to make your title marketable. The landowner is required to pay all taxes that are due in the year in which the deed or easement is signed, including Green Acres deferred taxes. Once the taxes are paid and all title defects are cured, the Attorney General will send you a Warranty Deed or other conveyance document to sign and return. Page 21 Landowners Bill of Raghts The State pays the abstracting and recording fees related to the sale. If your property is held as security for a loan or advance of credit that requires or permits the imposition of a pre- payment penalty, this penalty shall also be reimbursed by the State. The costs of clearing title defects, payment of taxes and related attorney's fees are not reimbursable. Method of Payment Payment for the land is mailed to the landowner after the signed deed or other conveyance document has been recorded and the abstract brought up to date. Depending on the County Recorder's workload, this may take anywhere from two to four weeks. Assuming your title is marketable and you act expeditiously to complete the transaction, payment must be made no later than 90 days after the Notice of Election to Purchase. You may choose to be paid in either a lump sum or in up to four separate payments. The State does not pay interest on monies held during an installment agreement. Vacating Your Property. You have the right to continue occupancy of your property until 90 days after the date of the deed. You may stay an addition 90 days by paying a fair market rent to the State, with the prior written approval of the management program for which your property is being purchased. If you do not vacate your property within 180 days of the date of the deed, you will automatically waive your right to any relocation benefits to which you may otherwise be entitled. Relocation Benefits The State is obligated to pay relocation expense any time they displace owners or tenants from their residences, displace a business or cause a business to cease operating. Moving expenses are the most common relocation benefit. A relocation advisor is assigned to work with anyone who might be displaced by State land acquisition to guide them in locating a new home or business. Legal Rights You have the right to accept or reject the State's offer for your property. If you accept the offer, you may receive or waive any relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits. You also have the right to accept the State's offer for the property and to contest the relocation benefits. You have the right to seek the advice of any attorney regarding any aspect of your land sale. You also have the fight to have the State acquire your land by condemnation at your written request and with the agreement of the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. The primary laws governing Department of Natural Resources land acquisition procedures are, Public Law 91-646 and Minnesota Statutes Section 84.0274. For further information, contact: Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Land Acquisition and Exchange Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 30 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4030 (612) 2964097 Page 22 Appendix 7 LAKE MINNETONKA ACQUISITION PROCESS This document will describe the process the DNR will use to acquire land on Lake Minnetonka. BACKGROUND A Process to provide Public Water Access (PWA) in the metropolitan area was developed by the Metropolitan Council, The Minnesota Depmiment of Natural Resources (MNDNR), and the State Planning Agency under the direction of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). These agencies produced a document that outlined a Site Selection Criteria, a Lake Ranking system and an Access Priority List. The MND~ and other public agencies use these procedures to develop accesses in the metropolitan area. This document is available from the Metropolitan Council. PROCESS On a priority bay or lake area, public property is investigated for access suitability. If none is available or useable, a search for suitable sites is begun. Often on heavily developed lakes or bays, the actual acquisition process begins with a parcel of land becoming available that meets the criteria. The MNDNR purchases only from willing sellers and the owner must be willing to sell the parcel for a public water access. When the landowner indicates a willingness to sell, the acquisition process and timeline are explained. If the landowner agrees to proceed, the Landowner Bill of Rights Letter is signed. This letter verifies that the landowner understands the process and has agreed to work with the MNDNR. If the site meets the criteria and the landowner agrees to proceed, the MNDNR will have the property appraised to determine its fair market value. After the appraisal has been approved, an offer to purchase can be made. If the landowner agrees with the value, then the MNDNR may take an option on the property. The option will indenfify such things as, the land to be purchased, the price, the length of time required to complete the negotiations. After the option is signed by the landowner, the MNDN1L within 5 working days, will notify the city and the LMCD, in writing, of its actions. Notification can not be made prior to the signing of the option due to confidentiality requirements. Page 23 1,5'o Jill i J '1 tn ll~ il II Lake Minnetonka Acquisition Process PUBLIC INVOLVEM~ENT The proposal will be discussed with the city, (citizens, council members, etc) and other interested members of the public. Assuming there are no valid reasons for reglecting the property or the project, the MNDNR will work and cooperate with the city and the LMCD to complete the acquisition and development.. The MNDNR will use various methods to inform and involve the public. The processes used will include: Formal Public Meetings, Informal Public Meetings, Open Houses, Question and Answer Sessions at City Council Meetings and Meetings with neighbors and concerned individuals. The MNDNR will continue to keep the city and the LMCD informed and involved in the design of the acces from the initial concept stage through final design. Examples of items that will be discussed are: traffic flow, parking lot layout, drainage and runoff, landscaping, signage. This cooperative process does not end with the construction of the access. After the access is developed the MNDNR will continue to work with the city and the residents on access maintenance and operations procedures. Page 24 Appendix 8 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE ACCESS SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA These evaluation criteria should be used in selecting potential new access sites for fishing craft and small recreation boats. The standard are not expected to be perfectly achieved. Each should be seriously considered and graded. Other evaluation criteria may be considered on a site-specific basis. Relationship to residential areas -- Positive and negative impacts of the site on adjacent residential areas, such as distance between a site and nearby homes, screening the site from homes, noise, traffic, etc. Accessibility to primary highways -- Potential sites near major highways (State Highways 7 and 101, County Roads 19 and 15 are examples) to reduce traffic impact on residential streets. Safety on site, on water and egress to both. Public use precedent -- Sites which are already in public ownership or in commercial or industrial use, or isolated from other residential areas, and where public facilities or services have been provided and accepted, have the least neighborhood impact. Intensity of boating use near a potential access site -- Sections of the lake where there is intense boating, or crowding in channels, should be downgraded. Cost -- Property acquisition, development and maintenance costs. Physical development constraints -- positive and negative features on land and in the water and changes possible to make the potential site usable. 7. Visual impacts -- Positive and negative visual impressions as seen from land and water. Multiple use opportunities for the site -- Sites that provide shore fishing, pier fishing, picnic areas, toilets, etc., along with boat access are preferred. 9. Site size -- Larger sites with off-street parking are preferred. 10. Environmental considerations -- dredging, fill, run-off control, wetlands preservation, etc. Footnotes: 1. Sites shall not be excluded because there is limited access for large boats. 2. Sites will be preferred that provide equitable distribution. 3. Sellers must be willing, city must cooperate and other agencies must approve. Adopted: March 18, 1993 Page 25 ee · · · · · · · · oe N · ' -,~ o ~ .~ ~ o %=. ~ ~ ~ %~ Apendix 10 PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY FOR LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE CHRONOLOGY The initial Task Force meeting was held 3/11/92. Its purpose goal and objectives were introduced as follows: PURPOSE -- to establish a plan to meet the Manag~nent Plan lake access policies developed in the 1983 and 1986 Lake Minnctonka Task Force studies. GOAL -- coordination of an immediate inter-agency inventory, study and assessment of the car/trailer (c/t) parking spaces at public access ramps to meet the 700 reliable c/t objective. OBJECTIVES: a. Establish criteria in the LMCD Code for acceptable year-round lake access, including access ramps, lakeside and remote c/t parking, handicapped access and signage. b. Conduct a joint study of all access ramps and associated c/t parking, identifying all existing ramps and associated lake parking. c. Develop a plan for and provide LMCD-approved boat access ramps with 700 reliable c/t parking spaces. d. Widen or otherwise improve efficiency of existing ramps for use by more than one c/t at a time. Resolve DNR's Maxwell Bay access proposal in accord with Management Plan policies and objectives and in accord with the 1983 and 1986 Task Force Study recommendations by: 1) Activating the Lake Access Task Force, appointing representatives of affected communities, DNR, LMLOA and citizens to implement the public access siting process. 2) Facilitate a cooperative effort to address land use issues that are the basis for objections raised by the City of Orono. 3) Conduct a feasibility study of land purchase between Gayle's Marina and the DN-R property. 4) City of Orono, LMCD and DNR cooperate in securing funding for the Maxwell Bay access properties. NOTE:After cooperation on obtaining funding through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR), the Task Force and LMCD were asked by Orono officials to not further participate in Maxwell Bay negotiations between the DNR and the City of Orono. Page 27 II, ,I J ,I ,in .... J II II, PROCEEDINGS SUMM~Y, 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY The Task Force formed three subcommittees, namely: Data Gathering Standards Steering DATA GATHERING SUBCOMMITTEE Cfr PARKING INVENTORY DEVELOPI~IENT A 4/15/92 inventory of existing or planned cdt parking spaces was conducted by LMCD and DNR staff from contacts made among city and county staff. That inventory was compared to the 1983 Task Force inventory for the five zones of the lake. The comparison of cdt parking spaces by zones was as follows: Zone Goal 1983 Total 1992 Total I North Arm 139 60 63 2 Grays Bay Hwy 101 24 37 Grays Bay Dam 19 19 Wayzata Bay Hwy 16 _3. 23_ Sub Total 144 46 81 Carsons Bay 155 0 40 Spring Park Bay 79 93 Phelps Bay fl 4 Sub Total 126 79 97 5 Halsted, Wms. St. 0 30 Halsted, Kings Point '0 32 Henri. Regional Park 0 100 Cooks Bay, Mount Park 0 'tn Sub Total 136 0 192 Grand Total 700 185 473 These counts were later revised based upon a more detailed inventory conducted in June by LMCD staff of c/t street parking potentially available to 2,000' from the access, identified later in this report. Criteria were needed to identify reliable c/t parking spaces. The Standards Committee was asked to develop such criteria. Page 28 STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS FACILITATOR ENGAGED. The LMCD engaged a state facilitator to meet the diverse interests involved in the proceedings: 1. Decisions would result from a consensus. 2. Persons participating would only be those holding designated membership in the Task Force. 3. The Task Force would work in good faith. TASK ASSIGNMENTS: !. MN DN-R staff examined cdt parking spaces in public access ramp lots. 2. LMCD staff counted street parking utilizing 1985 cdt parking criteria, adjusting criteria by extending distance from access site from 1,500' to 2,000'. 3. Aerial photographs of public access sites taken. 4. DNR/LMCD staff drafted parking space standards from the 1986 standards previously considered. TASK ASSIGNMENT RESULTS: C/T PARKING INVENTORY OF 7/15/93. A street inventory of actual and potential cdt parking spaces up to 2,000' from accesses was conducted. Potential spaces included future public access sites, one private lot, public lots in other agency jurisdictions (school districts) and street locations subject to city/county approval. A surveyor wheel measurement device was used to calculate an accurate 50' cdt parking space and for determining accurate distance from the launch ramp. Results of the inventory count of 7/15/92 were: C/T Parking Spaces at present or planned access ramps: North Arm Grays Bay 101 Causeway Grays Bay Dam Kings Point, DNR Spring Park Ramp Spring Park/Orono County Lot Hennepin Regional Park Sub Total 63 37 19 32 19 70 100 340 Potential C/T Parking Space Additions: Streets, city & county Off street, private & city Sub Total 82 168 Existing Street Availability: City/county (99 of the 337 at Williams Street, Halsted Bay access) 337 GRAND TOTAL 845 15'13 Page 29 DNR ANALYSIS OF C/T PARKING SPACES AT ACCESS LOTS: Thc cfft parking space count at access on-site lots differ only slightly from 1983 and 1986 counts. Some car-only parking spaces could be converted to c/t parking spaces. AERIAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC ACCESS SITES Aerial photos of c/t parking conditions at public access sites on a high-use day illustrated crowded conditions. Opportunities for improvements or expansion of parking capacity either on or off-site were noted. RELIABLE CFF PARKING SPACE STANDARDS Seven criteria and three supplemental recommendations applying to Parking Standards were prepared 7/15/92 for Task Force approval. GRANT RECOMMENDATION FOR MAXWELL BAY LAND ACQUISITION A Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grant recommendation for $944,000 for land acquisition to develop a public access site on Maxwell bay, subject to Legislative approval, was announced. JOINT DATA GATHERING/STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS CFF PARKING INVENTORY REVIEW Subcommittee action of 8/12/92 amended the 7/15/92 c/t Parking Inventory from 845 to 755 c/t parking spaces. A reduction of 59 spaces from 99 to a net of 40 spaces at the Williams St. Halsted Bay access, and a reduction of 32 spaces from 100 to 68 spaces at the Hennepin Regional Park resulted in a 755 adjusted count. PARKING STANDARDS RECOMMENDATION: Starting with the seven criteria and three supplemental recommendations of 7/15/92, the joint subcommittee review recommended Parking Standards for Task Force consideration and adoption. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ACCESS SITES: Equitable distribution of parking sites throughout the five lake zones was identified as a priority. PARKING INVENTORY: With minor foomote adjustments, the Parking Inventory of 755 current and potential c/t parking spaces was finalized and recommended for presentation to the Task Force. Page 30 EROCEEDINtJS SUMMAKY, 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of the Data Gathering and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 9/9/92 was confirmed. Additional issues were recommended for Task Force consideration: 1. Coordinate site acquisition for Maxwell Bay 2. Coordinate access development of Grays Bay Hwy. 101 Causeway and subsequent closing of Grays Bay Dam access 3. Coordinate access development of Hcrmepin Regional Park LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force actions taken 10/21/93: 1. Parking Standards were adopted. The Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn. (LMLOA) presented their board position calling for a reduction of the 700 c/t parking spaces goal. DNR, LMCD and sport fishing representatives supported the 700 c/t parking spaces goal. This goal originated in the 1983 Task Force Study. It is based upon Lake Minnetonka's 14,000 acre capacity to accommodate one boat per 20 acres of water surface. No consensus was reached on changing the goal. Consensus required substantially unanimous agreement. The LMCD Lake Access Committee, appointed January, tO: a. bo 1992, was activated Coordinate related lake access objectives and policies with thc Task Force. Carry out lake access objectives and policies in thc Management Plan which will not be addressed by the Task Force. LMCD BOARD ACTION ON TASK FORCE POSITIONS Upon recommendation by the LMCD Lake Access Committee, the LMCD board on 10/28/92 approved Task Force positions on: 1. Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonka Public Accesses Parking Inventory of 755 current and potential c/t parking spaces A draft model Parking Agreement for cities or agencies identifying c/t parking spaces which meet the Parking Standards. Parking Agreements to be secured by LMCD with cities or agencies. Page 31 TASK FORCE ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force actions taken on 12/9/92: !. Approved Current and Potential C/T Parking Inventory total adjusted to 735 c/t parking spaces, subject to meeting adopted Parking Standards, and subject to agreements with cities or agencies within which the existing public accesses are located. (The 8/12/92 Parking Inventory was adjusted from 755 to 735 as a result of the Hennepin Regional Park planned access count being adjusted to 80 upon agreement with the City of Minnetrista and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.) Goal of 700 c/t parking spaces on which Task Force consensus was not reached was referred to the LMCD board for a final decision. Ali cities encouraged to make a concerted effort to provide their share of lake access c/t parking spaces. Cities were further encouraged to coordinate and cooperate to meet zone goals. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE REPORT The Lake Access Committee actions taken on 3/16/93: Committee chair outlined a policy to persuade cities or agencies to make decisions on public accesses in the best interest of the most public use of the lake. Existing public access sites proposed for evaluation against a grading scale as to safety, quality, size. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force Actions taken 3/18/93: Model Public Access C/T Parking Agreement approved incorporating adopted Parking Standards. Access Site Evaluation Criteria ten point outline approved with recommended foomotes approved. Aerial slide photo documentation of existing and potential access sites presented. Sites suggested from this aerial survey are to serve as a future guide for access site inquiries and proposals. Page 32 1 '/4 PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY, 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY ACCESS SITING SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS Access Siting Subcommittee Actions taken 4/6/93: 1. MN DNR Landowner Bill of Rights was reviewed. The Bill of Rights was accepted for recommendation to the Task Force. The procedures detailed in the Bill of Rights would remain in effect after the Task Force completes this study. Public review of a future access site negotiation brought forward by the DNR was concluded to be the affected city's responsibility. 2. A list of some 40 potential access sites taken from the March aerial survey and a list developed by the 1983 Task Force Study was edited to review properties no longer available due to development or other current uses making the property unavailable. STEERING COMMITTEE ACTIONS Steering Committee actions taken 4/6/93: MN DOT position on its reduced Hwy. 101 causeway bridge and road rebuilding, excluding the causeway public access upgrading, was received. ACCESS SITING SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS Access Siting Subcommittee actions taken 4/14/93: 1. Potential public access sites were presented for review against the 1993 ten point Access Site Evaluation Criteria. All marina sites were removed for separate consideration. Eight other sites were removed as no longer available. ACCESS SITING SUBCOMMIIWEE ACTIONS Access Siting Subcommittee actions taken 5/4/93: 1. Potential access sites reviewed per Access Site Evaluation Criteria, with added conditions: a. All sites must have willing sellers. b. City cooperation must be secured in advancing the access site. c. Agency cooperation must be secured in advance of a site being selected. 2. Potential access sites remaining on the list as a result of comparison to the review criteria were: * Tonka Bay City Dock, channel to Gideons Bay * Timber Lane, Gideons Bay, Shorewood * Mai Tai, Excelsior Bay * 456 Arlington Ave, Wayzata Bay (private residence) * Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, Mound * Lost Lake, Cooks Bay, Mound * Advance Machine, West Arm, Spring Park Page 33 Marinas as potential access sites were recommended to be examined for public access use under the following conditions: a. Potential use of extending existing capacity. b. Extent to which the marina already serves the public for fee paid access. c. Attitude of nearby homeowners for public access use. d. Considering any public access use as a temporary trial. e. Management issues to be addreSSed such as how public parking/launch space would be reserved and accounted for in a mix of fee paid launch service f. MN DNR budget constraints in funding leased space LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMI'ITEE ACTION Lake Access Committee action taken 5/7/93: 1. The Lake Access Parking Agreement with the City of Minnetrista was accepted and recommended to the LMCD board, for acceptance. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING ACTIONS Lake Access Task Force actions taken 5/12/93: I. The seven potential access sites were accepted as identified by the Access Siting Subcommittee 5/4/93. o o Marina sites having potential to accommodate public access through agreement with the DNR will be considered separately from the seven potential access sites accepted 5/4/93. The six conditions under which marina sites would be evaluated for public access as detailed by the Access Siting Committee 5/4/93 were also accepted. The Maxwell Bay access site is recognized as in negotiations between the City of Orono and MN DNR. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE ACTIONS Lake Access Committee action of 6/15/93 approved tasks which the LMCD committee intends to continue processing: I. Determine the equitable distribution of public access among existing and potential new access sites. o Evaluate and negotiate with commercial marinas for their potential in providing cdt parking and launch service: a. Apply equitable distribution criteria. b. DNR to negotiate agreements for space/service provided. Page 34 /,.c'/8 PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY, 1992 LAKE ACCESS 'I'ASK o Assess means by which existing public accesses may be upgraded for safety and greater user satisfaction. Board members to work with LMCD and DNR staff in finalizing c/t parking agreements with cities and agencies having existing public accesses. Access signage to be developed per agreement provisions, cities and agencies asked to assist. Page 35 at a i I [] .... Il, I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 14, i994 Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, David Steinbring, Janis Geffre, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Goode was absent and excused. The following persons were also in attendance: Darlene Thorson, Bill Thorson, Ron Purdes, Mark Reckinger, Doug Smith, Bob Riebe, Sharron Riebe, and Dick Carlson. MINUTES MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 10, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Casey requested the following to be added to the agenda: 7. A. Pelican Point 7. B. Park Dedication Fees - City Council Report DOUGLAS B. SMITH, 4~149 I~LAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID #25-117-24 11 0036. DOCK SITE #43420. REQUEST FOR RETAINING WALl Due to the fact that the applicant was not yet present, the chair delayed this item on the agenda to be reviewed after "Batch 3." BATCH 3: Wi0ta Common, Peabody Lane, Waterside Common, Lone]ford Road, Kenmore Common, end Excelsior Lane Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the report for Batch 3. City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private structures located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Staff recommended approval of Public Land Permits as listed on "Batch #3", as follows: Unless otherwise noted in the "Comments/Recommendation" column on the attached "Batch #3", permits shall be approved according to (14) on the Decision Flow Chart, "Grant Permit up to 5 Years and Renewable." 2. The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 14, 1994 All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. All these requests will be forwarded to the City Council for final action on April 26, 1994. The Commission determined to review each dock site individually. WlOTA COMMONS, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 13810 1749 AVOCET LANE OUTLET & PUMP APPROVE PERMIT PENDING UPDATE TO CODE. ELECTRIC EGHT REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDEUNES. The Parks Director clarified that there are not other lights, outlets or pumps on Wiota Commons, and suggested the Park Commission review the guidelines for lights. As questioned by Ahrens, Fackler noted that staff does not feel this light complies with 81 of the Guidelines for Allowing Lights on Public Lands, which states, 'Lights are allowed only to illuminate substantial safety hazard areas such es stairways with an excessively steep incline, and for substantial security reasons.' Bob Riebe explained to the Commission that he would like the light, outlet, and pump to remain. He explained that the light was installed in 1984 by Glen Neddemeyer and that it is installed to code. The pump is attached to the dock in the summer and is removed in the winter. The pump utilizes the electrical outlet on the light, and the pump is hooked up to the underground sprinkler system. Their property is the end of the commons that abuts properties with private lakeshore, and they all have lights just like this one so he does not see how his light would look out of place. Casey questioned if the outlet could be moved onto private property and how this would work, mechanically. The applicant stated that an extension cord would have to run from the outlet, across the commons, to the pump. Schmidt noted that the LMCD is reviewing their light policy and maybe this issue should be tabled until they complete their policy review. Darling summarized that this light is on public land and questioned if the light gives the impression that this is private land. He also questioned how this light pole compares to a bird house which was previously reviewed, and stressed the need for consistency of standards by the Commission. It was noted that the light pole is 120' +/- from the applicant's house. MOTION made by Casey to recommend approval of staff recommendation for removal of the light, and to table the portion of the request relating to the outlet and the pump in order to determine the respective benefits. Motion seconded by Darling. 2 a a ~ I [] .... I[ I i Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ,,,lpri114, 1994 Casey requested that the cost for removal of the outlet and pump be provided by the applicant. Ahrens commented that the cost should not be a consideration. Mr. Riebe stressed that fact that the pump is used to water the commons area and it would be an injustice to not approve the pump and outlet which have existed for ten years. MOTION carded 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Dading, Casey, Meyer, Geffre, and Steinbdng. Those opposed were: Bymes, Ahrens, and Schmidt. Casey commented that he would like to see the mechanics of how the pump works because he cannot see the burden or hardship for the landowner to place this equipment on their own property. There was some discussion about the difference in taxes between private lakeshore property and properties that abut the commons. PEABODY STREET, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 20050 5500 BREEZY ROAD WOOD/TIMBER APPROVE. CONDITION IS SOUND. STAIRWAY Michael Kraemer was not present. MOTION made by $chmidt, seconded by $chmidt, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Motion carded unanimously. WATERSIDE COMMONS, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 20670 5488 TONKAWOOD OUTLET & REMOVAL RECOMMENDED - INCONSISTENT WITH ROAD ELECTRIC LIGHT GUIDELINES AND POWER SUPPLY LINE IS UNDER CITY STREET. Royal Maffatt was not present. The Parks Director informed the Commission that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Maffatt, and due to the wire running under the street, he has agreed to remove the electrical service, and they will be petitioning the City to have a street light installed in this area. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Casey, to recommend removal of the outlet and electric light, as recommended by staff. Motion carded unanimously. 122180 12137 ASHLAND LANE I&TREES I Note: Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings, MISC. PLANTINGS APPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE SIZE. Beverly Vanlaanen was not present. Casey clarified that "increase size" means that the number of plantings shall be increased. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval of the plantings as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ,dpril 14, 1994 122360 I 2149 CARDINAL LANE I ELECTRIC OUTLET I APPROVE' VERIFY TO CODE' UPDATE TO CODE" O1~ 'REMOVE. .. I~ Willard Botko was not present. The Parks Director commented that the outlet and pump for Dock Site #13810 was tabled, therefore this request should be tabled. Casey commented that ha does not view this item the same as the other because there is not a pump involved. The Parks Director noted that Jon may have talked to the applicant, but he or the Dock Inspector did not. The Dock Inspector noted that this area of commons is about 50 feet deep, and it would not be too much of a hardship for this resident to move the electrical service back. Staff noted that the intent is to provide a ten day notice to property owners, however, property owners for this Batch received only one day notice of the meeting. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Casey to table this item due to lack of notice to the owner. Motion carried unanimously. Location of this light was questioned. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Geffre to table this item due to lack of notice to the owner. Motion carried unanimously. 23090 2181FAIRVIEWLANE BOATHOUSE WITH ELECTRICAL WENCH AND WOOD RAIL SYSTEM INTO LAKE. ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLETS. FENCE & HEDGE. THIS CASE PENDING. FOR INFORMATION ONLY. SEPARATE LEGAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. NO action was taken by the Commission on this item, it was for information purposes only. 23150 2163 FAIRVIEW LANE I BRICK FIRE RING IOWNER SHALL RELOCATE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Geffre, to recommend relocation of the brick fire ring, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes LONGFORD ROAD, CLASS C DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 30450 4832 LONGFORD ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR ROAD & PUMP REMOVE. Richard Carlson was present, and stated that the pump and electricity has been hooked up for 1 6 years and he has never had any problems with it. The pump is mounted next to the dock and is removed in the winter. The outlet is located next to the dock, it has an underground service from the house. MOTION made by Dading, seconded by Ahrens, to recommend the electric outlet and pump be allowed to remain, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbring. Casey abstained. Casey stated that he would like to know more about the financial impacts and other impacts of moving the service back onto private property. 30710 [ROAD4816 LONGFORD I GARDEN AREA IAPPROVE. DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS OR INCREASE SIZE. Note: Park Commission is reviewing policy for plantings. Donald Wartman was not present. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend approval of the garden area as recommended by staff. Geffre commented that it was difficult to determine where the garden area and type of plantings this time of year, and she also felt this area of public land had the appearance of private property. In addition, the garden area is bordered by timbers, is approximately 12' x 10', and during discussions by the Park Commission, this is not something that was recommended that did not give the appearance of private property. Casey agreed and does not see this garden area as being consistent with the Commission's objectives for the commons. Darling suggested the item be tabled until the planting guidelines are established. Casey suggested the item be denied until guidelines are established, because if it is tabled, does this give the Wartman's permission to continue the use of this area as a garden? Fackler confirmed that the applicant would be allowed to continue the use until action is taken. Ahrens withdrew her previous motion. MOTION made by Casey to deny the request until a planting policy is established, then the applicant may come back and apply for a permit, according to the planting policy. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to table this item until a planting policy is established. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbring. Casey was opposed. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 14, 1994 DOCK SITE 31600 KENMORE COMMON, CLASS D ABUTTING ADDRESS 4608 CARLOW ROAD ENCROACHMENT OUTLET ELECTRIC LIGHT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION APPROVE PERMIT PENDING UPDATE TO CODE. REMOVE - INCONSISTENT WITH GUIDEUNES. Staff noted that this item was withdrawn as Mr. Sidwell will be removing the electrical. EXCELSIOR LANE, CLASS D DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION 31950 2654 SHANNON LANE ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. VERIFY TO CODE. UPDATE TO CODE, OR & PUMP REMOVE. Bill Thorson was present, and explained to the Commission that the outlet is in a box, the electrical wire runs underground. There is a pump which is attached to the dock in the summer. The Parks Director commented that this is an area where permanent docks are installed and they stay in year- round. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to recommend approval of the item as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Dading, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbring. Casey abstained. Ron Purdes was present. The Parks Director noted that this area also has a permanent dock. MOTION made by Ahrens seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the item as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Dading, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, Meyer, and Steinbring. Casey abstained. Mr. Purdes commented that he has lived at this property for ten years and was never aware of the permit requirements, but if he was aware, he would have been more than happy to comply. There was power on the dock when he purchased the property. DOUGLAS B. SMITH, 484~1 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVQN, PID #25-117-2411 0036. DOCK SITE #4:3420. REQUEST FOR RETAINING WALL Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to replace existing retaining wall, approximately 2 feet in height, with new wood timber wall, approximately 3 feet in height. The permit history on this property dates back to 1976 for a retaining wall, since that time there has been a succession of new walls permitted and installed. 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ,~pril 14, 1994 This request results in a higher wall and we assume some added fill with plantings to somewhat level off the area and reduce the slope. The slope of the hill side at this time resembles the natural slope on the adjacent site to the east. There is minor erosion due to the dilapidated lower wall and from what appears to be excessive use. If possible, the existing stairway over the riprap should be removed to allow the riprap to be completed then reinstalled to code. This must be coordinated with the Parks Director. The wood walkway adjacent to the riprap should be removed (note photographs). Staff is working with the applicant to remove this and insure that turf is established. The existing stairway on the commons portion needs maintenance, this can be accomplished between the owner and the Building Official. All personal items should be removed from the commons and stored within buildings, off of the commons. Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a five (5) year renewable Construction on Public Lands Permit for a maximum 3 foot high retaining wall, preferably of a pre- engineered masonry product. The 5 year renewable permit is approved with the following conditions: The new retaining wall shall be properly screened from view with plantings as approved by the City Planner. A landscape plan must be provided and approved prior to construction. The plan shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The existing stair over the riprap be removed to allow for riprap completion to be coordinated with the' Parks Director. A new stair shall be constructed for access to the dock following the riprap installation by the applicant at the applicant's expense, according to code. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. The wood walkway be removed and this area restored to green space no later than July 1, 1994. This work shall be inspected and approved by the Parks Director. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance of the retaining wall and stairways. 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. 7. The permit will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Applicant, Doug Smith, stated that he will be using timbers for the retaining wall in order to match the existing retaining walls on the property. Mr. John Recking,r, abutting neighbor to the east, was also present. Both Mr. Reckinger and Mr. Smith expressed a concern about the condition of the riprap and the trimming of the trees on the commons in front of their houses. The Parks Director stated that he will meet with them at the site to discuss the riprap and the repairs needed. Mr. Smith agreed to comply with the staff recommendation, however, questioned the types of plantings that were expected for the landscaping plan. Fackler commented that staff will work with him on this issue. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes /Ipril 14, 1994 MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the requested permit as recommended by staff. Motion carded unanimously. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on April 26, 1994. REVIEW DOCK LICENSE ORDINANCE, SECTION 437, AS IT RELATES TO DOCK REMOVAl. ~EQUIREMENTS Ahrens recalled that the reason she wanted this item discussed, was to try and find a way to prevent old docks floating away from the site and rotting on the bottom of the lake, or floating onto shore. Fackler noted that they currently require docks to be removed if they are damaged. Ahrens suggested that people be required to advise the City, on their dock application, if they plan to keep their dock in through the winter. Ahrens does not feel that people should be able to leave their docks in, especially in large open bays. Schmidt suggested that the Dock Inspector prepare for review at the May meeting, a color coded dock map indicating the areas where docks should be allowed to remain, and where docks definitely cannot stay, and the questionable areas. She also suggested that the review of the dock forms be delayed for review at the May meeting if there is going to be a question added to the form relating to dock removal. McCaffrey commented that there is verbiage mailed with the dock application relating to the removal docks. He also feels that a question of the dock form would not be necessary, because if the areas are established, they can be notified of the removal requirement when the license is issued. REVIEW 1995 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, explained that the 1995 Dock License forms are the same as 1993 and 1994 except for date changes, and a minor change on his memorandum to the Dock License Holder, which states, 'Please be considerate to neighbors when you are leaving the lake at night." McCaffrey also noted that he will verify the LMCD fees for 1995. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Darling to recommend approval of the 1995 Dock License forms, as amended. Motion carded unanimously. 1995 BUDGET DISCUSSION Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his memorandum to the Park Commission in replay to their request for cost estimates on potential 1995 budget requests, as follows: 1. Money for NCA's Clean-up estimated at $1,500 per site @ 7 sites = $10,500. - Coordinate work with Sentence to Service (STS) labor to move brush, etc. on site. Contract with Tree Service to transfer material to Lost Lake for recycling. Note: Any other debris will be brought to Lost Lake (i.e. tires, metal, etc. for recycling.) 8 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 14, I994 B. Signs = $0. Twelve signs ere in stock ($175/doz.). 2. Adopt a Green Space As requested to provide $20 vouchers for park planters = $400. 3. Skating Rink Staff time estimated at 75 hours = $585. This figure is based on dropping the three small rinks currently used, so actually, there would not be an increase to the budget. The availability of equipment is being looked into and will be discussed with Community Services. The Commission questioned what will happen of the school does not have any equipment, and if not, they will have to discuss. The City has not room for storage of the equipment. The light has yet to be discussed. 4. Celebrate Summer $2,000 as requested. 5. Purchase of Balboa Drooertv next to Lost Lake Property Tax value = $157,000 6. Volleyball Courts $7,335 for the installation of two volleyball courts, one at Swensen and one at Philbrook. A. This figure does not include labor or machinery. B. It still has to be determined if there is adequate area in Swensen and Philbrook Parks for these courts will fit. Fackler noted that he can have proposed plans indicating the location of the volleyball courts available at the May meeting. Fackler confirmed that all these items will be listed on his proposed budget to be reviewed by the City Manager in June. The Commission questioned what else Fackler plans to add to the budget. It was determined that the Parks Director will supply his 1995 proposed budget for review by the Park Commission at the May meeting. PELICAN POINT I OPEN SPACES: LAND ACQUISITIONS Schmidt noted that the City Council minutes indicates this issue was addressed. Ahrens stated that the Council essentially said that they are not interested in having a bond issue because they are not interested in upsetting the applicant of the development that is in progress. 9 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 14, 1994 The cost of the bond issue, as indicated in the Council minutes, was reviewed. For a general election there would be no cost. Casey questioned the time frame, or amount of time needed to get a question on the ballot. Ahrens stated that the City Clerk would need to know be the end of August, or early September. Schmidt questioned if the Park Commission is interested in knowing if Mound wants to have land acquisitions for parks. Ahrens commented that the City cannot afford to maintain the open spaces that they have, Casey stated that one way of knowing is to put a question on the ballot. Casey noted that if the Park Commission wants a question on the ballot, the City Attorney will have to prepare language and have it ready by the end of August. The Parks Director noted that direction to the attorney to draft language would have to come from the City Council or the City Manager. Schmidt suggested that either her or Casey discuss the issue with the City Manager. Casey requested that it first be determined if the Park Commission, as a whole, is in favor of having a question on the ballot. MOTION made by Casey that we as a Park Commission would like the bond issue on the general election ballot in 1994. Motion seconded by Darling. Ahrens questioned what is going to be on the ballot. Casey explained that his motion is intended to find out if the Commission wants to have bonding authority in the issue of purchasing Pelican Point and open spaces on the ballot and the details can be worked out later. Geffre questioned the possibility of doing a survey through the City newsletter. Darling stated that those types of surveys are not scientific. Darling summarized, that in an essence that is what Casey is trying to accomplish on the ballot. Ahrens reiterated that the Council is not interested in intervening with the people proposing to develop Pelican Point. Casey stated that placing a question on the ballot is just a way of polling the community. Schmidt confirmed that they are not specifically addressing Pelican Point, but general land acquisition. MOTION carded 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Casey, Darling, Meyer, Geffre, and Steinbdng. Ahrens, Schmidt, and Byrnes opposed. This issue will be further discussed at a Workshop meeting. WORKSHOP MEETING The March Workshop meeting was reviewed. Schmidt and Darling handed out to the Commissioners their notes relating to a proposed Planting Policy for the commons. This issue will be further discussed at the next workshop meeting. The next Workshop meeting was scheduled for April 21,1994 at 8:00 p.m. following the Parks Tour. The agenda will include: 1. Policy for Plantings on (Traversable) Commons 2. Ballot Language 3. Open Space Issues 10 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April l~ 1994 PARK DEDI(~ATION Ahrens noted that the Council and Planning Commission are in the process of reviewing proposed amendments to this ordinance. The Park Commission requested that they be given the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance amendments before they go to the City Council. The secretary noted that the Planning Commission will not be reviewing the ordinance again until May 2:3, 1994. Schmidt questioned staff on the balance in the Park Dedication fund. Fackler will research this information. PARKS TOUR; THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1~1~4. MEET AT THE DEPOT AT 5:45 P.M. It was noted that Darling and Geffre will not be able to attend the tour. In addition, the City Council has a COW meeting scheduled at 8:00 p.m. following the tour, therefore, time for the tour is limited. Schmidt requested that the current NCA be included on the tour. LETTER FROM WE~TONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION, JIM GLASOE, REGARDING SUMMER PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM. No discussion. LETTER TO MR. VANPOLL REGARDIN~ DQONE PARK. Schmidt commented that this was a good letter. Staff noted that no response was received. LMCD INFORMATION Schmidt suggested that the City of Mound mail a sympathy note to Bill Johnston. CRv Council Reoresentative's Reoort. No comments. Park Director's Reoort. Fackler noted that the new playground structure at Mound Bay Park is scheduled to be installed by Memorial Day weekend. Dock Insoect0r'a Reoort. Tom McCaffrey reported that there are only 6 available dock sites, and about 14 new applicants looking at these 6 sites. He noted that he is again assisting the LMCD with their Origin Study to determine the number of boats docked on the lake. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Darling to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:51 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 11