1994-06-14 AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL. REGUL
TUESDAY AR MEETING
___ , JUNE 14, 1994. ?.~n t, ~,
5,
e
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 24, 1994
REGULAR MEETING.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING LT. RONALD L. WHITEHEAD
AND THE BLOOMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR
ASSISTANCE IN A MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION.-
PUBLIC HEAR~.~A_.. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA KNOWN AS
PELICAN POINT - BOYER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. PG. 2086-2161
-PUBLIC HEARING:_ CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MOUND ZON/NG ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:310, TO ADD
A DEFINITION FOR "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER.
AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZON/NG ORDINANCE,
SECTION 350:760, TO MODIFY THE TEXT OF THE EX/STING CODE
TO ADD "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTER" TO THE
L/STING OF USES ALLOWABLE IN THE GENREAL BUSINESS
(B-2) ZONING DISTRICTS BY ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT.
PG. 2162-2171
~ INFINITI MARKETING, INC., CRAIG SMITH,
5318 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING).
REQUEST: OPERATIONS PERM/T.
PG. 2172-2188
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
PG. 2072-2083
PG. 2084-2085
2069
10.
11.
LICENSE RENEWALS.
PG. 2189
RESOLUTioN APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING
FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH _ JULY 30 & 31, 1994. PG. 2190
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
Dw
Ae
Department Head monthly reports for May 1994.
LMCD Representative,s monthly report for May 1994.
Notice of the Hennepin County Old Tyme Fair,
July 28-31, 1994, Lion's Park in Corcoran.
Hennepin County 1993 Annual Recycling Report.
LMCD levy adjustment. Refund of $7,235. Reimbursement
for the Shoreland Ordinance _ $750. Another $500 will
be forthcoming.
L.M.C.D. mailings.
LMCD proposed Budget for 1995.
Final Draft of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake
Access Task Force Report.
Memo from Po/ice Chief Len Harrell regarding his
attendance at the FBI Academy in January of 1995.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 1994.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of
May 12, 1994.
PG. 2191-2209
PG. 2210-2236
PG. 2237
PG. 2238-2240
PG. 2241-2258
PG. 2259
PG. 2260.2266
PG. 2267-2272
PG. 2273-2311
PG. 2312
PG. 2313-2321
REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Wa/k, Saturday,
June 11, 1994, Mound Bay Park.
REMINDER: Mound Voluntee Fire Dept. Fish Fry,
Saturday, June 11, 1994, 4-8 P.M., Fire Station.
REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 17-19, 1994.
REMINDER: COW Meeting,
7:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 21, 1994,
PG. 2322-2326
2070
REMINDER: EDC Meeting, Thursday, June 16, 1994,
7:00 A.M., Mound City Hall. You are invited to
attend re: ISTEA Grant discussion.
2071
'"' '"' I
Mound City Council Minutes May 24, 1994
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW - MAY 24, 1994
CONTINUED FROM MAy 10, 1994
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review reconvened in the Council
Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City on May 24, 1994, at 7:00 PM.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen and
Ken Smith. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, Hennepin County Assessor
Keith Rennerfeldt and Hennepin County Appraiser Craig Paulson, and the following interested
citizens: Mr. and Mrs. V.S. Snodgrass.
1.0 Mayor Johnson opened the reconvened Board of Review and introduced Keith
Rennerfeldt, Assessor for Hennepin County and Craig Paulson, Appraiser for Hennepin County.
Mr. Rennerfeldt stated that they had spoken with the persons that had appeared before the
Council or wrote letters for the May 10, 1994 meeting and he was presenting the County's
decisions as to the value of the properties questioned. It was stated that the property owner
could appeal the City's decision at the Hennepin County Board of Review June 13 - 24, 1994.
The county must be notified prior to appearing.
PID #23-117-24 34 0096 VERNON SNODGRASS, 3025 LONGFELLOW
PID #23-117-24 34 0097 VERNON SNODGRASS, 3025 LONGFELLOW
The Assessor suggested no change in the value of this property. Mr. Snodgrass was
present and stated his disagreement with the Assessor's decision.
MOTION by Jessen and seconded by Smith to accept the Assessor's recommended
no change in value on PID #23-117-24 34 0096 at $100,000 and Pid #23-117 24 34
0097. The vote was 4 to 0 in favor. Motion carried.
PID #13-117-24 41 0005 - CLIFFORD LARSON, 2051 ARBOR LANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of this property from $157,000 to
$142,000.
PID #13-117-24 11 0117 DEWEY WHITE, 4929 3 PTS. BLVD.
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of this property from $160,000 to
$149,000.
PID #13-117-24 22 0119 - KELLOGG OLSON, 5410 3 PTS. BLVD.
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $56,800.
May 24, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
5. PID//13-117-24 23 0038 - BARB SIDDERS, 5525 SHERWOOD DRIVE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of this property from $238,000 to
$228,000.
6. PID//23-117-24 43 0020 GUS KNOTT, 5937 RIDGEWOOD ROAD
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $86,000.
7. PID//24-117-24 13 0001 - TERRENCE WULF, 2600 RUBY LANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV on this property from $171,000 to
$152,000.
8. PID//13-117-24 22 0267 THOMAS WILLIAMS, 5551 - 3 PTS. BLVD.
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $211,000.
9. PID//23-117-24 23 0057 - SHIRLEY SPRAGUER, 2785 HALSTEAD LANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV on this property from $129,000 to
$126,000.
10. PID//30-117-23 22 0008 - ANDREA AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
Councilmember Andrea Ahrens stated she would wait with her comments until all of the
others had been covered with a decision and vote.
11. PID//22-117-24 44 0003 BOB FLOEDER, 3027 BLUFFS LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $151,000.
12. PID//19-117-23 33 0057 - VINCE FORYSTEK, 3109 INVERNESS
PID//19-117-23 33 0058 VINCEFORYSTEK, INVERNESS (LAND ONLY)
VINCE FORYSTEK, 3137 INVERNESS
PID//19-117-23 33 0061 -
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV on the above three properties,
$10,000, $5,000 and $58,000, respectively.
13. PID//13-117-24 32 0142 - MIKE BARLOW, 2072 COMMERCE BLVD.
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $69,000.
14. PID//13-117-24 33 0006 - CURT L. JOHNSON, 5545 SHORELINE DR.
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of this property from $88,000 to
$85,000.
15. PID #22-117-24 44 0031 - MIKE MALASKE, 6557 BARTLETI~ BLVD.
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of this property of $151,000.
8. PID #30-117-23 22 0008 - ANDREA AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
Mound City Council Minutes May 24, 1994
Councilmember Ahrens removed herself from the Council and spoke before the Assessor
protesting the proposed EMV of her property.
1.1
MOTION made by Jessen and seconded by Smith to accept the Assessor's
recommended EMV of PID #30-117-23 22 0008. The motion passed on a 3 - 0 vote.
Ahrens abstained.
1.2
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Smith seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION b94-68
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ENTIRE
ASSESSMENT ROLL AS PRESENTED AND
CORRECTED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the
reconvened Board of Review at 7:45 PM. Motion carried.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 24, 1994
The City Council of MoUnd, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
May 24, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen and
Ken Smith. Absent and excused: Liz Jensen. Also present were: City Manager Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following
interested citizens: Merrit and Nathan Geyen, Betty Watson, Donna Easthouse, Holly Schluter,
Bob Smith, Bob and Ed Vanecek, Jamie Emmings, David and Betz Goman, Kengkham Donang
Thammavongsa, Don Fulton, Lorrie Ham.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mayor Johnson announced the Recyclotto Winner to be Kellie Emmings and Jamie Emmings
accepted the 50 Westonka Dollars.
Mound City Council Minutes
May 24, 1994
MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the
minutes of the May 10, 1994 Board of Review, the May 10, 1994 regular meeting,
the May 17, 1994 Reconvened Special Meeting, and the May 17, 1994 Committee of
the Whole.
1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE/D~28: AL AND ALMA'S, 5186 TUXlZ. I)O BLVD.,
LOTS 22 & 23. WHIPPLE SHORES. PID //24-227-24 35 0006. REQUF~T:
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT~
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request to modify their existing
conditional use permit to allow the docking of a 63 foot boat in place of a 52 foot boat at lots
22 and 23. This boat would also accommodate handicapped patrons. Mayor Johnson opened
the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak on this item. There was no one.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-69
RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION //84-26
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT DOCKS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AT
5186 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 22 & 23, W]-IIPPLE
SHORES, pID //24-117-24 34 0006 FOR AL AND
ALMA'S, P&Z CASE//94-28.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5 CASE//93-049: JOE FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD,, PART OF.
CA)VT, LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID//23.-117-24 14 0001, VARIANCE FOR DECK.
The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council directed the staff to prepare a
resolution approving the variance. The proposed resolution was presented.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g94-70
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK
VARIANCE TO AN INDIAN MOUND TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 5601 BARTLETT
BLVD., PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION
23, PID//23-117-24 14 0001, P & Z CASE//93-049
4
ltl,
Mound City Council Minutes
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
May 24, 1994
1.6
CASE//94-18: LARRY & CHRISTINE HAUSKINS, 1749 BLUERIRD LANE,
_LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 24 0005, VARIANCe;
FOR PORCH & DECK.
The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council directed the staff to prepare a
resolution approving the variance. The proposed resolution was presented.
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-71
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE TO
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AT 1749
BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9,
DREAMWOOD, PID #12-117-24 24 0005, P & Z CASE
g94-18
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7
CASE//94-24: EDWARD VANECEK. 2345 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK
3. L.P. CREVIER'S SUBD, OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13
!17-24 43 0084, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval
subject to the removal of the existing parking area, driveway, and access at the Fairview Lane
side of the house. This area to be returned to green space or lawn area, thereby reducing the
impervious cover variance by 420 square feet. The Council asked the applicant if he agreed
with the Planning Commission recommendation? The applicant stated that he agreed.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-72
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS
COVER VARIANCE AND TO RECOGNIZE A
NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK AND
LOT AREA VARIANCE, TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2345
FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK 3, L.P.
CREVIER'S SUBD. OF PART OF LOT 36
LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 43 0084, P & Z
CASE//94-24
5
Mound City Council Minutes
The vote was unanimously in favor.
May 24, 1994
Motion carried.
1.8 CASE//9~25: DAVID AND BETSY GOMAN. 2440 CHATEAU LANE. PART OF
LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 1, SHIR!.EY HILLS UNIT D, PID #24-117-24 12 0048~
VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION..
The Building Official explained the request. The Staff and the Planning Commission
recommended approval under the condition that the hardcover calculations be clarified with the
Staff. That has been done.
Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RF.~OLUTION//94-73
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS
COVER VARIANCE AT 2440 CHATEAU LANE,
PART OF LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS
UNIT D, PID//24-117-24 12 0048, P & Z CASE//94-25
The Council discussed the drainage of the driveway and the hard cover variance. The Building
Official stated he has reviewed the drainage and that will not be a problem. The Building
Official explained that the applicant has reduced the size of the garage from 21' x 26' to 19' x
26' to minimize the variance to the hardcover.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 CASE #9~27; MARK & DAWN BERG. 3355 WARNER LANE, LOT 61~
WHIPPLE PID//2 -117-24 21 0130 VARIANCE FOR ADDITI N .
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING
ADDITION AT 3355 WARNER LANE, LOT 61,
WHIPPLE, PID//25-117-24 21 0130, P & Z CASE//94-
27
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
6
Mound City Council Minutes
May 24, 1994
1.10 A E 4-2 · DONALD H T 9 2 IDLEW OD ROAD T 22 2
24 & E 10' F 25 BLO K 1 THE HI HLAND PID #23-117-24 42 0105
VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLIN .
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval
with the findings and conditions as prepared by the Building Official. The Building Official
recommended modifying item #1 in the proposed resolution after the Now, Therefore, Be It
Resolved, to read as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 3 foot front yard setback variance to allow
construction of a new dwelling with a 15 foot setback to the wetland, ordinary
high water, and conforming side yard setbacks.
He further reported that if the applicant is required to maintain a 30 foot front yard setback to
the street, he would encroach into the wetlands. It he is granted the 3 foot variance, it will keep
the building from encroaching. The Wetland Ordinance allows a 0 setback to the ordinary high
water (wetland). The Building Official stated that if there are any substantial changes in the
proposed placement of the new dwelling, he will bring the case back to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-75
RE~OLUTION TO APPROVE A 3 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5952
IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOTS 22, 23, 24 & E 10' OF 25,
BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42
0105, P & Z CASE//94-29
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
1.11
.CASE //94-23: ROD LARSON & MYRNA NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD._
THAT PART OF BLOCKS 1 & 2, INCL, BUCKEE DR. NOW VACATED,
~MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY" PID #23-117-24 41 0016,
VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. '
The Building Official explained that the applicant is requesting the following variances:
a. Hardcover - 12 square feet; and
b. To recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on the street side of the
parcel;
in order to construct a 34' x30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling.
May 24, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
The street side dwelling is nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-1 zoning district and
is also nonconforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. It is being used as a rental
unit. Staff was unable to find any permit history where the City approved it as a rental unit or
a dwelling unit. He recommended that the street side dwelling's use should be discontinued at
the earliest opportunity.
The staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to allow construction
of the garage with conditions as listed in the proposed resolution submitted this evening.
The City Attorney stated that a nonconforming use should not be allowed to expand. He further
asked if there were two sewer and water assessments paid and if there are two separate services.
The Building Official stated that there are no sewer & water records to indicate when the
dwellings were hooked-up to the water and sewer or if there are two hookups and he does not
know if the property paid 2 units as an assessment. The Council discussed the rental unit being
a nonconforming use.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to table this item until the next
meeting and allow staff to gather more information on the sewer and water
assessments and hookups to this property. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
The City Attorney called to the Council's attention Section 350:420, Subd. 1 of the Code which
reads as follows: * Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter
may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date.* He pointed
out that the key words are "lawfully existing*. The City Attorney stated that the Council will
have to make a determination whether this is a legal nonconforming use or an illegal
nonconforming use. If it is determined that it is an illegal nonconforming use, then granting the
variance would be an expansion of a nonconforming use.
OMMENT AND S GESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.12
SET PUBLIC HEARING...
MOTION made by Ahreus, seconded by Smith set June 14, 1994, for a public
hearing to consider an amendment to the Mound Zoning Code Section 350:310, to
add a definition for ~Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter~ and to consider an
amendment to the Mound Zoning Code Section 350:670 to modify the text of the
existing code to add tWictims of Domestic Abuse Shelters~ to the listing of uses
allowable in the General Business (B-2) Zoning Districts by issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
8
' '"' I
Mound City Council Minutes
1.13 SET PUBLIC HEARING..
May 24, 1994
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to set June 28, 1994, for a public
hearing to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use iPermit to allow a "Victims of
Domestic Abuse Shelter" within the General Business (B-2) District at 1730
Conunerce Blvd. (Old Fina Station site). The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.14 DI US I N: LMCD CAR/TRAILER PARKING AGREEMENT.
The City Manager explained that the goal established by the DNR is to identify 700 car/trailer
parking spaces around Lake Minnetonka. Each city around the lake has be asked to consider
an Agreement with the LMCD and the DNR to provide identifiable parking spaces within 2,000
feet of an access, which in Mound's case is Mound Bay Park. We have identified 43 spaces as
car/trailer parking spaces, which are detailed in the Parking Agreement along with signing off
on other related matters as it deals with the access site and the car/trailer parking.
The City Manager referred to Draft Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task
Force, specifically ~) of the Summary & Conclusions which reads:
9. 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 of 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.
The Council, at their Committee of the Whole Meeting, supported item 9.c. which would reduce
the number of spaces from 43 to 37. The City Manager asked if the signage at Mound Bay Park
would include the 6 spaces on Beachwood Road? The Council indicated that the signage would
not include the spaces on Beachwood Road.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute the Agreement with the LMCD regarding the Lake Access
Parking, not listing on the sign (the map of parking at the access site) the spots on
Beachwood Road and therefore counting them at 60% or 37 spaces. There will also
be no signage on Beachwood Road indicating car/trailer parking only.
Rogo
Mound City Council Minutes
1.15
May 24, 1994
There was discussion about not initialing items 2 and 5 under Cooperating Provisions of
the Agreement.
The vote was 3 in favor with Jessen voting nay. Motion carried.
LICEN /PERMIT - M UND CITY DAYS.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to authorize the issuance of the
following permits for Mound City Days: Set-Up permit - Waiving fee
Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Permit June 18, 1994 - Pond Arena and
June 19, 1994 - Mound Bay Park - Beer only to be served in the tent,
no one to be allowed outside the tent in the park with beer. These
permits to be issued contingent upon all insurance and other forms
being executed and turned in. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.16
CONTRACTING.
The City Manager reported that the City Engineer has recommended approval of this payment
request.
Motion made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve Payment Request #1, in the
amount of $46,544.30, to Rice Lake Contracting, for the 1994 Lift Station
Improvement, when funds become available. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.17 A RIZE THE CITY EN INEER T PREPARE PLANS AND
MINNETRIST&.
The City Manager explained that on May 16, 1994, the City of Minnetrista approved the Joint
Powers Agreement between the Cities of Mound and Minnetrista for construction of a public
works storage site at the City of Minnetrista. The City of Mound now needs to authorize the
City Engineer to prepare plans and bid specifications for the construction of the access road for
the joint public works storage site at the City of Minnetrista.
lo
Mound City Council Minutes May 24, 1994
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the City Engineer to
prepare plans and bid specifications for the construction of the access road for the
joint (Mound~innetrista) public works storage site at the City of Minnetrista. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.18 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills in
the amount of $298,139.08, as presented on the pre-list, when funds are available
except for the following:
$280.75 McCombs Frank Roos - Flack Case
$225.50 McCombs Frank Roos - Munson Mitigation Plan
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is opposed to paying for these not because they are paid for
with City funds but because they are only being paid for by dockholders funds.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to authorize payment of the
following allocating these costs as indicated on the bill list (Fund 81-4350-3100):
$280.75 McCombs Frank Roos - Flack Case
$225.50 McCombs Frank Roos - Munson Mitigation Plan
A roll call vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCEI.LANEOUS:
Financial Report for April 1994 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
L.M.C.D. Mailings.
REMINDER. Ceremony at Westonka Senior Center for Senior Center Achievement
Award for the State of Minnesota - first place & national - second place, Monday, May
23, 1994, 7:00 P.M.
Do
Fishing Pier at Centerview Beach area will be installed the first week of June by the
DNR.
May 24, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
E. REMINDER' Around Mound Run/Walk, Saturday, J~un 11, 1994, Mound Bay Park -
See enclosed flyer.
F. REMINDER: Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Fish Fry, Saturday, June 11, 1994, 4-8
P.M., Fire Station.
G. REMINDER' Mound City Days, June 17-19, 1994.
H. Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1994.
1.19 PEIJCAN POINT,
Councilmember Ahrens stated that under the LMCD guidelines, this property would be entitled
to 56 dock locations but all they are asking for is 40 and she is concerned that they are getting
resistence from the LMCD. The Mayor stated that if you consider the island as shoreline, they
would be entitled to 56 but that he feels the island should not be considered in figuring
shoreline. The mainland has approximately 1300 feet of shoreline and that means they are
entitled to only 26 dock sites, but they could have more than one boat per dock. The Mayor
stated that according to the preliminary plat that has been submitted to Planning Commission and
will come to the Council on June 14th, shows one dock per unit or a 40 slip mini-marina.
The Council asked that the Staff find out from the LMCD if this has been discussed and where
it is going.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
12
RESOLUTION NO. 94-76
RESOLUTION COMMENDING LT. RONALD L. WHITEHEAD
AND THE BLOOMINGTON POLICE DEPARTME~ FOR
THEIR ASSISTANCE IN A MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION
WHEREAS, Lt. Ronald L. Whitehead of the Bloomington Police Department
recently assisted the Mound Police Department in an internal investigation of one of its officers;
and
WHEREAS, Lt. Whitehead's thorough investigation and professional final report
helped the Mound Police Department to reach early closure of the employment issue with the
officer; and
WHEREAS, Bloomington Police Department's willingness to assist us in our time
of need, as a mutual aid response, exemplifies the spirit of cooperation that exists in law
enforcement in Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby commend Lt. Ronald L. Whitehead and the Bloomington Police
Department for their excellence in assisting the Mound Police Department in our internal
investigation.
Adopted this 14th day of June, 1994.
Mayor Skip Johnson
Councilmember Andrea Ahresn
Councilmember Liz Jensen
Councilmember Phyllis Jessen
Councilmember Ken Smith
May 19, 1994
Chief Robert Lutz
Bloomington Police Department
2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431-3096
Dear Chief Lutz:
I am writing to commend Lt. Ronald L. Whitehead and the
Bloomington Police Department for their excellent work in
assisting the Mound Police Department in the recent internal
investigation involving one of our police officers. Lt.
Whitehead volunteered to assist in a very sensitive situation,
that had gained a great deal of media attention, and quietly and
professionally went about the task of gathering information that
ultimately helped us to reach early closure of the employment
issue with the officer. Lt. Whitehead was extremely cooperative,
and thorough in his investigation, and went out of his way to
keep from disrupting department personnel any further than
necessary in an already traumatic situation. Lt. Whitehead~s
final report, in both form and content, was a thoughtful, well
organized, and professional work product.
I want to also thank the other officers of the Bloomington Police
Department who, no doubt, may have had to take up some of the
slack while Lt. Whitehead was "on loan" to us. Your department's
willingness to assist us in our time of need exemplifies the
spirit of cooperation that exists in law enforcement in
Minnesota. Bloomington is indeed fortunate to have an officer of
Lt. Whitehead's caliber! Thank you for all your help.
Sincerely,
Leonard Harrell
Chief of Police
cc: Lt. Ronald L. Whitehead
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN. ~at the
~ of '~.o~n~iM~xl.Minne~ta,
~m~t in It~ Chambem, 534~
PI~ Development Area k~:led at the
"El~lmty ~ of Tuxe~lo Boulevar~ ~euth of
Lakm~inda Development ~nd n~r~
Dorchesmr Rm~l." The name of ~ie
dev~nt I$ "Pelicen PoinC' Peic~n Point
~ ~i~oaeed~40 udit zero I~ ina Twinhome
menL
Following are the e. xiiti'ng legal
d~ptions of Ihe properlies ~nvofved in [ne
~ Phelps Island P~, 1 st Division
Lot ?3. That part lying ~outheasterly of
Ct~nn~.
~ Phelps Island Park
Division. Lots tg to 34 inclusive also including
edi~cent p~v~a s~eet and pdv. te alley, and.
'thmt p~rl of Lot 73 lying northwesteny cT
chan~al I1~ commencing ~t the inte~ection
ef the no~ler~ line Of Lot 19 exlended
with wesm~y line of pri~ate *~ley m~j.oant to
laid Lot lg. thence Ioutherly alor~ welterl~
line of ~ Ixlv~te alley to ~ tnterseclion wi[n
the . northw, asterly extension of the
eouthwestany line of Lot 34, thence
northwesterly along the extension of the
Iouthwelterly line of laid Lot 34 to I point
distant 28~.8 bet ~outheestefly lrom the IX~nt
of intersection of laid line with the
southeasterly line of Tuxedo Ro~d thence
northeasterly 20 teat parallel with laid road
line ~hence northwesterly 286.8 teal parallel
with the northwesterly extension of the
southwesterly line of said Lot 34 to the
southeasterly line of laid road thence
northeasterly Ilong laid road line to the
northeasterly line of said Lot 19 extended
thence so<Jl~nstarly 29g.1 feet to the pOint of
beginning.
Small Lot: Unplatted 19-117-23.
Commen~ng It the point of i~tarsec~ion of the
no~hwestedy extension of the, n..o. rlhe_aaterly
line of Lot 35 Phelps Island Parn rimt Division
with the not.westerly line of private alley
adjacent to said lot, thence southwesterly
along said alley line to the westerly extension
of ~e southwesterly line of Lot 3~ of laid plat
thence northwesterly 200 feet along said
extended line, thence nor~easterly 200 feet
~o · point in said no,-thwesterly extension of
said northeasterly line of said Lot 35 a
distance of 26~.8 feet along said extended line
with the southeutarl¥ line of Tuxedo Road,
thence northwesterly 2~.80 leer along said
road line thence ~outheasterly 286.8 leer
parallel with said northwesterly extensio~ of
said northeasterly line Of said Lot 35 thence
southwesterly 20 teat par~lel with said road
line thence ~outheesterly 'to the point of
beginning.
· All persons appearing at said hearing
with reference to the above will be given the
oppo~unity to be heard mt this meeting. Plans
are available ~ viewing at Mound Ci~ Hall
Fmncane C. C~ark, City Cle~
{Published i~ The Laker May 30, 1994]
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has lull knowledge ct the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
,.) ,T~e printed:~ '~/, ~//'~' '
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week tor i .. successive weeks:
It was first published Moon, day, /
the ~ /J~dayo! ///~7~.~/ 19t~ ,
and was thereafter printe~and published every
Monday, to and including Monday,
the _ day ol
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
,~ ~' dayot ' , 19~_~.
By:
KRIST! HOLM
~1,~i'~-.-~ NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOT~
Ig.q~ HENNEP~N COUNTY
(~ _My ~mt~on e~lres 7.~97
~~ate inlormatlon
for comparable space: $10,96 per inch,
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above ma~er: $10,96,
{3) Rate a~ually charged tor a~ve ma~er: $6.16 per inch,
Ea~ addition~ su~essive week: $4.24.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CITY OF MOUND
5341 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, 5341 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:
IJ~p..~.: Phelps. Island Park, 1st Division Lot 73. That part lying Southeasterly of Channel.
~.[D...~: 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.
m.~.p. JJ~: 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.
Fr~ncen~,-Clark, City Clerk
Published in 'The Laker' May 30, 1994, and mailed to property owners within 350' by June 3, 1994.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
pELICAN POINT DEVELOPMENT: PARK DEDICATION
John Boyer of Boyer Building Corporation, addressed the commission in response to the memorandum
to the Park Commission from Mark Koegler, City Planner, dated June 2, 1994. Staff recommended
that the Park and Open Space Commission recommend that the City Council require a cash payment
in lieu of land dedication for Pelican Point. The 1994 Tax Book identifies a total land valuation for
Pelican Point of $1,240,000. Under the terms of the ordinance, this would result in a total park
payment of $124,000. Subd. 5 of the Ordinance further requires that cash contributions are to be
made prior to the filing of the final plat.
Mr. Boyer informed the Commission that he would like to discuss two items, 1) the amount
recommended for payment and how it relates to other area communities, and 2) the timing of the pay
out of the fee. Mr. Boyer questioned why the fee had to be so high. He explained that Boyer is not
new to this business, and they were not expecting such high park dedication fees in Mound. Mr.
Boyer portrayed on the overhead projector a table showing park dedication fee comparisons for area
cities, which indicated the fees per unit, as follows:
Chanhassen $1,200
Chaska 750
Minnetonka 450
Minnetrista 3,000
Moun.d 3,000
Orono 750
Plymouth 1,000
Shorewood 750
Tonka Bay 600
Only Minnetrista is as high as Mound.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June 9, 1994
The Parks Director explained that the City Council sets the fees, and they have not changed in years,
however, he believes there has been some discussion by the Council to look at modifying the
ordinance.
Mr. Boyer requested that they also be allowed to pay the fees on a per unit basis when they are sold,
and stressed that it is a hardship for any developer to have to pay the entire fee up-front.
(Bill Darling arrived.)
There was some discussion about how staff determined the fair market value, and it was clarified that
the "Taxable Market" value as identified in the 1994 Tax Book was used. Ahrens confirmed that the
Hennepin County Assessors, during Board of Review, ascertain the value listed in the tax books to
be the "Fair Market Value." Fackler clarified that the Park Commission is given the opportunity to
make a recommendation on the issue of park dedication only to determine if land or cash should be
retained, not to debate the value and the amount as this is clearly delineated in the ordinance. Ahrens
confirmed that the 10% rule is currently being questioned by the City Council.
Casey stated that he cannot vote in favor of staff's recommendation. He would like to see an
appraisal on the property, or an offer to sell the property to the City at $1,240,000 if that is what
the fair market value is determined to be. Casey would also like to see what portion of land could
be donated in lieu of the fees.
Ahrens again noted that the City has been consistently using the taxable market value listed in the
tax books, and she does not think it would be wise to change this practice now and require an
appraisal.
John Blumentritt, also of Boyer Corporation, summarized what they are asking the Park Commission
to take into consideration in their recommendation, which is:
1) Be more reasonable with the amount; why is there such a difference in the fees from area
communities?
2) Does Boyer need to pay the fee up-front?
Schmidt commented that she is excited about the development, and excited about receiving the funds
to help enhance and develop existing park property within the City. She does not have a problem
deferring the payment.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Darling to recommend to the City Council that
cash payment be received in lieu of land dedication for Pelican Point, totalling
$124,000,and that the City Council work with the City Attorney to find a way to defer
the park dedication payments.
Casey moved to amend the motion to recommend that an appraisal be done to clarify
the fair market value. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed.
MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Darling, Goode, Byrnes,
Meyer, Steinbring, Geffre, and Ahrens. Casey opposed.
This issue wiil be addressed at the June 14, 1994 City Council meeting.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Mound City Council
John Cameron - City Engineer
June 7, 1994
Preliminary Plat - Pelican Point - Update
to Engineer's Report
Case No. 94-28
MFRA #7419
A few questions concerning traffic on Tuxedo Boulevard were asked
at the Planning Commission public hearing which I thought should be
addressed. The two concerns related to sight distance at the proposed
entrance to Pelican Point and the amount of traffic on Tuxedo Boulevard.
Tuxedo Boulevard is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) street which was
originally improved in 1967 and then upgraded again in 1991. The State
requires that specific design criteria be met in order to receive State
funding, except in cases of hardship, whereby variances are granted.
The City did receive a number of variances, but they were for areas
further to the south. This specific area in question, where the
proposed entrance will meet Tuxedo Boulevard, does satisfy the State's
required sight distance for a 30 MPH design.
Traffic counts are also used in the design process for MSA streets.
Tuxedo Boulevard in this area used a 1989 traffic count of 4375 vehicles
per day when improvements were made in 1991. For design purposes, the
actual counts were increased by 50% to give a projected count of 6563
for the year 2010. The actual count taken in 1993 showed 4447 vehicles
per day. We do not foresee the addition of 240 trips per day, from the
proposed development, having a significant impact on the traffic on
Tuxedo Boulevard.
The question of water pressure was also raised. We have requested
that flow tests be taken, but to date have not received any data from
the applicant.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
130
DD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mound Park and Open Space Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 2, 1994
SUBJECT: Pelican Point
BACKGROUND: Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval to develop the property
commonly known as Pelican Point. The Pelican Point site consists of approximately 13.7 acres
on the mainland and an island that totals approximately M of an acre. The property fronts on
Tuxedo Boulevard and adjoins the Lakewinds Condominiums on the north and single family
homes on the south. Boyer's proposal involves the construction of 40 units in a twin home
configuration targeted for the "empty nester" market. Most of the units will have access off of
an internal loop road known as Pelican Point Circle. In addition to the loop road, six units will
have vehicular access off of a proposed private driveway that is located in the southwest portion
of the site. Each of these six lots also has frontage on Pelican Point Circle.
The preliminary plat calls for the establishment of 40 lots containing a total of 20 buildin sg_5_~th
a~a_.~_common, wall sgparation betwee_n_x s_e~Lden~. Additionally, thre~e outlets ~--rre 'to be held
~n common ownership.~by a homeowner's association. ~Outlot C contains the property abutting
Lake Minnetonka and the islan~cl_ area. The plat identifies a ']0 t~oo~-'~ide e~se~ent Ior a'~el
separating the mainland and island areas. Additional easements are proposed for utilities and a
storm water detention pond in the north central portion of the site. Within Outlot C, the plan
calls for a,water oriented accessory structure comDrisine .... a total of ap3x_oximately_ 900 square feet.
On May 23, 1994, the Mound Planning Commission reviewed Pelican Point and recommended
approval of a conditional use permit to establish the project as a Planned Development Area
(~PDA) and approval of the preliminary plat, subject to a number of conditions. The Planning
Commission's staff report indicated that park and recreation issues pertaining to the proposal
would be reviewed by the Mound Park and Open Space Commission with a recommendation
forwarded to the City Council.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: Section 330:120 of the Mound City Code addresses
dedication requirements for park and open space areas. The ordinance requires a dedication of
10% of the land within the plat, or an equivalent cash payment in lieu of a land dedication.
According to the ordinance, the cash payment "shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the
total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be less
aog,I,
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Pelican Point Park Memorandum
June 2, 1994
Page Two
than $500 for each lot being created." The Pelican Point preliminary plat does not identify land
to be used as a public park. Under the terms of the ordinance, the decision to require land
dedication in lieu of a cash payment is at the discretion of the City.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The recreation section of the Mound Comprehensive Plan
examined recreation needs throughout the community. The plan concluded that existing parks
adequately serve the community and that resources need to be directed toward continued efforts
to upgrade existing facilities. Therefore, the plan does not identify a specific need for additional
park land.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Park and Open Space Commission
recommend that the City Council require a cash payment in lieu of land dedication for Pelican
Point. The 1994 Tax Book identifies a total land valuation for Pelican Point of $1,240,000.
Under the terms of the ordinance, this would result in a total park payment of $124,000. Subd.
5 of the Ordinance further requires that cash contributions are to be made prior to the filing of
the final plat.
,gO?0
x,
%°.
{e7}
RO
(3)
RLSKO
O00B
h-
o
~0
~o
,,~
I,I
g
o
H
0ooo
Uu
U
I-u
c~
c~
0
0~0~
U
0
: ,d
,Il
O~
U
0
May 26, 1994
Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ed:
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mm
The Planning Report dated May 18, 1994 notes that the Pelican Point development proposal
exceeds the threshold necessary for completing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW). Since the City recently completed an EAW for Teal Pointe Development, the City
Council and Planning Commission are aware of the definition and parameters of the process.
However, it may be helpful to outline a few important points.
The City of Mound will act as the Responsible Govermnental Unit (RGU).
The City (RGU) will be responsible for completing the EAW.
The developer will supply all necessary data to the City for completion of the
EAW.
Upon completion of the EAW, the City Council will approve it and distribute
the document to necessary parties.
There will be a 30 day comment period for written response to the EAW
beginning the day on which notice is published in the EQB Monitor.
The City Council will consider all comments and, based on those comments,
determine:
a) whether an EIS is needed;
b) whether modifications to the project are
warranted;
c) whether no change is necessary.
The City will provide public notice of its decision.
Since the developer desires to start construction this fall, it will be important to expedite the
EAW process as much as possible within the guidelines of the statute. Below is a proposed
schedule for the EAW process.
Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax:(612)835-3160
Ed Shukle
May 26, 1994
Page 2
June 6, 1994:
June 21, 1994:
Developer submits al_! information needed for completion of the
EAW.
City will complete preparation of the EAW.
June 28, 1994:
City Council will approve the EAW for distribution.
July 5, 1994:
Environmental Quality Board will publish notice of the EAW in
the Monitor.
July 6, 1994:
City will publish a press release in the Laker.
August 3, 1994: The 30 day comment period will end.
August 9, 1994:
City Council will review comments and determine an
appropriate course of action as previously described.
August 10, 1994:
City will distribute notice of its decision to the distribution list
and all who submitted comments.
August 15, 1994: EQB will publish notice of the decision in the Monitor.
August 23, 1994:
If the City Council determines that an EIS is not warranted, the
final plat could be on the Council agenda.
This is a best case and, assuming everything goes smoothly, realistic scenario. If, on the
other hand, the developer is unable to provide timely information at the beginning of the
process, this schedule will be delayed. Also, if, the City Council were to table the EAW at
their meetings on either June 28th or August 9th, the schedule will extend into September.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Chamberlain, R.LA
Planning Consultant
CC~
Mr. John Blumentritt, Boyer Building Corporation
Mr. Jon Sutherland, City of Mound
MOUNDIPELICANI.L TR
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 23, 1994
~ BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA REVIEW FOR PELICAN POINT.
City Planner,'Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. This application includes three items for
review: the Planned Development Area (PDA), the Preliminary Plat, and variances.
Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval to develop the property commonly known as Pelican
Point which consists of approximately 13.7 acres and an island with about 3/4 of an acres. The
property fronts on Tuxedo Blvd. and adjoins the Lakewinds Condominiums on the north and single
family homes on the south. Boyer's proposal involves the construction 40 units in a twin home
configuration targeted for the 'empty nester' market.
Pelican Point is the most prominent undeveloped site in the City of Mound.
Approval of the preliminary plat is required by the City of Mound, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Health Department, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD).
Shoreland regulations apply to this preliminary plat. Mound's current shoreland ordinance has not
received final approval from the Commission of the DNR. As a result, the 'Statewide Standards for
Management of Shoreland Areas' requires that the Pelican Point plan 'be reviewed by the DNR and
approved by the Commissioner before final local government approval.' Final approval as used by
the State refers to 'final plat approval.' As a result, the State rules regarding shoreland management
will apply in this case rather than Mound's adopted shoreland provisions which are found in Section
350:1200 of the City Code.
2
i ,I II I, I ,1~ I ]d~
Planning Commission Minutes
23,
The development proposal includes 40 lots containing e total of 20 buildings with e common wall
separation between residential units. Three outlots are to be held in common ownership by a
homeowner's association. Outlot C includes a 70 foot wide strip along the shoreland, and the island.
A water oriented accessory structure of approximately 900 square feet is proposed within Outlot C.
Other issues that need to be addressed which were outlined in both the City Planner's report and the
City Engineer's report include:
10.
Environmental Review. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be prepared.
An Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) is not expected to be necessary as Mound's
shoreland ordinance should receive DNR approval prior to the final plat approval (at least 60
days).
11.
Density and Total Units. The maximum density allowed on the Pelican Point site, based on
the proposed plan, is 48 units. The total number of proposed units is within the requirements
of both the Mound Zoning Code and the State shoreland requirements.
East Port Road. The developer's attorney and surveyor will need to research the platting
history of East Port Road and work with the City Attorney to resolve any issues.
Streets. Pelican Point Circle is proposed to be constructed as a public street. The design and
installation of the pavers must not create a future maintenance problem due to frost heaving,
snow plowing or differential settlement.
Driveways. If driveways are to be installed over lot lines, appropriate easements will need to
be established.
Variances. Variances for setbacks, lot width, lot area, street frontage, and street width are
included in this application.
Impervious Cover. Mound's shoreland ordinance limited impervious cover to 30% of the total
site. The State shoreland rules limit impervious cover to 25%. Pelican Point, as proposed,
has an approximately impervious cover rate of 28.8% including both the mainland and island
areas.
Bluff Areas. Most of the riparian units observe at least the 30 foot setback. Exceptions
include Lot 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Block 2. Bluff setbacks for these units range from 13
to 28 feet. Only lots 9 and 10 have a setback less than 20 feet.
Water Oriented Accessory Structure (WOS). A WOS is being proposed with a floor area of
900 square feet, requiring a variance from the State shoreland standards.
Vegetation Removal. Covenants regulating vegetation removal could be included within the
homeowner's association agreements.
Docks. A common dock area accommodating 40 boats is proposed. Mound does not have
any specific review authority regarding docks, but can offer commentsto applicable permitting
agencies.
3
Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994
12. Park Dedication. The Mound Park Commission will be reviewing the plat in June.
13.
Channel Easement. The preliminary plat identifies a 70 foot wide channel easement between
the mainland area and the island.
14.
Trail. The plan identifies a trail leading from the housing units to the common dock area, and
is generally consistent with the shoreland regulations.
15.
Landscaping. Concept plans have been submitted and adequately convey the character and
level of landscaping. Additional detail, including identified species and sizes, will need to be
supplied at a later date.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit
to establish a Planned Development Area (PDA) including applicable variances, approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Pelican Point, and incorporation of the Preliminary Plat dated 4-21-94, last revision
5-10-94 as Exhibit I of the conditional use permit subject to applicable conditions. If the Planning
Commission concurs with this finding, the following motion is suggested:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for the
establishment of Pelican Point as a Planned Development Area including applicable variances for lot
sizes, lot width, lot I/ne setbacks, and street frontage corresponding to the lot configuration shown
on the Preliminary Plat. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plat as well as its incorporation into the Conditional Use Permit as Exhibit 1. The
aforementioned approvals are contingent on the following conditions:
Because of exceeding the threshold for an EA W resulting from the proposed common dock
area (marina) and in order to satisfy local environmental concerns, the applicant shall prepare
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W), cons/stent with the requirements found in
the Minnesota Environmental Quality 8oard Environmental Review Program, 4410.0200 to
4410. 7800. The F_AW shaft include a biological inventory of the site as weft as a Phase I
archaeological reconnaissance survey of the property, ff the EA W results in information
requiring additional conditions to this preliminary plat approval, said conditions will be added
prior to final plat consideration.
The applicant shaft secure all applicable permits from aft entities with jurisdiction over this
project including, but not limited to, the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of
Health.
The applicant shall investigate and supply information to the City Attorney regarding the
historic platting of the East Port Road area and Island View Drive in order to verify that the
property shown within the Preliminary Plat is free of outside encumbrances.
o
Aft private driveways shall either be located within the lot that they serve or easements shall
be prepared allowing access on neighboring lots.
The project shall be limited to a total amount of impervious cover not to exceed 30 percent.
As such, the City recommends that the DNR approve an impervious coverage variance if
applicable.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 1994
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Bluff areas as delineated on the Preliminary Plat shaft remain undisturbed. The City
recommends that the DNR approve top of bluff setback variances consistent with the unit
placement shown on the Preftminary Plat.
The City finds that the one proposed water oriented accessory structure is reasonable and
recommends variance approval by the DNR since it serves 40 homes. The proposed building
is of far less impact than a series of private water oriented accessory structures that would
be allowed ff the lakeshore was platted into private lots in a more traditional subdivision
design. Said water oriented accessory structure shall comply with the setback and color
restrictions identified in the State shoreland rules.
Covenants and bylaws of the homeowner's association shall include provisions restricting
vegetation removal from Outlot C. Said documents shall be approved by the City of Mound
at the time of final plat approval.
Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as applicable.
Park dedication fees shaft be co//ected in conformance with the Mound Subdivision Ordinance.
Tree management practices shall be foftowed consistent with the Tree Management narrative
submitted as part of the developers narrative and included as part of the Conditional Use
Permit as Exhibit 2.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan for the project entry for review and
approval by the City Planner.
Detailed information on paving at the entry area and at trail crossing points shaft be prepared
by the applicant and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
All iht'er/or lot lines shaft be required to have a 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement along
both sides except common lot lines which pass through buildings.
Easements with a m/n/mum width of 20 feet shaft be provided for ut/lit/es not located within
street rights-of-way.
,4 drainage and utility easement shall be provided at the north end of Outlot C for the storm
sewer and drainage channel that leads to Lake Minnetonka.
The City's ex/sting storm sewer in East Port Road shal/ be added to the Prelim/nary Utility Plan.
Furthermore the proposed dra/nage pond shaft have adequate capacity to accommodate runoff
from the Pelican Point development as we//as from the ex/sting City storm sewer. Drainage
calculations demonstrating adequate capacity shaft be submitted and approved by the City
Engineer. The sediment control structure for the pond outlet shall be relocated midway
between the inlets.
Silt fence shaft be located to contain all areas disturbed by grading. Method # 1 for slit fence
instal/at/on as shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shall be
ut/I/zed.
5
Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994
19. All utilities adjacent to Pelican Point Circle shaft be constructed within the public right-of-way.
20.
The proposed sanitary sewer shall be extended from manhole I17 with an additional manhole
placed to provide service for Lots 19 and 20, Block 2.
21.
An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be added closer to the intersection of the private
drive (as shown on the plat) and Pelican Point Circle to retain the line within the public right-of-
way and to reduce the length of the services to Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. The watermain in this
area shall also be moved.
22. An additional fire hydrant shall be added at the proposed cul-de-sac.
23.
Additional mainline gate valves at locations acceptable to the City Engineer shall be added to
provide zoning of the water distribution system.
24.
Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed as a 28 foot wide (back to back) public street
accommodating parking on one side. A 10 foot variance from the right-of-way requirement
is approved due to the desire of both the applicant and the City of Mound to maximize
retention of existing tree cover.
25.
Ingress and egress lanes at the project entrance shall be widened to 16 feet (back to back)
and B618 curb and gutter shall be installed.
26.
The proposed cul-de-sac that is identified on the Preliminary Plat as a 'Shared Private
Driveway' shaft be platted and constructed as a public street with right-of-way and pavement
widths consistent with Pelican Point Circle. A variance for the cul-de-sac bubble of 20 feet
is approved to establish an 80 foot diameter bubble w/th a paved area with a 70 foot
diameter. The pavement width at the bubble can be reduced by the placement of a
landscaped island providing that the cul-de-sac is posted for one-way traffic only.
27.
Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Said
plans shall/den t/fy the system ownership as either public or private and sba# specify pole and
fixture types and locations.
28.
No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without specific modification
of the Conditional Use Permit.
(Commissioner We/land arrived, and Bird was dismissed from the meeting.)
The Commissioners addressed questions to the staff. Staff clarified that the EAW will need to be
approved prior to the final plat.
Bluff setbacks were clarified to be 30 feet for the DNR, and 10 feet for the City, therefore, it was
recommended that variances up to 20 feet be allowed.
The applicant's clarified for the Commission that the WOS is proposed to be setback 50 feet from
the ordinary high water.
Street designs were discussed.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 1994
John Boyer, of Boyer Building Corporation, introduced John Blumentritt who reviewed the project and
addressed the following concerns and questions:
1. What are you planning to build? Twenty twinhomes.
What is different about this proposal from former designs and previous requests? This
proposal has much less density and is far more sensitive to the property and surrounding area.
3. Does this meet our density requirements? Yes.
How much car traffic is anticipated? According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, it is
estimated that 6 cars per day, per residence, totalling 240 trips per day will occur ingress and
egress from site.
5. How much boat traffic is anticipated. This is still Questionable.
o
Who will be buying these homes? Empty nesters, people who are retired and are downsizing
their homes.
7. How large and tall will they be? Rambler, one story at street side.
What about the existing trees? Kevin Norby, Landscape Architect spoke to this issue. As
many 'trees as possible will be attempted to be saved. About 500 trees will be saved, and
about 300 will be removed.
9. Does Pelican Point make for logical zoning and fit the neighborhood? Yes.
10. Who will manage the project after completion? Association.
11.
How long will it take to build. They plan to start excavation for the streets this fall, and hope
to have the entire project completed in three years. They will start construction at the
southerly end for the first phase.
12. What will happen to the island? No plans, remain natural.
13.
Our Planning staff has recommended approval with 28 stipulations attached, please comment
on them. Mr. Blumentritt reviewed most of the conditions listed in the staff report, and
basically agreed that compliance to the items can be achieved.
14. We like what is being presented. How can we help?
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Bruce Reno (~f 2851 Tuxedo Blvd. expressed the following concerns:
Relating to traffic on Tuxedo, he feels it is already too busy, and questioned the calculations
submitted by the applicant.
John Blumentritt emphasized that their estimated figures came from a reliable source.
7
Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994
How will 40 more units, each with lawn sprinklers, affect the water pressure?
City Engineer, John Cameron, stated that they are waiting for flow test results for the water
pressure.
Impact on sewer system?
John Cameron stated that the lift station for this area has recently been upgraded and will be
able to handle increased capacity for sewer.
- Will the proposed pond be a holding pond for drainage?
John Blumentritt explained that the pond may possibly be mechanically aerated. They are
concerned about the visual aesthetics. The purpose of the pond is to filter water runoff before
is goes into the lake. This pond area is currently not a wetland. The pond will probably be
bordered with boulders. Any chemical treatments will require approval from governing
agencies.
Will there be a cost to the public to maintain the roads?
The City has recommended that the roads be public and constructed to certain standards for
maintenance purposes. Mr. Blumentritt stated that they are willing to abide by the City's
criteria. They had hoped the roads to be of minimal impact.
Mark Smith of 2863 Tuxedo lives just north of the hill across the parking lot from Donnie's and he
is concerned about traffic and the location of the entrance. The City Engineer stated that he will
check and see if design variances were granted for this area of Tuxedo Blvd., but he believes it was
constructed according to the required standards. The speed limit in this area on Tuxedo is 30 mph.
Ron Johnson of 4416 Dorchester Road stated that he has no objections to the proposal. This
property will eventually be developed, and it could be much worse. He feels this will be an excellent
use for the property. He agreed that Tuxedo Blvd. is already too dangerous and suggested more
police surveillance.
There being no further comments from the citizens present, Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
It was clarified that there are no existing wetlands on this property.
The driveway entrance was further discussed, and it was questioned if it is being proposed in the best
location for safe ingress and egress. Mueller suggested that the entrance be staked prior to the public
hearing by the City Council. The entrance location was clarified on the overhead.
The pond was discussed, and a concern was expressed about the pond becoming smelly and
scummy. The applicant noted that the soils yet need to be analyzed, but they hope to develop a bed
naturally, no blanket is proposed at this time. Details for the pond will need to be approved by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. It was suggested that
the covenants and restrictions for the association include a stipulation that no chemical treatment of
the pond be allowed without the proper approvals of governing agencies.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 1994
Street designs were discussed again. Mueller expressed a concern about the need for the cul-de-sac
at Pelican Point Circle, because if the cul-de-sac is needed only to allow for emergency vehicle
access, they have access from the rear on the main road.
The City Planner confirmed that if the EAW raises issues that significantly changes the preliminary
plat, it will come back to the Planning Commission for review.
MOTION made be Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of Pelican Point as a
Planned Development Area as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be heard by the City Council on June 14, 1994.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council minutes of May 9, 1994.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
9
J I III
~A L
OR
~ W W W
~XEDO ·
ROAD
OUTLOT A ~'
Z
~Oa~
OUTLo 1' A
~xEoo
ROAD
'- -'l -' ,..~-- -
~,11o
..MN DNR DIVISION OF WATERS
Metro Region - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone No. (612) 772-7910
.Request for Review and Comments
Date:_ ~/~/ ~
' I
Comments Due: 30 ~~~
Corps of Engineers- ~ t~-- ~
DNR Area Fisheries Manager-
DNR Area Wildlife Manager-_
Ecological Services- Sharon Pfeifer
From: Area Hydrologist, C~k ~ ~~~'
Applicant: ~O~~ &~' ~ a~
County & Section, To, ship, Range:_ (~~/~,
Protected Water: ~~, I.D.
Brief Project Description (dimensidns, vol~es, disposal sites
used, water depths, etc.): '
equipment
(over)
I I II ! I ,111 I J,
.Rage 2'
0
Describe impacts on fisheries, wildlife, scenic, economic,
floodplain, or other interests (site specific comments)
Special status? (historic, endangered species, invading exotic
plant species, scientific and natural areas, bass spawning, local
permit needed, etc.)
Ce
Other wetland impacts:
1. Does the project impact WCA or Corps of Engineers wetlands?
[ ] YES [ ] NO
2. Proposed activities within the WCA wetlands are
[ ] In Compliance [ ] Exempt
[ ] Being Mitigated [ ] Unknown
3. Explain status of ~roposed WCA activities:
[ ] Approval of project as proposed
[ ] Approval with conditions or modifications **
Recommended modifications or conditions:
alternatives, deadlines, construction details, etc.)
(mitigation,
De
[ ] Denial **
** Justification.
Supporting reasons must be specific enough for use
in Commissioner's Orders and hearings when denial
or significant modification is recommended.
would like to receive a copy of the permit evaluation report.
.[ ] YES [ ] NO
Signed: Date: / /
Representing:
N~-02620-0l LOCAL - STATE - FEDERAL WATER RESOURCE PROJECT NOTIFICATION / APPLICATION FORM
Use this form to notify/apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and your Local Government Unit
.if a proposed water/wetland project or work which may fall within their jurisdiction. These agencies should advise you of their jurisdiction or permit
,cquirements within 45 days. Some LGU's may also require submission of their own application forms. Fill out this form completely and mail a copy,
with plans, maps, etc. to each of the agencies listed on the reverse of the form. Keep a copy for your records. YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIREr`
AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK.
I. Applicant's Name (Last, First, M.I.) Authorized Agent, if any Area Code, Telephone
tdress (Street, RFD, Box N~mber, .City, State, Zip Code)
II. Location of proposed project (attach drawinq showing how to get to site) .~~
COUNTY QUARTER SECTION(s) SECTIONS(s) No. TOWNSHIP(s) No. RANGE(s) No. Lot, Block, Subdivision
FIRE No., BOX Nc., OR PROJECT ADDRESS
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $-...i"~. COO '
VOLUME OF FILL OR EXCAVATION (Cubic Yards):
AREA FILLED OR EXCAVATED ISI-I
NAME OF WATERBODY AFFECTED and NUMBER (IF KNOWN)
LENGTH OF SHORE AFFECTED (in feet): ~ i--
(NOTE: You may ~ubsdtute dimen$ion~)
Acres, OR Square Feet
:V.
TYPE OF WORK AND AREA (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): [] ACCESS PATH [] BRIDGE
~ CONSTRUCT [] DRAIN [] EXCAVATE ~'DOCK [] RIPRAP
~ FILL [] REMOVE [] REPAIR
[] LAKE [] SHORELINE
OTHER (DESCRIBE):
WETLAND TYPE(S) AND ACREAGE(S) PROPOSED TO BE FILLED/DRAINED:
Attach applicable drawings, plans, and ASCS crop photos. Include adescription of any proposed compensatory mitigation. Important: ldent
any disposal and borrow areas. Describe the work below: how it would be done; what equipment would be used.
[-I CULVERT [] DAM
[] SANDBLANKET
[] WATERWAY [] WETLAND
'Vt. PROJECT PURPOSE (why is this project needed--what benefits will it provide?):
Vii. ALTERNATIVES (describe any other sites or methods that could be used to achieve the purpose of your project while avoiding or minimizing
wetland/water impacts: Attach additional sheets, if needed).
Vlll. DATES: Proposed start of activity:
(Identify any completed work on an attached drawing)
Proposed completion:
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS (Attach list if more than two)
Name . . -- iAddress ~. ~ City State Zip ..
PERMITS have been received (enter an ~) or already applied for (enter an ~) from: ~ DNR ~ ARMY CORPs OF ENGINEERS ~ COUNTY
TOWN/cITY WATERSHED DISTRICT MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Has an archaeological survey of the project site been done? __ If so, by whom:
[I hereby notify the recipients of this form of the project proposed herein and request that I be a~l.VJs.~_ of any permits or other determinations concerning
!this project that I must ob/rain. I understand that proceeding with work before &Il requir~i~~obtained may subject me to Federal,
land/or Ioca~istrativ,~, civil and/,or criminal penalties. . ,,~,v- ~ C'~,N
~aturlof Person Proposing Prd;c, or Agent ' / /
', ~t" ~ - '"~CE~ .-~J
I ,I iH I, I ,1~ I
OUTLOT
NO. 1.~6
OUTLOT C
~,GE ,
.{2 . ..~ ., :-
DLeV~LOI~NT
~ehe~We ~on ~t: '
~ss ~te OreO:
.Gross wet~ o~eo: , ·
Net ~o~e OreO:
'Total ~*of ~o~d res;de.es:, ..
Gross d~sdy (excl~l~ bio~):
Total ~s stree{ o~ dr~woy ~:*
Total res~enl~l bu;ld~ oreo: ·
Total ~dc~r oreo:
Total ~mlo~ site o~n
T~r~e Oreo:
~uft oreo:
Pu~c r~ht-of-woy:
T~r two oreo:
T~r three
~o~ ~kt~ore fr~t~e: .'
Isl~ ~k~e treeage:
1oral ~kes~e
Resldenliel Sk;nle Feebly
Res~C~.~liot. Lo,~ DeRS~4X (I-4
PC~
Residential. Lo~, De,'~ty (t-4 DU/AC)
598.$$ 4 Sir
32.481 SF
13.7 Ac~es
20
I Water Access~ts'
40
2.02 (DU/AC) '-
2.92 (~J/A~)
92.079 sr
· 90.024 Sr
182.103 SF
30.426R
69.574,'.
246.~C~.$6 Sr
34.9.56.00 St'
4.12~.~ SIr
283.990.16
a8.o15.28 sr
80 Spaces (2 per D~e#ing Un;t)
80 Spaces(2 per DveUm9 Unit)
1386.5 Lr
1471.0 LF
2857.5 Lr
One AssoClotion Dock ~th 40 Boot Areas
Bayer Building CorPorotio~ Ra~:~ C. Tus'n~urs: ln~}~ 1~ulst
18283 A U~toflko Bl~. [~ B. lur~uis: Mo~9~ng ~enl
~ep~n. MN ~5391 R~ W. lu~uiSt I~I HoMr~ge Rd. W.
P; 612-475-2~7 w~oto. MH 55391
r: 612-475-2~S' P: 6t2-440-9323.
BoYER BUILDING CORPORATION
WA~7.&IA, ~ &&alt
FOR.
RLK ~sso~mtes. LtO.
g22 uoin Streel,
HOpkins. UN 55343
P; 612-935-0972
'Re~ G. Noroy On~ ~s~tes
t 10901 Red C,rcle ~e. ~te
p&r: 612-g~-~20
8URY~'YOR
LOOn FEtid and ho~ot
7415 Woyzato
P; 612-:>46-68~7
F: 812-~,46-6839
CONSTRUCTION
O' eO' 120'
' PELICAN POINT
ADDITION
· , I
PRELIMINARY ~'~
PLAT ~
I ,l I [ I ,i~ I It
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
June 3, 1994
Mr. John Boyer
Boyer Building Corporation
18283A Minnetonka Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: Public Streets in Pelican Point
Dear John:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of a few weeks ago, I reviewed the
subdivision regulations of the City of Mound with the city attorney. The subdivision
regulations call for developers to put in the streets and then turn them over to the City
upon completion of the project. Historically, Mound has always done this with its
lands that are developed for housing. Based upon what the regulations state and the
history within the City, we will continue to practice this method as it relates to streets
within newly platted subdivisions.
I received a telephone call recently from Jerry Julius, Marquette Bank Mound,
asking me basically the same question that you had asked in our phone conversation
and I told him the same reason. He may have passed this on to you already. Thank
you for your interest in the City of Mound. If there is any other questions as you go
forward with your project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
~war~d j~.erely'
Jr.
City Manager
cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner
John Cameron, City Engineer
-tJon Sutherland, Building Official
Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent
ES:Is
Hoising~n Koegler ~ Inc.
DD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Curt Pearson
Mark Koegler
May 16, 1994
Pelican Point - East Port Road
Boyer Building Corporation has submitted a proposal for the development of 40 units on the
Pelican Point site. The units are doubles, targeted at the "empty nester" market. As a part of
their development plan, Boyer is proposing to construct a portion of Pelican Point Circle within
the old East Port Road fight-of-way. I have aEached copies of part of their preliminary plat as
well as the half section for this area.
It is my understanding that East Port Road is public right-of-way. If this is the ease, I assume
that either the City can allow the street to be constructed within tiffs existing right-of-way area
or as an alternative, East Port Road might be vacated, conveyed t~ the appropriate parties, and
platted once again as public fight-of-way consistent with the specific alignment of Pelican Point
Circle. I've also included a copy of a letter that the City of Mound received on March 30, 1994
from Garsten Management (Lakewinds) expressing interest in vacating East Port to provide
additional parking for Lakewinds.
I assume that over the years, you have sat through a number of conversations about East Port
Road and its former use as a walking access to the old Donnie's Restaurant. Based on both what
has occurred in the past and the present proposal, do you have any comments on the issue of
improving a portion of the East Port Road right-of-way as a public street serving Pelican Point?
Please call me with your thoughts either today or tomorrow since staff reports need to be
prepared by Thursday of this week.
CC:
John Cameron
.Ion Sutherland
land Use / l~nvironmental * Planning/Design
7300MetroBoulev~rd/$uk¢525 , lViinn~polis, lVlinnesota 55439 · (612)835-9960 ' 1~.x: (612) 835-3160
~ r'rl
'/
OUTLO'T A "
, II
March 29, lgg4
Oe sten Management Corporation
professional real esrore management
Pe.m~ Iohn~;m, lVtayor
City Of Mound
5341 Mayw~xl Road
Mound, M3/55364
RECEIVED MAR 3 0 19 4
I am writing on be. half. of the I-akewinds Condominium Association (437g Wilahire Blvd.).
Rec~tIy, the A~:n~iat~o~ was contacted' by Trude Tur~. quisr eOnCe'r~ng ~-~pOrt Road, th~-.-
abandoned str~ between the Lakewinds Condominium Association property and the Turnquist
property.
Mrs. Tumqubt wondered what thc At~fiation's position would b~ concerning this piece of
ptotnaxy, as it is currently controlled by the City of Mound.
The Association would SUl:rl~rt permanently vacating this stx~t and dedicating half of the
property to Lakewind$ as a buffer and the other half to the Turnqutsts, also a~ a buffer,
However, the condominium's highest priority is the d~,-velopment of additional parking.
The condominium association would like it known that it would be coopea-ative in any venture
to orear~ additional, l~'manent overflow parking for the Association.
The Association has approached Everett Sunge, the Tutnquists' realtor, He is appareafly
working with a devalol:nn-, the Boyer Group, on the Turnquist property. The Association is
l~igkly motivat~xi to o:~-at~ in a plan that would meet everyone's objectives, According to
conversations with th~ City Planner in b~embe, r, the city would like to beautify or tlpgrad¢ this
acc~$ to the Cxity of Mound. The Board of Directors of the Lakcwind$ Association feels that
developing .additional parking, beautifying this entry to the City of Mound and supposing the
Turnquists' development plans are not incompatible. . ........
Plea~ let the Association know, tltrough me, how they can participate and make a gositive
contribution towards the objectiv~ discussed above.
Mi.chael A. Koch
Property Manager
MAK:kdl
1w\489
2.~$0 0'niver$i~. Avrnue Wtxt, Suite i10
St. Paul, Minne.votu $$114-1052
FAX (612) 6.~.8947
(,5121 64~.1515
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mm
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: May 18, 1994
SUBJECT: Planned Development Area (PDA) Approval by Conditional Use Permit,
Preliminary Plat Approval, and Variances as identified in the PDA
APPLICANT: Boyer Building Corporation
CASE NUMBER: 94-28
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5g
LOCATION: 2820 Tuxedo Boulevard (Pelican Point)
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-I)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval to develop the property
commonly known as Pelican Point. The Pelican Point site consists of approximately 13.7 acres
on the mainland and an island that totals approximately 3A of an acre. The property fronts on
Tuxedo Boulevard and adjoins the Lakewinds Condominiums on the north and single family
homes on the south. Boyer's proposal involves the construction of 40 units in a twin home
configuration targeted for the "empty nester" market.
Pelican Point is the most prominent undeveloped site in the City of Mound. It has been the
subject of a number of different development proposals in the past. Although once the location
of a summer home area, little evidence remains today of its past use. Debris remaining from the
demolition of a small house, a stairway leading down a steep embankment to the lake, the
foundation of a boat house, and remnants of an old fountain system are some of the more obvious
reminders of its former use. The site has significant stands of mature maples, lindens, white pine,
spruce and other tree species. Topography of the site varies from flat to rolling to steep terrain.
Prominent locations on the site command expansive views of Lake Minnetonka.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax:(612)835-3160
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Two
REQUIRED APPROVALS: Development of the Pelican Point site will require approvals from
the City of Mound, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Health Department, the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD).
Other agencies and jurisdictions may also have approval authority over the project.
The review and action by the City of Mound is focused on the approval of a conditional use
permit to establish a Planned Development Area (PDA). All required variances will need to be
included in the processing of the PDA. The Mound Zoning Code allows the establishment of
Planned Development Areas to provide, "a method by which parcels of land in the Residential
Zoning Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic
conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the
parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires
more unique and controlled platting techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the
City." Additionally, the developer is seeking approval of a preliminary plat for the property.
Platting requirements are outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance which is found in Section 330
of the City Code.
The Pelican Point property lies within the shoreland area of the City of Mound. Correspondingly,
shoreland regulations apply. Mound's current shoreland ordinance has not received final approval
from the Commissioner of the DNR. As a result, the "Statewide Standards for Management of
Shoreland Areas" requires that the Pelican Point plan "be reviewed by the DNR and approved
by the Commissioner before final local government approval." Final approval as used by the
State refers to final plat approval." As a result, the State rules regarding shoreland management
will apply in this case rather than Mound's adopted shoreland provisions which are found in
Section 350:1200 of the City Code.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Boyer Building Corporation is proposing to construct 40 twin
home units, most of which will have access off of an internal loop road known as Pelican Point
Circle. In addition to the loop road, six units will have vehicular access off of a proposed private
driveway that is located in the southwest portion of the site. Each of these six lots also has
frontage on Pelican Point Circle.
The preliminary plat calls for the establishment of 40 lots containing a total of 20 buildings with
a common wall separation between residential units. Additionally, three outlots are to be held
in common ownership by a homeowner's association. Outlot C contains the property abutting
Lake Minnetonka and the island area. The plat identifies a 70 foot wide easement for a channel
separating the mainland and island areas. Additional easements are proposed for utilities and a
storm water detention pond in the north central portion of the site. Within Outlot C, the plan
calls for a water oriented accessory structure comprising a total of approximately 900 square feet.
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Three
ISSUES: The development of Pelican Point presents a number of issues that need to be
addressed by the City of Mound and other applicable approval agencies. In addition to the items
listed below, the City Engineer has prepared a report under separate cover that addresses other
items.
1. Environmental Review - State Rules pertaining to environmental aspects of development
projects are found in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review
Program, 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. These rules contain thresholds for the mandatory
preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW) and Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS). Since the City of Mound does not currently have a shoreland ordinance
approved by the DNR, the threshold for preparation of an EIS is 40 or more unattached
units. The proposed Pelican Point units are considered unattached under the State's
del'tuitions. If the City had an approved ordinance in place, the threshold for an EIS
would be 400 unattached units and for an EAW, it would be 100 unattached units.
The common dock area proposed as part of Pelican Point is considered a marina under
the State rules. Marinas exceeding 20,000 square feet of water surface area used for
docks requires the preparation of an EAW. The Pelican Point marina exceeds 20,000
square feet, therefore, an EAW is required.
In reviewing the EIS threshold with both the Environmental Quality Board and the DNR,
all parties agree that the preparation of an EIS for a 40 unit project is excessive. As a
result, the DNR has agreed to expedite the final review and approval of Mound's
shoreland ordinance which when in place, will alleviate the EIS threshold. The shoreland
ordinance adoption process is likely to take at least 60 days. Mound's ordinance should
be in place, however, before Pelican Point reaches the final plat approval stage.
Therefore, it is appropriate for the City of Mound to continue the review and approval
process for this project including the preparation of an EAW.
2. Density & Total Units - The total number of units allowed in a PDA is dictated by the
lot size provisions of the underlying zoning district. In this case, the land is currently
zoned R-1 and therefore, density (units per acre) is based on a 10,000 square foot lot size
requirement. Mound's Zoning Ordinance excludes land within drainage easements and
land within right-of-way from the gross land area used in density calculations. In the case
of Pelican Point, the mainland portion of the site totals 13.7 acres. Land within the
excluded categories referenced above totals 2.5 acres. Therefore, the maximum density
allowed on the Pelican Point site based on the proposed plan is 48 units.
Since Pelican Point lies within Mound's shoreland area, density is controlled under the
zoning provisions discussed above and by the requirements of the shoreland ordinance.
As was discussed previously, the shoreland ordinance in this case is the State shoreland
rules. Under the State rules, Pelican Point is classified as a Planned Unit Development
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Four
(PUD). Therefore, the project is subject to the provisions found in State Rules 6120.3800.
Density under these provisions is determined by applying a formula involving shoreland
tiers which are in 200 foot increments parallel to the ordinary high water mark. The
shoreland regulations also allow for a density bonus if the project maintains a 75 foot
setback from the ordinary high water mark rather than the 50 foot minimum requirement.
The plans for Pelican Point include a 75 foot setback.
Shoreland rules calculate density within the aforementioned tier system based on total land
area minus all wetlands, bluffs, and land below the ordinary high water level. As a result,
the following is a listing of allowable and proposed numbers of housing units within each
tier:
Tier Proposed Allowed
1 18 units 21 units
2 16 units 42 units
3 6 units 43 units
The total number of proposed units is within the requirements of both the Mound Zoning
Code and the State shoreland requirements.
East Port Road - East Port Road exists as a "paper street" along the northern edge of the
property. In reviewing available records, there appears to be some existing confusion
regarding the status of portions of East Port Road. As can be seen on Attachments A and
B, this area was the subject of plats dating back to 1889 and 1908 respectively. More
recently, Auditor's Subdivision No. 136 established the property that contains the
Lakewinds Condominium building. The records seem to consistently identify that a 50
foot wide right-of-way exists up to the location on the Pelican Point preliminary plat
where a jog occurs as part of Outlot C. Within this portion of the right-of-way, the
developer proposes to construct part of Pelican Point Circle, the local loop street that will
serve the development.
In order to clarify confusion in this area which may include minor survey overlaps within
the right-of-way, the developer's attorney and surveyor will need to research the platting
history of East Port Road and work with the City Attorney to resolve any issues.
Streets - The proposed preliminary plat calls for Pelican Point Circle to be constructed as
a public street with a private cul-de-sac serving Lots 21 - 26 of Block 2. The City
Engineer's report addresses concerns about the proposed width of the street as well as
installation of the private cul-de-sac. The Mound Subdivision Ordinance does allow for
consideration of private streets through the issuance of a conditional use permit as
outlined in the City Code, Section 330:100, Subd. 1. The Pelican Point Site Plan
identifies the use of different paving at the entry and to delineate pedestrian walkway
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page 5
locations. The mixture of brick or concrete pavers with the bituminous roadway is an
attractive way to call attention to specific areas. Since the road will be public and the
City will assume maintenance responsibility, it will be imperative that the design and
installation of the pavers not create a future maintenance problem due to frost heaving,
snow plowing or differential settlement.
Driveways - The driveways that serve each of the units are shown within the
corresponding lot with the exception of Lots 11 and 12 of Block 1 and Lots 12, 13, 18,
19, 20, 22 and 23 of Block 2. If driveways are to be installed over lot lines, appropriate
easements will need to be established.
Variances - Planned Development Areas commonly require a number of variances from
the zoning standards that are applicable to the R-1 zone. The purpose of the PDA is to
provide the flexibility necessary to accomplish specific objectives such as preservation of
trees and minimizing grading. The Pelican Point property is a classic example of a site
that requires flexibility in order to preserve many of the existing natural features.
As a part of the PDA approval, variances are included in the granting of the conditional
use permit. Attachment C is a listing of variances that result from the application of the
R-1 zoning provisions to the proposed plan. Under the terms of a PDA, the site plan or
preliminary plat can be specifically included as an exhibit as part of the conditional use
permit. With a plan specifically included as part of the approval, the plan becomes the
basis for the variance approval rather than an extensive tabulation. Once a plan is
approved, the project can be built providing that setbacks as shown on the plan are
observed.
Pelican Point also requires specific variances for street right-of-way and items related to
shoreland regulations. Mound requires street rights-of-way to be a minimum width of 50
feet. The Pelican Point plans call for a right-of-way with a 40 foot width requiring a 10
foot variance. Variances for reduced right-of-way widths have been used in other portions
of the community in the past in order to preserve existing trees.
Impervious Cover - Mound's shoreland ordinance limits impervious cover to 30% of the
total site. The State shoreland rules limit impervious cover to 25%. Pelican Point, as
proposed, has an approximate impervious cover rate of 28.8% including both the mainland
and island areas.
Bluff Areas - The shoreland ordinance defines bluff areas and limits development within
such areas. Pelican Point contains bluff areas along the northern half of the lakeshore
frontage and in two specific areas along the southern portion of the lakeshore. According
to the plan, homes are not proposed within bluff areas.
m I ii I, m ,1~ II IW,
Pelican Point Staff Report
May 18, 1994
Page Six
State shoreland standards require a 30 foot setback from the designated top of the bluff.
Most of the riparian units within Pelican Point observe at least the 30 foot setback.
Exceptions include Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Block 2. Bluff setbacks for these units
range from 13 to 28 feet. Only lots 9 and 10 have a setback less than 20 feet.
Water Oriented Accessory Structure - The Pelican Point plans identify a location for a
water oriented accessory structure. The floor plan and elevation of the structure are
included as Attachments D and E. The purpose of the building is to house storage lockers
for each of the units within which boating equipment and beach gear can be stored. The
building also contains small changing areas. The structure will not contain restrooms or
showers.
10.
11.
12.
13.
State shoreland rules allow water oriented accessory structures providing that they do not
exceed 250 square feet in floor area and 10 feet in height. City standards are more
restrictive allowing only at-grade decks and lock boxes. The proposed structure at Pelican
Point has a floor area of 900 square feet requiring a variance from the State shoreland
standards.
Vegetation Removal - The intent of shoreland provisions is to limit disruption along the
shoreland area. Disruption includes vegetation removal. In order to ensure that
vegetation removal is controlled within the shoreland area, a number of measures could
be employed including conservation easements. In the case of Pelican Point, covenants
regulating vegetation removal could be included within the homeowner's association
agreements since they will apply to all of the outlots that are shown on the plat.
Docks - The site plan and preliminary plat identify a common dock area accommodating
40 boats. Docks are under the permitting jurisdiction of both the DNR and the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). Mound does not have any specific review
authority regarding docks but can offer comments to applicable permitting agencies if
deemed appropriate.
Park Dedication - Mound's Subdivision Ordinance contains provisions related to park
dedication that require at the City's option, either a 10% dedication of land or an
equivalent amount in the form of a cash payment. The Mound Park Commission will be
reviewing the Pelican Point plat in early June and will be forwarding their
recommendation to the City Council. It is appropriate for the Planning Commission to
generally require that park dedication be in conformance with the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
Channel Easement - The preliminary plat identifies a 70 foot wide channel easement
between the mainland area and the island. It is presumed that this easement will be
granted to the State of Minnesota since the area lies within the lake bed.
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Seven
14.
Trail - The Pelican Point site plan identifies a trail leading from the housing units to the
common dock area. This trail does not pass through any bluff areas and therefore, is
generally consistent with shoreland regulations.
15.
Landscaping - The developer has submitted a generalized landscaping concept plan for
the entire site. In their narrative, they have included tree preservation practices and
techniques that they intend to use in order to enhance the survival chances of remaining
trees. Additionally, they are proposing to relocate small trees from disturbed areas to
other portions of the property.
Specific landscaping concepts have been submitted for a typical unit as well as for the
project entrance area (Exhibits F & G). These concepts adequately convey the character
and level of landscaping within these areas. Additional detail including identified species
and sizes will need to be supplied at a later date.
COMMENT: Mound's review and action on Pelican Point is unusual since the City will be
applying local ordinances while at the same time, applying the State shoreland standards. In
essence, the Mound City Council will be providing variance recommendations to the DNR where
applicable rather than actually approving variances. If the City's shoreland provisions are
approved by the DNR in advance of preliminary plat approval, only Mound's ordinance standards
will need to be applied.
Setting aside the issue of which governmental body regulates which aspect of this project, the
Planning Commission needs to assess the merits of this specific proposal. Pelican Point is within
the density allowed under the Mound Zoning Ordinance and the layout of the plan is sensitive
to the natural environment within which homes will be constructed. The plan preserves the
shoreland essentially in its present form due to the fact that it will be held in common ownership
among all Pelican Point residents. Forty new homes on the site will not have an unduly negative
impact on the surrounding road system nor will it create capacity problems for traditional city
services such as sanitary sewer and water. The project represents a reasonable use of the land.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of a conditional use permit to establish a Planned Development Area (PDA) including applicable
variances, approval of the Preliminary Plat for Pelican Point, and incorporation of the Preliminary
Plat dated 4/21/94, last revision 5/10/94 as Exhibit 1 of the conditional use permit subject to
applicable conditions. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding, the following
motion is suggested: (this motion includes the City Engineer's recommendations)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit
for the establishment of Pelican Point as a Planned Development Area including applicable
variances for lot size, lot width, lot line setbacks, and street frontage corresponding to the lot
configuration shown on the Preliminary Plat. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Eight
recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat as well as its incorporation into the Conditional
Use Permit as Exhibit 1. The aforementioned of approvals are contingent on the following
conditions:
Because of exceeding the threshold for an EA W resulting from the proposed common dock
area (marina) and in order to satisfy local environmental concerns, the applicant shall
prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W), consistent with the requirements
found in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program,
4410. 0200 to 4410. 7800. The EA W shall include a biological inventory of the site as well
as a Phase I archaeological reconnaissance survey of the property. If the EA W results
in information requiring additional conditions to this preliminary plat approval, said
conditions will be added prior to final plat consideration.
The applicant shall secure all applicable permits from all entities with jurisdiction over
this project including but not limited to the Department of Natural Resources, the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the
Department of Health.
The applicant shall investigate and supply information to the City Attorney regarding the
historic platting of the East Port Road area and Island View Drive in order to verify that
the property shown within the Preliminary Plat is free of outside encumbrances.
All private driveways shall either be located within the lot that they serve or easements
shall be prepared allowing access on neighboring lots.
The project shall be limited to a total amount of impervious cover not to exceed 30
percent. As such, the City recommends that the DNR approve an impervious coverage
variance if applicable.
Bluff areas as delineated on the Preliminary Plat shall remain undisturbed The City
recommends that the DNR approve top of bluff setback variances consistent with the unit
placement shown on the Preliminary Plat.
The City finds that the one proposed water oriented accessory structure is reasonable and
recommends variance approval by the DNR since it serves 40 homes. The proposed
building is of far less impact than a series of private water oriented accessory structures
that would be allowed if the lakeshore was platted into private lots in a more traditional
subdivision design. Said water oriented accessory structure shall comply with the setback
and color restrictions identified in the State shoreland rules.
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Nine
8. Covenants and bylaws of the homeowner's association shall include provisions restricting
vegetation removal from Outlot C. Said documents shall be approved by the City of
Mound at the time of final plat approval.
9. Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as applicable.
I0. Park dedication fees shall be collected in conformance with the Mound Subdivision
Ordinance.
1 I. Tree management practices shall be followed consistent with the Tree Management
narrative submitted as part of the developers narrative and included as part of the
Conditional Use Permit as Exhibit 2.
12. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan for the project entry for review
and approval by the City Planner.
13. Detailed information on paving at the entry area and at trail crossing points shall be
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
I4. All interior lot lines shall be required to have a 5foot wide drainage and utility easement
along both sides except common lot lines which pass through buildings.
15. Easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided for utilities not located
within street rights-of-way.
16. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided at the north end of Outlot C for the
storm sewer and drainage channel that leads to Lake Minnetonka.
17. The City's existing storm sewer in East Port Road shall be added to the Preliminary
Utility Plan. Furthermore, the proposed drainage pond shall have adequate capacity to
accommodate runoff from the Pelican Point development as well as from the existing City
storm sewer. Drainage calculations demonstrating adequate capacity shall be submitted
and approved by the City Engineer. The sediment control structure for the pond outlet
shall be relocated midway between the inlets.
18. Silt fence shall be located to contain all areas disturbed by grading. Method #1 for silt
fence installation as shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan shall be utilized.
19. All utilities adjacent to Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed within the public right-
of-way.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1994
PELICAN PO!NT DEVELOPMENT: PARK DEDICATION
John Boyer of Boyer Building Corporation, addressed the commission in response to the memorandum
to the Park Commission from Mark Koegler, City Planner, dated June 2, 1994. Staff recommended
that the Park and Open Space Commission recommend that the City Council require a cash payment
in lieu of land dedication for Pelican Point. The 1994 Tax Book identifies a total land valuation for
Pelican Point of $1,240,000. Under the terms of the ordinance, this would result in a total park
payment of $124,000. Subd. 5 of the Ordinance further requires that cash contributions are to be
made prior to the filing of the final plat.
Mr. Boyer informed the Commission that he would like to discuss two items, 1) the amount
recommended for payment and how it relates to other area communities, and 2) the timing of the pay
out of the fee. Mr. Boyer questioned why the fee had to be so high. He explained that Boyer is not
new to this business, and they were not expecting such high park dedication fees in Mound. Mr.
Boyer portrayed on the overhead projector a table showing park dedication fee comparisons for area
cities, which indicated the fees per unit, as follows:
Chanhassen $1,200
Chaska
Minnetonka 750
Minnetrista 450
Mound 3,000
Orono 3,000
Plymouth 750
Shorewood 1,000
750
Tonka Bay 600
Only Minnetrista is as high as Mound.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes
June ~ 1994
The Parks Director explained that the City Council sets the fees, and they have not changed in years,
however, he believes there has been some discussion by the Council to look at modifying the
ordinance.
Mr. Boyer requested that they also be allowed to pay the fees on a per unit basis when they are sold,
and stressed that it is a hardship for any developer to have to pay the entire fee up-front.
(Bill Darling arrived.)
There was some discussion about how staff determined the fair market value, and it was clarified that
the "Taxable Market" value as identified in the 1994Tax Book was used. Ahrens confirmed that the
Hennepin County Assessors, during Board of Review, ascertain the value listed in the tax books to
be the "Fair Market Value." Fackler clarified that the Park Commission is given the opportunity to
make a recommendation on the issue of park dedication only to determine if land or cash should be
retained, not to debate the value and the amount as this is clearly delineated in the ordinance. Ahrens
confirmed that the 10% rule is currently being questioned by the City Council.
Casey stated that he cannot vote in favor of staff's recommendation. He would like to see an
appraisal on the property, or an offer to sell the property to the City at $1,240,000 if that is what
the fair market value is determined to be. Casey would also like to see what portion of land could
be donated in lieu of the fees.
Ahrens again noted that the City has been consistently using the taxable market value listed in the
tax books, and she does not think it would be wise to change this practice now and require an
appraisal.
John Blumentritt, also of Boyer Corporation, summarized what they are asking the Park Commission
to take into consideration in their recommendation, which is:
1) Be more reasonable with the amount; why is there such a difference in the fees from area
communities7
2) Does Boyer need to pay the fee up-front7
Schmidt commented that she is excited about the development, and excited about receiving the funds
to help enhance and develop existing park property within the City. She does not have a problem
deferring the payment.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Darling to recommend to the City Council that
cash payment be received in lieu of land dedication for Pelican Point, totalling
$124,000,and that the City Council work with the City Attorney to find a way to defer
the park dedication payments.
Casey moved to amend the motion to recommend that an appraisal be done to clarify
the fair market value. Due to lack of a second, the motion failed.
MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Darling, Goode, Byrnes,
Meyer, Steinbring, Geffre, and Ahrens. Casey opposed.
This issue wi'Il be addressed at the June 14, 1994 City Council meeting.
Pelican Point Planning Report
May 18, 1994
Page Ten
20.
The proposed sanitary sewer shall be extended from manhole #7 with an additional
manhole placed to provide service for Lots 19 and 20, Block 2.
21.
An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be added closer to the intersection of the
private drive (as shown on the plat) and Pelican Point Circle to retain the line within the
public right-of-way and to reduce the length of the services to Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. The
watermain in this area shall also be moved
22. An additional fire hydrant shall be added at the proposed cul-de-sac.
23.
Additional mainline gate valves at locations acceptable to the City Engineer shall be
added to provide zoning of the water distribution system.
24.
Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed as a 28 foot wide (back to back) public street
accommodating parking on one side. A 10 foot variance from the right-of-way
requirement is approved due to the desire of both the applicant and the City of Mound
to maximize retention of existing tree cover.
25.
Ingress and egress lanes at the project entrance shall be widened to 16feet (back to back)
and B618 curb and gutter shall be installed
26.
The proposed cul-de-sac that is identified on the Preliminary Plat as a "Shared Private
Driveway" shall be platted and constructed as a public street with right-of-way and
pavement widths consistent with Pelican Point Circle. A variance for the cul-de-sac
bubble of 2O feet is approved to establish an 80foot diameter bubble with a paved area
with a 70 foot diameter. The pavement width at the bubble can be reduced by the
placement of a landscaped island providing that the cul-de-sac is posted for one-way
traffic only.
27.
Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall identify the system ownership as either public or private and shall specify
pole and fixture types and locations.
28.
No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without specific
modification of the Conditional Use Permit.
MAY 17 °9~
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
City of Mound
Pelican Point Variances
ATTACHMENT C
LOCATION
ITEM
PROPOSED
CONDITION
VARIANCE
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 9
Front setback
Street frontage
Front setback
Lot width
Street frontage
Front setback
Lot width
Street frontage
.~ront setback
Lot width
setback
Lot area
Lot width
Street frontage
Front setback
Street frontage
Lot width
Lot area
Street frontage
Front setback
Lot width
Lot area
Lot area
Street frontage
Front setback
Cut width
10'
57.13'
24'
55'
53.47'
21'
55'
52.56'
20'
53'
25'
9,043 sf
45'
48.69'
22'
56.30'
53'
9,854 sf
59.29'
26'
55'
7,708 sf
6,645 sf
54.39'
20'
54'
20'
2.87'
6'
5'
6.33'
5'
9'
7.44'
10'
7'
5'
957 sf
15'
11.31'
8'
3.7'
7'
146 sf
.71'
4'
5'
2,292 sf
3,355 sf
5.61'
10'
6'
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot 10 Lot area 9,109 sf 891 sf
Front setback 20' 10'
Street frontage 53.50' 6.5'
Lot 11 Street frontage 58.36' 1.64'
Front setback 16' 14'
Lot area 9,459 sf 541 sf
Lot 12 Front setback 28' 2'
Street frontage 38.83' 21.17'
Lot area 9,366 sf 634 sf
Lot width 45' 15'
Lot 13 Lot area 8,151 sf 1,849 sf
Front setback 29' 1'
Street frontage 56.22' 3.78'
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 14 Front setback 18' 12'
Lot area 8,877 sf 1,123 sf
Lot 1 Lot area 7,500 sf 2,500 sf
Street frontage 45' 15'
Lot width 40' 20'
Lot 2 Front setback 27' 3'
Lot width 40' 20'
Lot area 6,626 sf 3,374 sf
Street frontage 20.76' 39.24'
Lot 3 Lot area 6,583 sf 3,417 sf
Street frontage 44.38' 15.62'
Lot width 43' 13'
CLIENTSX MOUND\94-5G \VARIANCE.PRO
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot 4 Lot area 7,102 sf 2,898 sf
Street frontage 52.78' 7.22'
Lot width 54' 6'
Lot 5 Lot area 8,142 sf 1,858 sf
Lot 6 Lot area 8,503 sf 1,497 sf
Lot 7 Lot area 8,448 sf 1,552 sf
Bluff setback 25' 5'
Lot 8 Front setback 26' 4'
Bluff setback 25' 5'
Lot area 6,964 sf 3,036 sf
Street frontage 42.7' 17.3'
Lot width 53' 7'
Lot 9 Lot area 6,594 sf 3,406 sf
Street frontage 49.22' 10.78'
Lot width 49' 11'
Bluff setback 13' 17'
Front setback 25' 4'
Lot 10 Front setback 25' 5'
Street frontage 46.35' 13.65'
Lot area 5,481 sf 3,519 sf'
Lot width 50' 10'
Bluff setback 13' 17'
Lot 11 Street frontage 49.2' 10.8'
Lot area 6,802 sf 3,198 sf
Lot width 53' 7'
Bluff setback 21' 9'
Lot 12 Street frontage 38.31' 21.69'
CLIENTS\MOUND\94-5G \VARIANCE.PRO
Page 3
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot area 6,936 sf 3,064 sf
Lot width 47' 13'
Bluff setback 28' 2'
Lot 13 Street frontage 30.5' 29.5'
Lot area 6,724 sf 3,276 sf
Lot width 40' 20'
Lot 14 Front setback 15' 15'
Street frontage 53.56' 6.44'
Lot area 6,159 sf 3,841 sf
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 15 Front setback 12' 18'
Street frontage 48.49' 11.51'
Lot area 5,130 sf 4,870 sf
Lot width 51' 9'
Lot 16 Front setback 12' 18'
Street frontage 44.03' 15.97'
Lot area 4,693 sf 5,307 sf
Lot width 48' 12'
Lot 17 Front setback 12' 18'
Street frontage 53.2' 6.8'
Lot area 5,802 sf 4,198 sf
Lot width 55' 5'
Lot 18 Street frontage 24.09' 35.91'
Lot width 48' 12'
Lot 19 Front setback 15' 15'
Lot area 8,160 sf 1,840 sf
Lot 20 Street frontage 39.92' 20.08'
CLIENTS\ MOUND\94-SG \VARIANCE.PRO
LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE
CONDITION
Lot 21 Street frontage 37.91' 22.09'
Lot width 51' 9'
Lot 22 Street frontage 52.44' 7.56'
Lot area 7,231 sf 2,769 sf
Lot width 53' 7'
Lot 23 Lot area 9,163 sf 837 sf
Lot 24 Front setback 25' 5'
Lot area 9,524 sf 476 sf
Lot 25 Front setback 20' 10'
Lot area 6,475 sf 3,525 sf
Lot width 54' 6'
Lot 26 Front setback 16' 14'
Street frontage 53.25' 6.75'
Lot area 5,183 sf 4,817 sf
Lot width 53' 7'
Because Lots 21-26 front on a private street, applicable conditions are measured
from Pelican Point Circle.
Lots 9 and 10 of Block 1 have second front yard setbacks which would require a
variance.
Lot 9 Front yard setback: 20' 10' v
Lot 10 front yard setback: 22' 8' v
~B~ CLIENTS\ MOUND\94-5G \VARIANCE.PRO
Page 5
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT' E
I
ATTACHMENT F
Alqo
!
~ 6~29~a0020
ATTACHMENT G
Boyer Building Corporation
EXHIBIT 2
It is anticipated that there will be some tree lOss due to installation of roads, utilities and
building foundations. In an attempt to m/nimize additional secondary tree loss due to
grading operations the following practices shall be implemented.
In areas where it is expected that site grading may expose or cut roots the contractor will
be trenching along the area of disturbance to a depth of 36". This procedure eliminates
broken or torn roots and minimizes the surface area of damaged root tissue where
dehydration and root pathogen im"ection may occur.
Trees which are located near construction areas may also be susceptible to compaction
resulting fi.om heavy equipment tra. fl~c. The contractor shall be installing snow fencing
around significant trees or vegetation masses to minimize root suffocation due to
compaction and C~lling. Trees affected by compaction shall be core aerated to a depth of
18" every 2:5 square feet at their dripline. Individual holes should be filled with a granular
material such as vermiculite or pea gravel to facilitate oxygen transmission to 'the root
zone.
In areas where significant grade alteration may occur, small retaining walls may be
constructed to keep grades fi.om changing within the tree's dripline.
Trees affected by construction should receive occasional long, deep waterings. Particular
attention should be given to the side of the tree which was not disturbed. Also, it is not
recommended that trees be pruned in an attempt to reduce branching structure in
proportion to root loss. Rather, the contractor shall provide corrective pruning on an
annual basis to remove deadwood and improve branching structure. This allows the
individual tree to selectively reduce leaf surface area natur~y. All branches and wood
fi'om tree removal and pruning shall be immediately removed fi'om the site so as not to
attract pathogen carrying insects. No pruning of oak trees shall be done between April 1
and September 1 to reduce risk of oak wilt disease.
Fertilizing of mature trees is generally not required unless a specific nutrient deficiency has
been identified, such as iron chiorosis in oaks. In the event that fertilizing is required, a
Iow nitrogen or balanced composition fertilizer, such as %21-12 or 10-10-10, is preferred.
This will help encourage a strong root system and minimize additional foliar growth which
may fia-ther stress a weakened tree.
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 9
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
City of Mound, Minnesota
Engineer's Memo
to
Planning commission and/or City council
DATE: May 17, 1994
CASE NO.: 94-28
PETITIONER: Boyer Building Corporation
PRELIMINARY PLAT: Pelican Point
LOCATION: Tuxedo Boulevard
As requested, we have reviewed the Preliminary Plat of Pelican
Point as submitted May 12, 1994 and have the following comments and/or
recommendations:
PRELIMINARY PLAT not
1. The proposed right-of-way width on the preliminary plat is
dimensioned, but it scales approximately 40 feet. The City's
subdivision ordinance requires a 50 foot minimum for a local
street. We would not recommend anything less then 40 feet
which requires a variance.
All interior lot lines must have 5 foot wide drainage and
utility easements along both sides, except for lines which
pass through buildings-
3. Easements of sufficient size (minimum 20' wide) must be
provided for utilities not located within street right-of-way
(Final plat requirement)-
, t C remains private property, a drainage and utility
If Outlo ...... ~red for the area of the storm sewer and
4. easement will De ~qu~
drainage channel to the lake.
5. The final disposition of the existing street right-of-way for
East Port Road needs to be addressed-
~% I~dl~ An Equal Opportunity Employer
Planning Commission and/or City Council
May 17, 1994
Page Two
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
1. The City's storm sewer system from Tuxedo Boulevard has not
been shown. It presently outlets in the low area proposed for
ponding. Pond size must accommodate this discharge. Sediment
control structure for pond outlet to be relocated midway
between inlets.
2. Silt fence to be located to contain all areas disturbed by
grading. Method #1 as shown on plans shall be used.
UTILITIES _ SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND STORM SEWER
1. Utilities planned for the public right-of-way of Pelican Point
Circle must be located completely within the street right-of-
way.
2. Sanitary sewer needs to be extended from Manhole #? with an
additional manhole placed to provide service for Lots 19 and
20.
3. An additional sanitary manhole needs to be added closer to the
intersection of the private drive and Pelican Point Circle to
keep the main in public right-of-way and shorten the length of
the services to Lots 5 & 6. The watermain should also be
moved accordingly.
4. Additional hydrant will be required in the cul-de-sac.
5. Additional mainline gate valves will be required to provide
zoning of the water distribution system.
STREETS
The City's standard requirement for residential streets is 28 feet
wide (measured from back of curb to back of curb) with surmountable
concrete curb and gutter. This allows for on street parking limited to
one side only. The subdivision ordinance also requires that all streets
be public with a minimum 50 foot right-of-way. Private streets may be
allowed as part of a Conditional Use Permit for an overall development.
The plans submitted call for a 22 foot wide street located in a 40
foot right-of-way with four areas widened to 28 feet for parallel off-
street parking. Some of these off-street parking spaces, particularl
the 5 spaces shown adjacent to Lot 14 Y
desirable portion of the street -- ~ , are not located in a ver
~b~ems with this type of of~_-~- w~ a±s~ see a number of main~n=~
~u s~alls. Other alterna~oo ~e~ parking as compared to ~i~
~ ~uu~u os considered such as 900 s~l~U~
Planning Commission and/or City council
May 17, 1994
Page Three
strategically located at lot lines between buildings in lieu of in front
of the units. It appears that an equal number of 90o stalls could
require less area then the parallel spaces, thus reducing the amount of
hard cover.
osed private driveway, serving the six units in Block 2, is
The prop L ~o ~ he cul-de-sac as designed with a radius of
also too narrow au xo 3 .... . T and utter would be preferred
35 feet and a center island would be acceptable if traffic is limited to
he circle We would like to see this street conform to the
~?me st_a.~ from the ~ront ya~d~ ~___ +~ the public st¢=et.
s~nce ru~ · rivate ~rlv~w~ ~ . _ ~ ~ way to
~t B ~rains on th~s P ....... ~ t is Qr~vat~ ~_ve
0 --- .-, ..... ~re access uy ~ as ambulances and
the City wm±~
the public utilities and for emergency vehicles; such
fire trucks, with the aforementioned requirements, we see no reason for
this road to be considered for a private driveway-
The following comments will address the plan as submitted:
foot wide street with 6' parallel parking as proposed
1. The 22 width be
is not adequate for two-way residential traffic and additional
parking. We are recommending that proposed street
held to the City's standard of 28 feet with parking allowed on
one side only. The width of the right-of-way as proposed at
40 would be acceptable, but will require a 10 foot variance.
2. The ingress and egress lanes at the entrance also need to be
widened from the 12 feet shown to 16 feet back to back of
curb. B618 type curb and gutter will be required for this
entrance, reason for the proposed shared private
3. We see no legitimate therefore our recommendation is for this
driveway in outlot B;
street to be public, built to the same standards as Pelican
~ ~ The reduced right-of-way width and center
Point ~r~e.
island cul-de-sac would be acceptable, but will also require
variances-
4. The plans do not indicate ownership of the proposed street
lights, but we are assuming this to be a private system. If
this is not true, further review will be required.
Submitted by ~gineer
Boyer Building Corporation
May 10,1994
PELICAN POINT
PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE
MOUND, MINNESOTA
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME,
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED
._DEVELOPMENT AREA REVIEW
Pelican Point
TYPE OF PROJECT
Empty nester single family zero lot line twinhomes.
REQUESTED ACTIO]3[
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PDA) approval from the City Planning
Commission and City Council.
Easterly side of Tuxedo Boulevard, south of Lakewinds Development and north of
Dorchester Road.
Boyer Building Corporation
18283A Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
P: 612-475-2097
F: 612-475-2005
Boyer Building Corporation
18283A Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
P: 612-475-2097
F: 612-475-2005
Ralph C. Tumquist
Elsie B. Tumquist
RolfW. Tumquist
Trude Tumquist
Managing Agent
16061 Holdridge Rd. W.
Wayzata, MN 55391
P: 612-440-9323
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 1
SITE ENGINEER
~ Associates Ltd.
922 Main Street
Hopkins, MN 55343
p: 612-933-0972
F: 612-933-1153
LANDSCAPE AR~
~,.evin G. Norby and Associates
10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 125
bfmneto~ MN 55343
P&F: 612-938-0020
Egan Field and Nowak
7415 Wayzata Blvd.
Nfinneapolis, MN 55426
p: 612-546-6837
F: 612-546-6839
· arrative '
Pelican Point
Boyer Building Corporation
LEGAL DESCRIPTIOn
Ialaad
Phelps Island Park, 1 st Division Lot 73
That part lying Southeasterly of Channel.
Phelps Island Park 1 st Division.
Lots 19 to 34 inclusive also including adjacem private street and private alley and that part
of Lot 73 lying northwesterly of channel also commencing at the intersection &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
said 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
beg~ning.
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.
Existing Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Proposed Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Residential Single Family
Residential, Low Density (1-4 DU/AC)
PDA
Residential, Low Density (14 DU/AC)
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 3
Boyer Building Corporation
Approximately 14.5 acres of undeveloped land total with 13.74 acres attributed to
mainland and the balance as Pelican Island. Using the ordinary high water line, the
mainland site has slightly under 1400 lineal feet of shoreline.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
40 Zero lot line Twinhome residences and one water accessory structure.
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
The site contains bluff slopes on the northeast side of the site facing the lake. It is
anticipated a disturbance will occur during the construction of the storm management
system, the pedestrian trail and the water accessories structure. These areas will be
immediately repaired with on-site vegetation.
As a means of controlling soil erosion, the developer will install proper soil restraining
barriers during the construction and re-vegetation periods. An erosion control report will
be completed by the site engineer for the final plat submittal.
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 4
Boyer Building Corporation
HOUSING/LAND USE PROFILF,
Gross site area: 13.7 acres 598,514 s.f. mainland; 32,481 s.f. island
Gross wetland area: 0
Net buildable area: 13.7 acres
Total number of structures proposed: 20 twinhomes and one water accessories building
Total number of proposed residences: 40
Gross density (excluding island): 2.92 (DU/AC)
Net density (excluding island): 2.92 (DU/AC)
Tier 1 area
Bluffarea
Net area
Street & drives
Buildings
Total hard surface
Tier 2 area
Street & drives
Buildings
Total hard surface
Tire 3 area
Street & drives
Buildings
Total hard surface
Total Building Area s.f. -
Total bituminous hardcover s.f.:
Water accessories building s.f.:
Total residential sidewalk s.f.:
Total bituminous walking path s.f..:
Total residential deck area s.f.:
Total hardcover area (decks added @ 50%):
Total mainland site coverage percentage:
Total mainland site open space percentage:
246,508.56 s.f..
34,956.00 s.f.
211,552.56 s.f.
15K = 14 units
1 OK = 21 units
12,731.40 s.f
40,335.04 s.f.
53,066.44 s.f. 25.08%
263,990.16 s.f. 10K = 26 units
55,465.20 s.f.
40,562.45 s.f.
96,027.65 s.f.
88,015.28 s.f.
23,882.40 s.f.
9126.50 s.f.
33,008.90 s.f..
90,024 s.f..
92,079 s.f..
900 s.f.
6,240 s.f..
5,135 s.f.
9,840 s.t..
199,298 s.t.
33%
67%
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
.Page 5
pARKING PROPOSED
Garage 80 2 spaces/DU
Driveway 126 3.15 spaces/DU avg.
Guest 16
_LAICESHORE DATA
Mainland lakeshore frontage: 1386.5 lineal feet
Island lakeshore frontage: 1471 lineal feet
BOAT DOCKAGE
Proposed Dockage:
One Association Dock with 40 Boats Areas
nd Narrative
Project Summary a Page 6
Pelican Point
Boyer Building Corporation
PROJECT NARRATIVE
PeLican Point is a proposed 40 unit zero lot line Twinhome residential development
constructed exclusively for "empty nesters". The dwellings are structured for one level
living and either walkout or lookout lower levels. Each residence will be wood frame
construction with two car attached garages.
The site is currently recognized as residential low density (1-4 dwelling units/acre) under
the city comprehensive plan and also residential single family under the zoning ordinance.
EXISTING LAND USE
Vacant property.
Upon satisfactory review by the regulatory agencies and final approval by the City,
construction will begin in the Fall of 1994. The developer currently retains a "waiting list"
for approximately 100 interested clients so the construction phasing will market driven on
a first come basis. We estimate a three year build out for the project.
Boyer Building Corporation is currently the land purchaser from Ralph Turnquist, Elsie
Turnquist and Roll Turnquist.
Boyer Building Corporation was established as Joe Boyer Construction Co. in 1945 and
also did business as Joe Boyer and Sons until the incorporation of Boyer Building
Corporation in 1983. The company has been a member in good standing of the
Minneapolis Builders Association since 1959 and has won many awards including the
nationally recognized "Award Of Honor" from the American Institute of Architects.
Boyer Building has been involved with a substantial number of the residences on and
around Lake 1W-umetonka serving both as land developer and home builder.
All necessary building financing will be secured by Boyer Building Corporation.
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 7
The preliminary grading plan is generated to take advantage of as much existing
vegetation and views while maintaining much of the integrity of the existing ground
elevation. Shaping of the site at the entry, at the NURP pond, at the public street and at
some of the new homes will be required. The developer will develop natural stone
retainage to minimize the site modifications as much as possible.
The preliminary utility plan anticipates that the water service, sanitary sewer and electrical
power will be from the inplace utilities in Tuxedo Boulevard.
The storm sewer management system is designed to accommodate a 1 O-year rainfall evem
directed to an on-site NURP pond. The pond will preserve runoff at existing levels or less
plus maintain water quality control through sediment basin with water impurity filtration.
~LANDSCAPING
The intent of the developer is to maintain and enhance the site's naturally wooded,
lakeshore character. Extensive use of both native and non-native trees, shrubs and
flowering perennials shall be utilized to re-establish disturbed areas and provide year-
round screening, color and interest. Native grasses and wildflower plantings shall be used
to minimize high maintenance lawn areas around retention ponds and common areas.
Sodded or seeded lawn areas shall be used primarily between the proposed residence and
the street.
Disturbed areas with some potential for erosion shall, depending on exposure to sunlight,
be sodded or planted with a combination of shrubs and perennial groundcovers such as
dogwood, honeysuckle, engelmann ivy and daylily.
Retaining walls shall be constructed of indigenous quarried stone so as to maintain the
natural character of the site.
plantings around individual residences shall include primarily non-native perennial shrubs
and goundcovers such as viburnum, spirea, yew, juniper, daylily and hosta. Building
perimeter shall be edged and mulched to prevent erosion, soil staining and to mininaize
maintenance. Mulch materials shall be a combination of rock and natural bark mulches
depending on drainage and plant species as determined by the landscape architect.
Pelican Point
Page 8
Boyer Building Corporation
TREE MANAGEMENT
It is anticipated that there will be some tree loss due to installation of roads, utilities and
building foundations. In an attempt to minimize additional secondary tree loss due to
grading operations the following practices shall be implemented.
ha areas where it is expected that site grading may expose or cut roots the contractor will
be trenching along the area of disturbance to a depth of 36". This procedure eliminates
broken or tom roots and minimizes the surface area of damaged root tissue where
dehydration and root pathogen infection may occur.
Trees which are located near construction areas may also be susceptible to compaction
resulting from heavy equipment traffic. The contractor shall be installing snow fencing
around significant trees or vegetation masses to minimize root suffocation due to
compaction and filling. Trees affected by compaction shall be core aerated to a depth of
18" every 25 square feet at their dripline. Individual holes should be filled with a granular
mater/al such as vermiculite or pea gravel to facilitate oxygen transmission to the root
zone.
In areas where significant grade alteration may occur, small retaining walls may be
constructed to keep grades from changing within the tree's dripline.
Trees affected by construction should receive occasional long, deep waterings. Particular
attention should be given to the side of the tree which was not disturbed. Also, it is not
recommended that trees be pruned in an attempt to reduce branching structure in
proportion to root loss. Rather, the contractor shall provide corrective pruning on an
annual basis to remove deadwood and improve branching structure. This allows the
individual tree to selectively reduce leaf surface area naturally. All branches and wood
from tree removal and pruning shall be immediately removed from the site so as not to
attract pathogen carrying insects. No pruning of oak trees shall be done between April 1
and September 1 to reduce risk of oak wilt disease.
Fertili~ng of mature trees is generally not required unless a specific nutrient deficiency has
been identified, such as iron chlorosis in oaks. In the event that fertilizing is required, a
Iow nitrogen or balanced composition fertilizer, such as 7-21-12 or 10-10-10, is preferred.
This will help encourage a strong root system and minimize additional foliar growth which
may further stress a weakened tree.
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
· Page 9
Boyer Building Corporation
SITE ENTRY AND SIGNAGE
The entry to Pelican Point will begin to establish the general character and sense of quality
which the developer will strive to maintain throughout the site. The split entry drive shall
have a center median with extensive landscape plantings including primarily non-native
perennial trees, shrubs and flowers. Textured concrete or brick paving shall be used to
reinforce the sense of entry into the site. Signage, including the project name and logo,
shall be incorporated into a natural stone pier. Lighting shall be provided for safety and
interest.
Additional site signage may be incorporated to direct residents along wMkways towards
the boat docking and beach areas. These signs will be constructed of wood and designed
so as to be architecturally compatible with the overall theme of the development.
Site lighting shall be provided by use of both line voltage and low voltage fixtures of three
general types. Street lighting shall be accomplished by use of a somewhat typical post and
globe fixture reflective of the overall project image. Fixtures shall be placed roughly 400
foot intervals along the street right of way. In addition, line voltage bollard type fixtures
shall be used at the intersection of the walkway and street and near the lakeshore area for
safety and cominuity throughout the site.
Finally, additional walkway lighting shall be provided by use of low voltage fixtures
mounted in the trees and pointed downward so as to provide a "moonlight" effect.
No geotechnical evaluation has been undertaken for this project. These will be undertaken
prior to construction.
Bituminous paved streets will be as shown on the conceptual site plan. The public street
will have a mountable concrete curb and gutter and constructed to a 22' - 0" back to back
width bituminous driveways, and expanded to 28'-0" wide at off street parking area.
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 10
,,Boyer Building Corporation
LEVEL I ENVIRONM'ENTAL ASSESS1WENT
At the time of this application, a Phase I environmental site assessment has yet to be
completed. An existing well and fuel tank may exist next to former residence. An
assessment is being undertaken and proper abandonment will be completed.
WATER AND WETLANDS
No wetlands exist on the site.
PROJECT ARCHITECTUIII~,
The final project floor plans are completed and the exterior architecture is currently under
review by the developer and the marketing agency. The design will be modeled quite
similarly to Gideon Cove, a townhome development currently being completed by the
developer in Shorewood off County Road 19 on Timber Lane.
The proposed units will be one story high and also have walk-out or look-out finished
lower levels. The main level will have living, dining, kitchen, dinette, laundry, den, master
bedroom suite and powder room on the main level and family room, bedroom, bath,
storage, hobby and mechanical space on the lower level. All units will have an attached
two car garage. Additionally all units will have a large deck area with options for a three
or four season porch. The main floor finish area will be from 1400 to 1800 square feet
and the entire unit will have approximately 3000 finished square feet.
The exterior will have a "lake cottage" appearance. This WIll be accomplished with using
cedar sidewall shingle and stone on the exterior walls plus installing "textured" roof
shingles.
Each residential lot is envisioned to be approximately 6000 square feet or greater with the
balance of the property being dedicated as outlot areas. It is the intent that a distance of
20 feet minimum will be maintained between each home with the common property line
essentially centered between the residences. Please refer to the preliminary plat for details.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
All Pelican Point buildings, driveways and grounds, including open spaces, dockage and
the island, will be held and maintained by a homeowners association.
Project Summary and Narrative
Pelican Point
Page 11
Boyer Building Corporation
Based on criteria from the Institute of Tr~fflc Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, the trips
generated from residential townhouse/condominium units, the average daily traffic equals
approximately 6 trips per residence. Based on 40 units, the total trips generated (two
ways) equals 240. The P.M. peak hour traffic equals approximately .0.55 trips per unit or
22 total trips. Of that total, 67% of the trips are inbound (14.7 trips) and 33% of the trips
are outbound (7.3 trips).
_CRITICAL PUBLIC DECISIONS
The City of Mound has the predominant authority over the development and several
approvals by the regulatory agencies and the City Council are the major critical public
decisions to be made.
At the PDA preliminary plat approval process, the most significant issues are expected to
be:
1. Boat dockage quantity and layout.
2. Shoreland District of Lake Minnetonka regulations and laws.
3. Overall building density and site configuration.
Project Summary and Narrative . Page 12
Pelican Point
~,151
'
~ ~,1.29380020 NORgY & I:ISSOC.
mar ~e oe~na~ ~
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331^.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) Th,e printed _ ~,'£I/'~/?
w~ich is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for ~ successive weeks:
It was first published Mon~d.,ay,
the-~_~ day of //'/;,// ,q~/'
and was thereafter prlnlea Ad pubhshe~ evej
Monday, to and including Monday,
the day of
- orized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
/
]~ N~ARY PUBLIC - MINNESOT~ (
( ~ My ~mml~ expires 7-1¢97 ~
( ) LOwest classifi~ rate paid by ~mmerdal users
for ~arable space: $10.96 per inch.
(2) M~imum rate ~lowed by law br above ma~er: $10.96.
(3) Rate a~ually charged for a~ve maker: $6.16 per in~.
Ea~ addition~ su~essive week: $4.24.
PUBLIC HEARING NO T/CE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE NO. 94-21
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1. AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION
350:310, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
SHELTERS.'
2. AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION
350:670, TO MODIFY THE TEXT OF THE EXISTING CODE TO ADD
"VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHELTERS" TO THE LISTING OF USES
ALLOWABLE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) ZONING DISTRICTS BY
ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a publi~
hearing on June 14, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound offices at
5341 Maywood Road. The following will be considered:
1. Zoninq Ordinence Amendment: to Section 350:310 to add the following definition (or
language of a similar nature) - --Victims of Domestic Abuse Shelter. Residential structures
owned and operated by non-profit corporations that provide short-term housing for victims
of domestic abuse."
2. Z~)ninq Ordinance Amendment. to modify the text of the existing code to add "Victims of
Domestic Abuse Shelter's" to the listing of uses allowable in the General Business (B-2)
zoning districts by issuance of a conditional use permit. If approved, this change would
apply to all land parcels within the City of Mound that are designated as General Business
(B-2) on the zoning map.
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
To be published in "The Laker" May 30, 1994.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364.1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
May 27, 1994
Daniel Hessburg
3490 Lythrum Way
Minnetrista, MN 55364
RE: Westonka Intervention
Dear Dan:
I have been informed by Our Lady of the Lake Church that the Parish Council has
voted to demolish the existing convent building. Pursuant to City Council action to
set a public hearing on a zoning amendment in the B-2 zone, to allow a shelter for the
victims of domestic abuse, we are still planning to have the public hearing on
Tuesday, June 14, 1994, 7:30 PM, at Mound City Hall.
The City Council has already set a subsequent public hearing for a Conditional Use
Permit relating to the shelter for Tuesday, June 28, 1994. However, with the
demolition of the convent building, the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit
for that structure is inapplicable and inappropriate at this time. Therefore, there will
not be a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit that had been previously set for
June 28th.
If you are intending to apply for a use of the old Fina site, a new application regarding
your plans is necessary. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
erely, /~
Edward J~. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
cc: ~/lark Koegler, City Planner
I/Jon Sutherland, Building Official
ES:Is
pr~nled on recycled paper'
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: April 20, 1994
SUBJECT: Westonka Intervention Project
The Staff report that was presented at the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 1994,
referenced the fact that any change to the B-2 District would apply to all properties in the B-2
District, not just the proposed site of the domestic abuse victims shelter. Therefore, it may be
helpful to provide a brief overview of all of the areas in Mound currently containing B-2
zoning.
The Mound Zoning Code and map establish three areas in the community which are classified
as B-2, General Business. The purpose of this zone is to "allow local retail sales and services
along with office space opportunities to serve local population demand and needs of non-
highway orientation. This district will encourage compact centers for retail sales and services
by grouping businesses in patterns of workable relationships, by limiting and controlling uses
near residential areas and by excluding highway oriented business that tends to disrupt the
shopping center or its circulation patterns."
The three areas in Mound presently zoned B-2 are shown on the accompanying maps. They
are generally described as, 1) along both sides of Commerce Boulevard at the northern city
limit, 2) on the east side of Mound along County Road 15, adjacent to the Spring Park
border, and 3) in the southeastern portion of the community adjacent to the intersection of
Tuxedo Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. Any zoning amendment modifying the B-2
provisions would apply to each of these areas.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
B-2 ZONING - AREA I
W~q4 ~
I iii,,
/
wOOOL
/
!
/
GRAN DVIIrW
eo&o
·
·
0
~OOy
LAN~
)rVO.
H'~ee/$O/v$
ALLEY
B-2 ZONING- AREA 2
BAY
I
i II
iI'
I1' I :, '~ I b =:I~ ~
AIO
1.
I
1-
I
II
%
21/,7
rtl LAer Off
_,.J
B-2 ZONING. AREA 3
~ L r-Foeo
; L B~UNSWlCK
DAO
llO&O
(
\
\
/
col
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472.0621
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mark Koegler - city Planner
chief Len Harrell
Safe Shelters for Women
April 18, 1994
The following is a summary of calls at local shelters in the
Hennepin county area:'
Harriet Tubman - South Minneapolis
1993 - 2 calls for service
1994 - 2 calls for service
sojourners - Minnetonka
1993 - 23 calls for service
1994 - 4 calls for service
Home Free - Plymouth
1993 - 24 calls for service
1994 - 4 calls for service
in Orono has generated 2 calls for service involving
Robb' s Motel
individuals lodged by/t~intervention project. This information
is from t~ec°r~~ger; not automated information.
~~hi ~~arrll
CITY O~ MOUND
PART I I I
·
Date Flied
Fee_ 9200.00
ZONING APPLICATIC~
~LANNING & ZONING CONN~SSIC~,'
(Please type or print the following infor~tfon.)
Address of Subject Propert ~,~c ~_ ~/~-
Lot~
Block
Addition
PID No,
Owner's Namej/~/~ (~/~/~'~ / ~c'. _ Day Phone /-~ 1~/- ~_~
Applicant's Name .(IF other than owner)~S,~~
Existing Use o~ ProPerty: JC-~..// Z~W~
Zoning District. S__
Has an application ever been made Eot zoning, variance, ional use
Permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes ~ IE yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolu'~T~on number(s)
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
I certify that all of the above statem
any .required Papers or nlan~ ~ ~- ents.end the statements co
cura~e. ! ~o~ ~_ ~ ~ -u .um submltte~ h ...... ,-- . ntafned In
.~,, .... % ...... ,- uu ~ne entry fn or , .... ~- ---~,u. are true and a -
~,,cac~on D ' ~,, ~ne Premise c
of in .... ~,__Y any ~uthorlzed official of *~- ~, .... s described tn this
~ ~v~ng, or or posting, ma f-~-,-. -,,~.~,cy or Mound for the
no re v,ng such notices
De required by law. _ ~ ~a
~mannlng Co~lssfon Reco~endation
Council Action:
Date
Resolution No.
Date
/70
ZONING APPLICATION
An Amendment to the Zon~n Ordinance
A.
(answer either A or B below):
It ts requested that Section ~>~',~-,'7o of the Zoning Ordinance be
amended as Follows: ~
Reason For Amendment:
Amendment to MaP:
It ts requested that' the property described Del'ow and_shown on t,!~e ,, ~.,
attached site plan be rezoned From ~'~- to F~c~'/z'~$ '~ .
Legal description oF property (lot, blockt subdivision or metes and
Doundsl attach additional sheets, iF necessary):
Present use'of property:
Reason For Amendment:
NOTE: No application oF a property owner For an amendment to the text
the ordinance or the zoning maP shall be considered by the Planning Comai~
sion within one year period Following a denial of such request.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound City Council and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Operations Permit
APPLICANT: Infinit:t Marketing, Inc.
CASE NUMBER: 94-37
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5o
LOCATION: 5318 Shoreline Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (I-l, Planned Industrial Area)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial
BACKGROUND: Infinity Marketing is proposing to occupy 8,744 square feet within the Balboa
Building. The Balboa Building complex is located in a Planned Industrial Area (PIA) within
which uses are established by the issuance of an Operations Permit. Operations Permits are
issued directly by the City Council.
COMMENT: Infinity Marketing will maintain an office and warehouse area for the distribution
of automotive aftermarket products such as consoles, rack systems, radar detectors and other
items. The firm will operate one shift with approximately 14 employees. All of the products
stored will be dry goods made of wood, plastic, fiberglass and aluminum. No chemicals or toxic
substances are used in their business operations. Over the course of the next few years, the
company plans to expand its warehouse space. Adequate parking is available for employee use
within the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve an Operations Permit
for Infinity Marketing for an initial occupancy of approximately 8,744 square feet within the
Balboa Building. It is further recommended that the permit allow for future expansion providing
that the nature of the business and the products stored on the premises remains essentially
unchanged. Approval should also be conditioned on compliance with all building and fire codes.
Land Use/Environmental , Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 * Minneapolis. Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Section 2 - Business information~
l. l~ame O[ Bus,ness infiniti Marketin , Inc..
Of~lCe Area 3,544
2. Total Floo~ Area 8,744 ~ Warehouse A~a 5,.200 --
Manu~acturin.~ Are~ Otb-er (please sPeci~ry)
~ales FloO~ ~rea --- · - ~ist Automotive Afterma~rket
..... ss Warehouse u~ou- "~3. L~m~. Radar Det. ectors,
3. ProductS: overhead ~__~ ~=~'*
T~ floor
(Prototype of overhead console) plan) Attachment
4. Location [c{te tal[t number or attach
5. Nt~r o~ ~D%o¥ees: let Shift 14 2r~ Shi[t- None. -
3rd Shf~t . -
6. ~lacent Uses (list businesses) ~
~200.00
~in~ 0~[CLa&'' " -- ' ............ ' ..........
~her: ................. a no at~c~u~e og land
..................... ,
m b rio e~d ~ith~n the ~on~n~ Ordin- o ~m~Lon ~w
~e~s o~ th~ nc/% ch~rm, ~et~g- _ ...................
.. ......... ·
Section 1 - Applicant Inform
~~Sh~eline Drive
[ street ~~ of ~ Y '--~
.
2. ~a[ ~i~i~ of ~r~: ~ .... ~ ~ ~.' 13_11~-~'~-34-0096
3. ~r'S ~ ~oa Minne~ta Corn an nc.
~aS Receiver lot p '
4. ~l[,_~,~ti MarKeting, inc. . ,~
~ l-~ .... , .... v ~.~-~ suite lzi r~ ,- -
~SS 3131 Fernm[u~--
Section 3 - Business Operations
1. Describe Products t~mz~ucad or Services Offered
if a~il~le) See Attachmen
5
WhaE t¥~es of materials will be shipped into and/or stored within the
premises? ~H_ardwood, P1 wood A1 rain · .
Will materials be shi[~ by: ~ail
other (specifT) _ sero! I:ruck ~_ X
Will delivery vehicles be stored on ~he property? Yes No x .
If yes, attach site plan showing ~arking stalls
vehicles.
Does the bus~ess plan future ex~nsions at ~lis location? Yes X
· ~r yes, ctescribe amount of antlcipa~ed expansion and-tim~ng~
lY~%~'pa-nsion plan to add 2,000 feet to warehouse
,wu =ueu co warehouse
Will the business require _any modifications ~o the exterior of the
existing building in¢luding-~[ not limited to doors, windows, overhead
doors, c,~lin~ b:wers, ~VAC units, etc? Yes No X
yes, please described and attach a floor ~lan an~[ exterior"b~ilding
elevatic~ drawings.
Will the proposed operation involve: Noise Generation:
No X . If yes, describe source and amount
Odor Generat on: Yes
source and amount
No X · If yes, desorz
Tf yes, describe SOurce and amount
provide.& detailed listing of all chemicals ~hich will be discharged into
the s~n~ta~ sewer system. NONE
will the o~~ati°n include either interiO~ or exterior storage of bulk
No x . ~f yes, attach floor plan and/or
containment
site pl&n sho~-ing l~catf~n and ~escribe spill/leakage
~vfsions --
o~oo~ sto~e. ot~ ~
- - --~ the nnerati~ require ~...f~ mter~als
other t~n che~s, w~_ ~-~ . ~ ~s,
~--~ screening
at~ site p~n
type an~ location.
.tic 4 - Certification _..~.~ ~n any
Sec n
..... ~n ~ pr~s ~ --- of i~~i~' or
any aut~r[z~ u~ ~ r~inG such notf~s as
~fn~infn~
Si~t~
Section 5- City Review and Aotio"~
' City
~evie~ed t:,y':
Planner
Buildin~ official
~ Manager
~ Chief
------ other
3
racks By
Multi Syste.m
Sports r. acKs for
Pro. Active
LifeStyles
Track Mount
Permanent Mount
Pick. Up .Bed Rail
Track System
AlT?
· Transport goods using Prorac accessories
· Track Mount crossbars available
· Sliding tie.downs to secure loads
· Hardware concealed 100% with track cover
Hard Tonneau Cover
Rack Program
· Transport goods using ProRac accessories
· Permanent Mount or Track Mount crossbar system
· Sliding tie-downs to secure loads
· Hardware concealed 100% with track cover
Truck Cap
Sport rack System
· Transport goods using Prorac accessories
· Permanent Mount or Track Mount crossbar system
Escort was the first to develop a traffic laser
detector and bring it to market. Escort now offers
another technological breakthrough, the Pass-
port 4500, a full featured 4-band 0(,K,Wlde Ka
Radar, and Laser) detector for the driving enthu-
siast who requires full radar and laser protection.
The Passport 4500 has been designed to provide
outstanding detection performance for all radar
bands and the new laser technology.
Escort's patented Sliding Window DFT signal
processing technology provides consistent in-
terpretation of the radar signals received as the
signals are analyzed by the 4500's internal high
speed computer. This assures maximum alert
and minimum falsing.
This combined WideBand/Laser detector moni-
tors all radar and laser signals and incorporates
many advanced features including Mute and
Auto-mute, 5-LED meter, X, K, Ka and Laser
visual and audible alert differentiation, Dark mode,
and "Instant-On-Detection'.
! I II
Features:
* Wide/3 Band Radar & Laser Receiver
, Digital Signal Processing (DSP)
· Digital PRT Laser Detection Circuitry
' Mute and Auto-Mute
· X, K, Ka Band and Laser Alert LEDs
· 5 LED Meter
· Dark Mode
. Earphone Jack
Falsing Rejection:
Anti-falsing circuitry provides superior rejec-
tion of radar falsing from spurious signals and
polluting detectors. Pulse Width Discrimina-
tion circuitry eliminates laser falsing from light
transmissions other than laser.
Size:
1/2" Height, Front
1" Height, Back
3 1/2" Width
5 1/4" Length
Accessories:
Windshield Mount
Hook and Loop Fastener
Coiled Power Cord
Owner's Guide
Warranty: One-Year Limited Warranty
Specificelions Subject to Change
ESCORT.
'/'he/,,otwtit~, Ed, cc:'
O l Oo O OmaPkeblng ine
P.O. Box 47392 · Minneapolis, MN 55447 · Phone 612-553-9074. Fax 612-553-0928
122192
ESCORT
Model
Oescr~ion
Retail Price
Cost I - 9
P-4200 Su0erWlde Band
Laser Combination
p-4500 Full Feature
~u0erWide Band Laser
Super WldeBand and Laser 4-band
combination (X, K, Super Wide Ka, and
Laser. Unit features mute, city/highway
switch and aural radar/laser band
Indication. Complete with power cord,
windshield mount and owner's guide.
$199.00
Super Wide KA, X, K and Laser detec-
tor. Features · Auto-mute, · Escort's
Exclusive Smart Mute · Auto Dim,
· City/Highway switch, * Aural and Visual
Band IdenUfication · Earphone Jack.
Complete with power cord, hook and $229.00
loop, windshield mounl, and owners
guide.
$169.00
$199.00
P-1100 Laser Detector
A second generation of the world's first
laser detector, developed by Escort,
Features Escort's patented anti-raising
circuitry. 3 Alert LEDs, and Alert Lamp.
Complete with power cord, hook and
loop, and wind shield mount. Compat-
Ible with 12 V and 9 V radar detectors.
$69.00 $59.00
P.O. Box 47392
Minneapolis, MN 55447
maPkebing
Phone 612-553-9074
FAX 612.553-0928
** I E A 0 T VOLU E S N S**
.,ESCORT.
Model
Description Retail Price
Cost I - 9
900 MHz Digital
Spread Spectrum
Cordless Telephone
The first 900 MHz Cordless tele-
phone featuring Spread Spectrum
technology. Offers range up to 4
times greater range than conven-
tional cordless telephones.
Features include: · Digital Sound Quality
100,000 Security Codes
· Out-of-Range Alert
· 2-Way Page
· Concealed Handset
Antenna
· Low Battery Indicator;,
Audible and Visual
· User Replacable Battery
· Tone and Pulse Dialing
Available in:
Gray (model 9010)
White (model 9000)
$399.00 $299.00
6m OmarkeblnO
P,O. Box 47392
Minneapolis, MN 55447
Phone 612-553-9074 FAX 612-553-0928
Inquire About Volume Discounts
Unique new overhead center console
features the patented Private Eye®
hideaway radar detector unit. Standard
features include two padded sunglass
storage compartments, twin aircraft
type lights, and a rear storage tray.
Custom designed for many different
trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles.
The Deluxe Traveler Console is
available with oak, walnut, or matching
fabric trim.
Private Eyee unit is designed to conceal a radar detector.
Padded sunglass cases offer safe and convenient storale.
· !
Easy to install! Complete instructions ncluded.
P.O. Box 47392 · Hinneapolls, MN S5447 · Phone 612.553-9074 · Fax 612.553-0928
Traveler
Console
From ~
rear' .:
Bright 360° swivel lights with push
button on/off switches.
~,ear accessory compartment is ideal
for garage door opener and includes
convenient 12 volt plug in.
Great new console with style and function.
imal kebing
P.O. Box 473~)2 ' Minneapolis. MN 55447 · Phone 612-S53-9074 ' Fax 612-$53-0928
June 1, 1994
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
LICENSE RENEWAL -
Expire 6/30/94. New License Period 7/1/94 to
6/30/95. Approval contingent upon all required
form~, insurance, etc. being submitted.
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor - Class A
Headliners Bar & Grill
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
Mound Lanes
Off-Sale Beer
Brickley's Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica
Club - On-Sale
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post//5113
On-Sale Wine
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
Headliners Bar & Grill
VFW Post//5113
CITY of MOUND
UPdate to Staff Report_
~;54' MA',",VCGS ~.3AD
MQL.~ D. ?JINI'~ESC,A ~.5364
612) 472
FAX ,'6! 2,
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 14, 1994
Mayor and City Council
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
CASE//94-23: ROD LARSON & MYRNA NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD.,
THAT PART OF BLOCKS 1 & 2 INCL. BUCKBEE DR. NOW VACATED,
"MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY", PID #23-117-24 41
0016. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
On May 24, 1994 the City Council tabled this case and directed staff to gather more
information on the sewer and water hook-ups. Attached is a chronological history of
the applicable City records, beginning with the sewer assessment in 1965.
In 1965 a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for a garage. We could assume this
is now the nonconforming rental unit. Sometime between 1965 and 1974 it appears
the garage was converted to a second dwelling (note 1974 survey). There is no
record of city approval of this conversion.
1966 server records indicate a hook-up to the lake side manhole,
the City televised the sewer line in Highland Blvd. in front of this #B-152. In 1980
property, and this
confirms there are no sewer connections from either dwelling to Highland. It is
assumed the rental unit is connected to the lake side manhole through the principal
dwelling. A die test can be conducted to confirm this situation.
JS:pj
6/14/94
Chronological of Building Permits, Sewer and Water Installations,
and Other Related History
2976 / 2980 Highland Blvd.
June 22, 1965 - Assessment Roll: Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant
and Trunk System and Sanitary Sewer Laterals &
Services (1 Unit).
August 20, 1965 //1201
January 1966 -
Sep. 16,. 1966 #1088
Nov. 22, 1974 -
June 18, 1980
Feb. 27, 1987 -
Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for garage.
City records of sewer service (at lake side manhole).
Sewer Connection Permit.
Survey showing two "dwellings".
City record of televised sewer line.
Special Assessments Prepayment Form.
HC 1212 (10-78)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PREPAYMENT FORM
MUNICIPALITY MOund
MUNIC CODE 85
STATEMENT N0._____~7_000841
DATE ISSUED~y__~. 1987
VOID AFTER
To the City Treasurer, please permit:
Twin City Abstract Corporation ItO~
GO pay the following deferred installments of special assessments.
PROPERTY I.D._ 23-il7-24 4l oo16 LOTpart o_fBLOCK ADDN. CODE____~61810
block 1 & 2 -- - --
ADDN. NAME Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly
DESCRIPTION LEVY
Sewer Lateral 3388
1980 Street Imp. 8297
PROJECT
INTEREST
PAID
TOTAL PREPAYMENT
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
837.40 100.~7
5557.51 3334
Remarks:
30'1751-709-00 100.47
57-1751-846-00 3334.44
To Hennepin County Special Assessments Unit;
Please cancel the above special assessments
which have been paid to the City Treasurer.
AUTHORIZED BY E Shukle/D Schwalbe
For County use only:
White - City 'rreamurer
Yellow- Finance Director
Pink - City Clerk
TOTAL
3434.91
FUND/AMOUNT
i
FUND/AMOUNT
PREPAYMENT DATE February 27~ 1987
RECEIPT NO. _ ~d')O
TRANSACTION DOCUMENT NO.
TAX BOOK BY ... ,cC,,
F..HVII]E . INC.
10883 89th Ave. N.. Osseo, Minnesota 55369
Telephone 612/425-2264
MANHOLE NO._ ,~, , ,~_.__.___. PIPE SIZE _
TV INSPECTION REPORT
Date Inspected:~
City:
Contractor:- ~" "'
Street:
MANHOLE NO.__ ~ ' -'~
DEPTH
CASTING_ (~ °r"~ ' --
RINGS _
STEPS_
iNVERT._~,~,~ _ .P_.'l
OTHER _
DEPTH _
CASTING
RINGS _
STEPS _
INVERT --
OTHER -
TYPE ~ V:'~ P
TOTAL LENGTH ~
CONDITION
FLOW
MANHOLE
REMARKS
?
?o
DIP
End
~nG b~p
N~mer ous ef£~t
Not re~l bnd though.
No le~ks.
PHOTO
NO.
I W,,
Village of Mound, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR SEWER CONNECTION
PERMIT
Moo
Plumber ~ Phone
Address ~ / ~
LOCATION OF pROPOSED IMPROVEMENT:
/~/ ~ mock
to Village Code under the supervision of the Villa;ge
To be installed according ~~.~
Inspector. ,~..~ Applic ant
Fee _ ~) -
Inside Work
Outside Work
Approve d
Date
S. treet~L/a ~:,~_~t~_~_~ No .... Additionally. x~~~-
Between_~ac_~< ...... and_ .d~_o.- J_,~__~ Lot__d__~ t'_ ~ ~._~. ~Block_~
Sewer Service Water Service
MH ~-~--Distance ~/~Z_~J~ MH ................ Distance__
Length_, ~~--Depth at P.L ...... Length .... Size ....... Type Pipe ..........
Contractor
Installed by__
Tied by.__
Contractor_
Installed by
Tied by
.Date_
)POSED
(3.40% :.L :::
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
~1 / 80
/
78/
~0.7
,/
JB
168
'IST
77
AIN
BET.
B-34
71.5
71
UIVIMEI
t
/
6"X 6"X6"
70
AS SEMB LY" ~(.~
ON ~ GL£NWOOO
/:~W OF Ct_HIGHLAND
,6" SLEEVE )
WATER MAIN
GLENWOOD DRIVE
FAIRFIELD
DRIVE
106.5
5.3
VILLAGE OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
1201
AD D R E S S. "~'2Z~,~
B UI LDER &~~~
ADDRESS
PHONE...
LOCATION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
ADDITION ~/~~ LOT// .,,g..' BLOCK ,,~,
PLAT ~-.//~ ,~,~ _PARCEl ,,~-J--" ~' ESTIMATED VALUEJ//~,,~.5~ ~
TO BE USED AS TO BE COMPLETED_~.
APPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOWING:
1. One plot plan showing dimension of lot or lots and location of building on same.
The Building Inspector may in his d iscretion ask for a registered survey.
2. One set of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the
nature and extent of work proposed. Showing foundation plan, floor plan, front and
side elevation, and wall and roof section detail.
.3. One plot plan showing the location and size of all septic tanks,
~ dr~fields.
',L.,.R E MODE LIN~
cesspools and
State the nature and extent of work. For any new construction one plot showing
dimension of lot or lots and location of building on same must be submitted The
Building Inspector in his discretion may ask for a registered survey and plates and
specifications.
[] ALTERATION [] REMODELING [] NEW CONSTRUCTION [] RESIDENTIAL [] MULTI-DWELLING [] COMMERCIAL
[] INDUSTRIAL [] BREEZEWAY [] PORCH [] GARAGE [] ADDITION [] FINISH ATTIC [-] FINISH BASEMENT
PLUMBING PERMIT NEEDED: PLUMBING []
In case permit is granted, I hereby agree to do the proposed work in accordance with
description above set forth and according to the provisions of all ordinances of the Village
of Mound and of all statutes of the State of Minnesota in such cases made and provided,
DATE
APPROVED:
BUILDING INSPECTOR
('B D- 1) :','o~,,,~ r.:. M~,,. ~..
DATE
VILLAGE OF MOUND
CERT~ICATE OF OCCUPANCY
NOTICE IS
on the building for which Permit No. ~ was issued.
final inspection was made on
HEREBY GIVEN that final inspection has been made
Such
I HEREBY CERTIFY:
following purposes: _~" .%~-~
that said building may be used for the
~_.
That floor load signs as required by Section2308 have been installed.
That room capacity signs as required by Section 2301 have been
installed, and
That said building complies with the provision of the Building Code.
Dated
Building Inspector
0
//
,or 7
:. S, Wicks
.o': 8
:alter W. Mack
ot 9
alter W, Mack
.0¢ 3_0
~1.~ W. Mack
ot 11
uburbar-~ Managemen%
el~ 12
ny L: Sa!den
: H.,
F,e.3,. M.D. Ccmm. Ind.
73.3q 1
58.12 1
66.6~ 1
86.02 1
80 1
8O 1
8O
80 1
Total
Assassment
292.00
292.00
292.00
292.00
o~.'. B::>':-'ist Sum,';:er Ass,/:
25.55
353,05 6
, of B%ks ! ~ 2
:'..~, Se'~;a !1 67.5 !
..- -5'f--B-l:~ 3
zsus Crusade for
vis~, Zn.:, 172 2
c..r [~!k 3
-,]pus Crusade fop
,-.i,~%, Inc.
193.~ 5 6
292.00
1,75z.00
1,752.0~
/5
' I Ii,,
OWNER ~
PER~4 I T
ARCHITECT
BUILD£R$
404
~OOATION OF PROPOSEG IMPROvEMENi
ADDITION , ~ _ ~./ _ ~ .... ,
To BE USED AS
[8TIMATED VALUE ~
~PPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOwlNot
_ / 5/O
LoT _. /
To e£ COMPLETEO
--areal
, _ 8LO0~< ,.~
ONE PLOT PLAN 8HOWlNO DIMENBION OF' LOT O~R~LOT8 AND LOOATION OF BUILOINO ON
FLOOR PLANt FRONT AN~ SIDE ELEv~[~., /z. 5. .f ./.. FOUNDATION PLANt
"'~.a a~u'~AL~ AND ROOF SE
ONE PLOT e ~-~ _ :~'. eTlON DETAIL
LAN 6HOWINO THE LOOATiON~ ~ ~_ e
AND DRAIN FIELDSe ~Or. '~Z~.~F'~[PTIC TANK~I CESSPOOLS
STATE THE NATURE ANe E~TENT or ~ e__~SN~ '
..... n, rua A~,Y N~W CON81RUOTION ONE PLOT
~HOWtN9 DIMENSION OF LO/ OR LOt8 ANO LOOA~IO~ Or BUILOlNO ON SAME ~U~1 BE
8UIMITTEQe THE 8UILDINO INSPEOTOR IN HI8 DI/CRETION MAY
[e~ SURVEy ANO PLANS ANO 6PEOIFICA~IONSe ASK FOR A ;Eelal-
~AOREEUENT
I.N CASE PERMIT t$ ORANTEDi, j HEREBy AOR£E TO O0 THE PROPOSED WORK IN AOCORD-
AN~E WITH DESORIPTION A~OVE SET FORTN AND ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF ALL
ORDINANCES OF THE VlLLAoE OF MOUND AND OF ALL STATUTES Or THE STATE OF ~INNE$OTA
IN SUOH CA$~ MADE AND PROVlOEDo
RPPLIOANT ~
DATE
APPROVED=
B~ILDINO iNSPECTOR
DATE
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 24, 1994
1.11 ~v'c ~ ,e, '~._ INCL. BUCl~EE DR N W VA 'A'l~.,u
THAT r y" PID 7-24 41
VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
The Building Official explained that the applicant is requesting the following variances: a. Hardcover - 12 square feet; and
b. To recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on the street side of the
parcel;
in order to construct a 34' x30' garage addition onto the principal dwelling.
The street side dwelling is nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-I zoning district and
is also no~conforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. It is being used as a rental
unit. Staff was unable to fred any permit history where the City approved it as a rental unit or
a dwelling unit. He recommended that the street side dwelling's use should be discontinued at
the earliest opportunity.
The staffand Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to allow construction
of the garage with conditions as listed in the proposed resolution submitted this evening.
The City Attorney stated that a nonconforming use should not be allowed to expand. He further
asked if there were two sewer and water assessments paid and if there are two separate services.
The Building Official stated that there are no sewer & water records to indicate when the
dwelling~ were hooked-up to the water and sewer or if there are two hookups and he does not
know if the property paid 2 units as an assessment. The Council discussed the rental unit being
a nonconforming use.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to table this item until the next
meeting and allow staff to gather more information on the sewer and water
assessments and hookups to this property. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion c~rrled.
The City Attorney called to the Council's attention Section 350:420, Subd. 1 of the Code which
rods az follows: 'Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter
may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date." He pointed
out that the key words are 'lawfully existing". The City Attorney stated that the Council will
have to make a determination whether this is a legal nonconforming use or an illegal
nonconforming use. If it is determined that it is an illegal nonconforming use, then granting the
variance would be an expansion of a nonconforming use.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 23, 1994
~ D AR N AND YRNAN D 2 7 HI HLAND LVD HAT ART F
L K I ND 2 IN L. B KBEE DR. W VA AT D 'MINNE TA BAP I T MMER
EMBLY' PID #2 - 17-2441 I . VARIAN EF R ARA EADDITI N.
At the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 1994, this request was tabled in order to clarify the
hardcover calculations. The applicant's contractor, Sawhorse Designers, has revised the calculations
for impervious surface coverage for the subject property. The calculations appear accurate, with the
exception of the lot area. The surveyor has verified the lot area at 25,674 square feet, and this
number is slightly larger than the lot area used by the contractor of 25,358.13. This difference
results in a slight improvement to the impervious coverage calculations, and therefore, a variance to
impervious cover of 12 square feet, or .045%, is being requested.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize the
existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the
street side structure; and approval of a variance to impervious surface coverage of 12 square feet,
or .045 percent, to allow construction of s 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised
11-19-93 with the following conditions:
The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the
addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side
dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners
are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street
side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with
the current codes.
2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel.
Mueller clarified that now there is a variance to impervious cover being requested when there was
none before. Mueller raised questions regarding the issue of two residences on one lot, how and
when will this be changed? Since this use has been grandfathered and the two residences have
existed prior to any zoning ordinance being adopted by the City, then why worry about having two
addresses? He feels the residences should be allowed to have two different addresses. Clapsaddle
added that the post office will probably not allow them to have only one address.
Mueller further commented that considering the size of this lot, he does not understand why a
variance to impervious cover would be needed. Jensen commented that when and if the second
residence is removed, the hardcover will improve. Jensen is also okay with requiring one house
number as this will encourage an ultimate change to the goal of having only one dwelling.
Mueller requested an explanation from the City Attorney on why it is recommended that only one
address be allowed for the two residences.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance ss recommended
by staff with the deletion of item #2 which requires only one house number. Motion
failed due to lack of a second.'
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Bird, to recommend approval of the variance
as recommended by staff. Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were Jensen, Bird,
Michael, and Clapsaddle. Mueller opposed.
Mueller opposed because he questions the method used to deal with lots with two dwellings.
Clapsaddle commented that he believes the post office will ultimately over rule the City and require
two addresses.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994.
CITY of MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-768-
(612) 472 0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 19,1994
Planning Commission
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
CASE #94-23: ROD LARSON AND MYRNA NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD.,
,T, HAT PART OF BLOCKS I AND 2, IN~L. BUCKBEE DR. NOW VACATED,
MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY , PID #23-117-2441 0016. VARIANCE
FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
CLARIFICATION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
The applicant's contractor, Sawhorse Designers, has revised the calculations for impervious surface
coverage for the subject property. The calculations appear accurate, with the exception of the lot
area. The surveyor has verified the lot area at 25,674 square feet, and this number is slightly larger
than the lot area used by the contractor of 25,358.13. This difference results in a slight improvement
to the impervious coverage calculations, and therefore, a variance to impervious cover of 12 square
feet, or .045%, is being requested.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to recognize the
existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the
street side structure; and approval of a variance to impervious surface coverage of 12 square feet,
or .045 percent, to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised
11-19-93 with the following conditions:
1. The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the
addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side
dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners
are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street
side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with
the current codes.
2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel.
JS:pj
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on May 24, 1994.
/7
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 9, 1994
.C~ ROD LARSON AND MYRNA NOYD, 2976 HIqlHLAND BLVD,
THAT PART OF BLOCKS 1 AND 2, INCL. BUCKBEE DR. NOW VACATED~
_"MINNESOTA BAPTISTSUMMER ASSEMBLY', PID #23-117-2441 0016. VARIANTS!
FOR GARAGE ADDITIQI~ -
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request. The subject property is
located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district, which according to City Code
requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard
setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation.
The applicant is seeking variances to recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling on
the street side of the parcel, in order to construct a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the
principal dwelling as shown on the survey. This property and the street side dwelling is
nonconforming as a second dwelling in the R-1 single family zone, it is also nonconforming
to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This building has a 3 foot overhand extending
to within 6 feet +1- of the front property line resulting in a 21 foot setback variance.
All other issues are conforming, including hardcover, based on the applicant removing the
existing wrap-around black top driveway as detailed on the survey.
In tracking the building permit history, staff was unable to find a permit where the City
approved the conversion of the garage into a residence, or subsequently into a rental unit. In
any event, the rental unit is nonconforming to the existing Zoning Ordinance and its use
should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommended approval of a variance to
recognize the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing
nonconforming setback to the street side structure in order to allow construction of a 34' x
30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions:
1. The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for
the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the
street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City
Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any
variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be
brought into conformance with the current codes.
2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel.
Mueller questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations, and noted that he calculated
they were over the amount allowed by 400 square feet +/- (2%). Sutherland commented that
even if the hardcover calculations exceed the minimum allowed by 2%, he feels this is
reasonable, and suggested that the applicant could work with staff to address watershed
issues. Mueller commented that to be over on hardcover for a lot of this size is excessive.
The applicant noted that the proposed addition will help existing drainage problems on the
property.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle, to table the request until
hardcover calculations can be confirmed by staff. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those
in favor were: Muellar, Clapseddle, Hanus, Bird, and Voss. Those opposed
were: We~and, Jansen, and Michael.
CITY of MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536:,-'
i612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission Agenda of May 9, 1994
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~ '
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
Variance Request
Rod Larson and Myrna Noyed
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
94-23
2976 Highland Blvd., That part of Blocks I and 2, including Buckbee Drive now
vacated, "Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly", PID//23-117-2441 0016
ZONING:
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND_
The subiect property is located in the R-1 single family residential zoning district, which
according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard
setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water
elevation.
The applicant is seeking variances to recognize an existing nonconforming second dwelling
on the street side of the parcel, in order to construct a 34' x 30' garage addition onto the
principal dwelling as shown on the attached survey. This property and the street side
dwelling is nonconfor'ming as a second dwelling in the R-1 single family zone, it is also
nonconforming to the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This building has a 3 foot
overhand extending to within 6 feet +/- of the front property line resulting in a 21 foot
setback variance.
All other issues are conforming, including hardcover, based on the applicant removing the
existing wrap-around black top driveway as detailed on the survey.
In tracking the building permit history, staff was unable to find a permit where the City
approved the conversion of the garage into a residence, or subsequently into a rental unit.
In any event, the rental unit is nonconforming to the existing Zoning Ordinance and its use
should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity.
/?
Staff Report
94-23, Larson/Noyed
May 9, 1994
Page 2
-RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to recognize
the existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming
setback to the street side structure in order to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached
garage as shown on the survey revised 11-19-93 with the following conditions:
1, The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use, Nothing contained in the approval
for the addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances
for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by
Mound City Code. The owners are advised that City staff and City Council will likely
not allow any variances for the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the
property be brought into conformance with the current codes.
2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel,
, ...... JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on May
24, 1994.
%,
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600~ Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commissi6~ Date: _ - Application Fee: $50.00
City Council Date: ----~']~-~ .~ !~.~ff-~ Case No.
Site Visit Scheduled:
Zoning Sheet Completed:
Copy to City Planner:
Copy to Public Works:
Copy to City ~g~:.: ,,
Please type or print the followlng information:
Address of Subject Property. ~7~ ~%-~'~~, ~o~,
Owner's Name~ootk~4 ~ ~ ~0~ Day Phone~o~ ~=~
Owner's Address ~ ~HL~A~Q~L~D, H~, ~
..-. Applicant's Name (if other than owner)~~~l,~2~u~.~_~,
' Address ~ ~2%~ ~0 ~o~lqSl~)~~ay Phone
,,LEGAL DESCRIPTION- ~AI ~mT Dr ~ ;gl, /~u~/g= ~u~-6g~ -, ,, .
Addition PID No.
Zoning District ~-~ Use of Property: ~c~6 ~'l~gc~
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~) no. If
yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed constr, uction or alteration (size, number
of stories, type of use, etc.):.
4/93
Variance Application
Page 2
Case No.
· . tures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
2 Do the existing struc .. .-_ .... it is located? Yes
· tions for tn· zoning district in which ..
setback r~gula ......... formin~ u~descrlDe reason
(), No (X)' If no, specl£y eacn n~n-~ ~ ~
~or variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) 7~
SETBACKS:
required
requested
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( N S E~)
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lake Front: ( N S~W )
side Yard: (~ S E W )
Side Yard: ( N~ E W )
Street Frontage:
Lot size:
Hardcover:
ft. ft.
ft. --
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
_sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the
zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ~/0. If no,
specify each non-conforminguse:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (~<~) existing
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted
property interests i~the
(1982)? Yes (), No . If yes, explain
4/93
Variance Application
~age 3
Case No._~ f~
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain
7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~), No (). If
no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
8. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate.
I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application
by any authorized official of the City of Mound
inspecting, or of posting, ~aintaining and
required by law.
Applicant,s Signature
for the purpose of
removing such notices as may be
Date
J
!
!
-L
!
/
/
/
I
I
\ ,
\
GENEI~,L ZONING INFORMATION $11EET
BETBACKS R~QUIR~D~
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
~RONT * N S ~ N
~ARI N S E W 1~'
(frontage o.__in Lmproved pu.~lLc m~reet)
/~CCES$OR¥ BUILDING
FRONT, N S '
FRONT: N S [ W
SIDB~ N S E W 4' 9r ~'
~0' Ime&eured from O.N.W,I
SIDEg N S ~ # 4' Or 6'
REAR; N S B W
SO' Cmeasured [rOm O.H.W.!
EXISTING AND(OR PROPOSED 8ETBACKSl
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
FRONT
FRONT
BIDE~
PEAR ~
~CCESSORY BUILDII~G
FRONT; N S B W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE~ N S ~- W
REAR~ N S E W
LAKESHORE:
June 14, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM L~WFUL GAMBLIN~
FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - 7-30 & 7-31v 1994
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, approves the Exemption from Lawful Gambling
License application for Our Lady of the Lake Church, 2385 Commerce
Blvd., Mound, MN. 55364, for a bingo raffle and pull-tabs, July 30
& 31, 1994. '
BILLS
........ June 14, 1994
BATCH 4053
BATCH 4054
TOTAL BILLS
$160,638.67
140,012.83
$300,651.50
I I I I
I I I
o
O0
0 t~ 0
o O~ o
o o 0 0
O0 O0 000000 000
~§~o~ oo~
I ! IIIII II
0 0 00o0o ~
I I IIIII II
*.4
O0
0
0
0
0
!
0
o
0
!
0
0
,-I
o
Z
0
Z
0
~ Z
L4J
Z
..J
a~
Il · Illlel · ilI il ·
If:2,
Z
t--
Z
0
~-~
o00
0~0,
! !
OO
O0
! !
0
~-4
o00
! !
oo
O0
! !
0
000
~,~
! !
oo
O0
! !
0
00o
! I
oo
O0
! !
0
0o0
0~0~
oo
oO
! !
0
OO
o~4
0
0
I
o
0
I
.-4
0
Z
0
Z
0
·
ZZZZZZZZ'ZZZZ
Uj t~ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ ~a UJ LU UJ Q~-
Z.~
LUdC
0
IIII
IIII
0
0
Oo
0
0
!
o
!
0
oO
0*-4
0
0
!
o
0
!
0
0
o
0
!
0
0
I
0
Z
~0 ~ 0 0
,0
~4
Z
!
0
~-~
oo
0~
I
0
I
~4
0
o
0
oo
o
o
!
0
o
I
--4
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
~.4
ooo
I !
oO
I I
oO
~4 t~ aO
o o
0 0
oO oo 0
o o o
o 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 o o
0
OO
o
0
0
o
0
Z
0
~0
ZZ
~ 0
0
0
...J ~..
0
Z
0 Z
2" ,-4
0 ~'~
"J --I ..j
0
Z
C~
Z
0
Z
C~
-L
4 4 o o ° " ° '"
~j ~1
0
0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 ~
UJ ~ ~ft ~
o
O0
o
o
0
0
0
oo0
0~0~
! !
! !
o 0
O0 O0 0
,-4 0 0
-4' 0 0
0 0 0
Z
Z
UJ
ZZ
Z
~ I
~ ..J
../I Z
uJ
CITY of MOUND
534! MAvWCCD ROAD
MOUND MiNNESO"'A 5536J.-'
~612:, 4-2-0600
FAX ~6!2,-.!.72-0620
June 8, 1994
To:
From:
Subject:
Ed Shukle
City Manager
Greg Skinner
Public Works
May Activity Report
Street Department
This month we concentrated on one job, repair of main breaks.
We had 18 repairs and 5 frost boils. We will finish thzs week
and then start preparing for sealcoating. We also replaced
and repaired 10 signs. '
Water Department
We started the meter change outs this month. Things a moving
very slow. Schlumberger has hZred only two full time and one
part time installers. The schedule has already been changed
and we will be doing the data entry manually because
Schlumberger has not decided on who will make the computer
software. We are trying to get a firm commitment from
Schlumberger has to when these problems will be corrected.
Sewer Department
Lift station maintenance was our main concern this month. We
did P. M. and repairs.
Printed on reeve!ed oaDer
08-Jun-94
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR. CITY COUNCILAND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO. FINANCE DIRECTOR
MAY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
May investment activity
Balance: May 1, 1994
$5,547,685
Bou_ciht: 1.578
Money Market 4M - Income Reinvested
Matured: (270.000)
Money Market 4M
$5,279,263
Balance: May 31' 1994
Financial Reports_
After the completion of the 1993 audit and the official release of the
ComprehensiveAnnual Financial Report, Finance was required to:
- prepare data to be published in the local newspaper.
- compile forms to be sent to the Government Finance Officers Association
for their review as part of the program of Excellence in Financial Reporting.
- Complete an extensive report to be used by the State Auditor Office
and other state agencies.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 1, 1994
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS MANAGER
MAY, 1994 MONTHLY REPORT
The month of May started out very slowly. I actually was beginning to think
that for the first time, in who can remember, that we would not match what we did
in sales for the corresponding month in the previous year. Well, the second half of the
month came on extremely strong, thanks in part to a "record shattering" Memorial Day
weekend. Last year for the Thursday, Friday and Saturday be-fore the holiday, gross
sales were $24,796. This year for the same period sales were $29,005, up 17%!.
Thus, the month ended at $131,298. Last year in May we did $126,000. And, this
was accomplished without the benefit of an extra Saturday that we had in May of
1993. So far for the year, sales are at $540,496, compared to $520,098 at the same
time last year.
JK:ls
FIRE FIGHTERS
MOUND VOLUNIEER FIRE DfPARIMENI
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF
)lAY 1 qq4
DRILLS & MAINTENANCE
FIRE & RESCUE
BOB
PI{IL FISK
DAN GRADY
KEVIN GRADY
CRAIG H]~qDERSON
7 PAUL ItENRY
8 JASON MAAS
9 JOHN NAFUS
0 JAMES NELSON
1 MARV NELSON
.2 BRET NICCUM
'3 GREG PAI.M
~ MIKE PALM
'.5 TIM PALM
'.6 GREG PEDERSON
:7 CHRIS POUNDER
:8 TONY RASMUSSEN
~.9 MIKE SAVAGE
~0 KEVIN SIPPRELL
31 RON STALUMAN
32 TObl
~5
36
37
0
2
16
13
22
28
26
113
35
21
24
27
3O
27
28
28
14
28
44
16
11~
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
144.00
162.00
180.00
162.00
175.00
168.00
84.00
168.00
264.00
96.00
655.50
1,167.00
__7,859.50
MON/M OF MAY 1994
N0. OF CALLS
MOUND
MINNETONKA BEACH
MINNETRISTA
ORONO
SHOREWOOD
SPRING PARK
MUTUAL AID
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
MCNnr ~ ~0~ TO DATE
301
51 53
!4 13
16 17
2 5
0 0
2 1
1 8
5 5
1 0
0 O
2 O
4 2
2 2
1 0
1 0
28 26
23 27
0 O
8
TOTAL FIRE CALLS
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS
~_____~CIAL
RF~IDENTIAL
~,zss & ~SC~s
AUTO
FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS
NO. OF HOtmS FIRE
' MOUND
241 229
47
~ 47
96
-----------.-.____ 91
15
~ 4
0 ------------------
~ 1
6
~ 13
19
~ 12
17 10
11
1
3 1
11 14
12 22
2 2
1 1
101 90
140 139
3 6
22 22
0 0
- MTKA BEACH
- M'TRISTA
FIRE
- ORONO
- SHOREWOOD
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE
EMERGMWCy
TOTAL
- SP. PARK
TOTAL DRILL HOURS
TOTAL FIRE HOURS
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS
· YrAL FIRE & EMERGENCY HOURS
42
0
42
30
24
54
100
27
127
0
33
33
87
14
4O
27
67
563
002
DRILL REPORT
Discipline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
Pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained Masks
MOUND--FIRE-DEPARTMENT
Pumper Operations
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
House Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & Hose Appliances
Hours Training Paid :
O Excused X Unexecused O Present /_ No__~t Pai~d
/ \~- - Grad' ~%~% C.Pounde~
! ~l~_J .Andersen % J]' _u. y ~T .Rasmussen
%~._G.Anderson
\ J
___p.Babb
.Babb
~%__~D.Boyd
%]~L~S.Bryce
~Z~_D.Carlson
~J.Casey
z~S.Collins
B.Crawford
R.Engelhart
S.Erickson
P.Fisk
K.Grady
C.Henderson
~,_P.Henry
jJ.Maas
.Nafus
\ J.Nelson
M.Nelson
B.Niccum
G.Palm
M.Palm
T.Palm ~
G.Pederso~
%~_M.Savage
\ K
R.Sipprell
.Stallman
B.Svoboda
T.Swenson
E.Vanecek
R.Williams
T.Williams
D.Woytcke
-MOUND-FIRE-DEPARTMENT
DRILL REPORT
.scipline and Teamwork
critique of fires
Pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained Masks
Hours Training Paid :
Pumper Operations
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
House Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & Hose Appliances
Excused X Unexecused
O Present / Not Paid
~iscellaneous : ~
:
~%~- J.Andersen
G.Anderson
J.Babb
.Boyd
S.Bryce
~%_~D.Carlson
%~_~J.Casey
%~_~S.Collins
~.~3_~_B.Crawford
2%{~ R.Engelhart
S.Erickson
P.Fisk
Z%{,D.Grady
i'Grady
~.Henderson
P.Henry
.Maas
J.Nafus
J.Nelson
~ ~_M.Nelson
LB.Niccum
~G.Palm
M.Palm
~T. Palm
~ ~-G.Pederso~
~{/~ C.Pounde~
uT.Rasmussen
M.Savage
.Sipprell
R.Stallman
~ B.Svoboda
T.Swenson
E.Vanecek
~ R.Williams
T.Williams
~D.Woytcke
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF
MEN ON DUTY
~ J. ANDERSEN
G. ANDERSON
· ~. J. BABB
~ P. BABB
_~ D. BOYD
~ S. BRYCE
/~ D. CARLSON
,~ J. CASEY
~.~. S. COLLINS'
~-~ B. CRAWFORD
~ R. ENGELHART
~ ,. S. ERICKSON
~J) P. FISK
~ D. GRADY
~ K. GRADY
C. HENDERSON
/ P. HENRY
~ J. MAAS
~, J. NAFUS
_~_ J. NELSON
.M. NELSON
_B. NICCUM
G. PALM
~.~,~ M. PALM
,~ T. PALM
O G. PEDERSON
~ C. POUNDER
T. RASMUSSEN
_M. SAVAGE
-~ K. SIPPRELL
~ R. STALLMAN
~ ....~. SWENSON
~ B. SVOBODA
E. VANECEK
R. WILLIAMS
T. WILLIAMS
D. WOYTCKE
TOTAL MONTHLY IIOURS
of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: May 1994
06/01/94
Utility- 94
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Total
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Total
Residential
1,107
1,109
15,009
$21,859
$40,835
$3.294
-$65,988
$24,477
$47,649
$3,338
-$75,464
Commercial
121
121
4,306
$4,660
$11,949
.$20
$16,629
$3,910
$10,558
$15
$14,483
Total
1 ,PP8
1,230
19,315
$26,519
$52,784
$3,314
-$82,617
$28,387
$58,207
$3,353
$89,947
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO: Ed Shukle
FROM: Len Harrell
SUBJECT: Monthly Report for May 1994
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,141 calls for
service during the month of May. There were 19 Part I
offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal
sexual conduct, 7 burglaries, and 11 larcenies.
There were 64 Part II offenses reported. Those
offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 1 narcotic 15
damage to property, 7 liquor law violations, 5 DUI's, 6
simple assaults, 6 domestics (5 with assault), 7
harassments, 5 juvenile status offenses and $ other
offenses.
The patrol division issued 117 adult citations and 7
~uvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for
an additional 22 tickets. Warnings were issued to 53
individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 1 adult and 3 juveniles arrested for
felonies. There were 20 adults and 10 juveniles
arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 8
warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 14 vehicular accidents, 6
with injuries. There were 24 medical emergencies and
119 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies
on 13 occasions in May and requested assistance 6
times. There were 34 zoning ordinance issues reported.
Property valued at $9,316 was stolen and $231 was
recovered in May.
' " I
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - MAY 1994
II.
INVESTIGATION
The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct
cases and 5 child protection issues that accounted for
54 hours of investigative time. Other cases
investigated include burglary, terroristic threat.s,
robbery, assault, theft, NSF checks, damage to
property, violation of an order for protection, a
liquor background, and a civil commitment.
There were two formal complaints issued for the crimes
of fraud, theft over $500, forgery, and violation of an
order for protection.
III.
IV.
~ersonnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 44 hours of overtime
during the month of May. Officers used 41 hours of
comp-time, 60 hours of vacation, 185 hours of sick
time. Officers earned 48 hours of comp-time.
Sgt. Hudson remains out on sick leave with neck and
back problems. Sgt. Hudson has indicated that he does
not intent to return to duty and has sought long-term
disability.
Inv. Truax had knee surgery and has missed the last two
weeks recuperating.
Officers attended an in-service shoot during the month.
Three officers attended Use of Force and Hazardous
Materials training; two attended a phone security
seminar and one officer attended a gang seminar.
Officer Ewald completed the Wilson Learning Program in
May.
I attended a one day training in Emergency
Preparedness.
The department again hosted, with ECFE a Public Safety
Open House in May. '
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - MAY 1994
Ve
Reserves
The Reserves donated 291 hours during the month of May.
PART I CRIMES
OFFENSES
REPORTED
CLEARED
UNFOUNDED
MAY 1994
EXCEPT.
CLEARED
CLEARED 8¥
ARREST
ARRESTED
ADULT JUVENILE
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Crimina[ Sexual Conduct 1 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0
Burgtary 7 0 1 1
Larceny 11 0 0 0
Vehicle Theft 0 0 2 0
Arson 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
19
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
I 0
~ART I! CRIMES
Chi[d Abuse/Negtect 4 2 2 0 1
Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 15 0 1 0 0
Weapons 0 0 0 0 0
Narcotics 1 0 0 0 0
Liquor Laws 7 0 0 7 3
DWl 5 0 0 5 5
$impte Assautt 6 0 4 1 0
Domestic Assault 5 0 0 5 4
Domestic (No Assault) 1 0 0 0 0
Harassment 7 0 2 1 1
Juvenite Status Offenses 5 0 2 2 0
Public Peace 1 0 0 0 1
Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0
Att Other Offenses 7 1 0 5 5
TOTAL
11
26
20
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
10
~ART III & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 8
Persona[ Injury Accidents 6
Fatal Accidents 0
Nedica[s 24
Animet Comptaints 119
Nutua[ Aid 12
Other Genera[ Investigations 876
TOTAL
1,045
Hennepin Co(Jnty Child Protection 5
Inspections 8
TOTAL 1,141
14
21
13
1
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
MAY 1994
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS
MONTH
Hazardous citations 76
Non-Hazardous citations 47
Hazardous Warnings 20
Non-Hazardous Warnings 42
Verbal Warnings 44
Parking Citations 22
DWI 5
Over .10 4
Property Damage Accidents 8
Personal Injury Accidents 6
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 1
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 28
Juvenile Felony Arrests 3
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 10
Part I Offenses 19
Part II Offenses 64
Medicals 24
Animmal Complaints 119
Ordinance Violations 34
Other Public Contacts 876
YEAR TO
DATE
302
222
103
183
349
163
33
27
5O
15
0
13
139
23
3O
104
257
119
447
125
4,253
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
244
219
65
66
666
156
33
23
33
8
0
18
97
13
27
104
253
150
343
3,569
TOTAL 1,452
Assists 66
Follow-Ups 41
Henn. County Child Protection 8
Mutual Aid Given 13
Mutual Aid Requested 6
6,957
242
266
25
57
31
6,087
199
115
20
40
7
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
MAY 1994
CITATIONS
DWI
More than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired, or No Plates
Stop Arm Violation
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
MV/ATV
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
ADULT
5
4
0
5
0
57
0
0
9
1
4
1
3
0
17
0
0
22
2
4
3
0
139
Juv
o
0
0.
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0.
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
MAY 1994
WARNINGS
NO Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
ADULT
4
21
10
0
5
5
0
0
3
2
5O
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony Warrants
Misdemeanor Warrants
0
0
Run: 1-Jun-94 10:19 PRO03
Primary ISN's on(y: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/94 - 05/25/94
""-- Activity codes:
'roper t¥ Ststus;
Pro~rty T~s:.
Pro~rty Descs:
8ra~s:
Officers/Badees: A[
HOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED 8Y DATE REPORTED
· Page 1
Prop Prop lnc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov~d
Recov,d Quantity Act
Value Code
94000857 O1 01 S 5/12/94 300
BICYCL 94000879 01 01 S 5/17/94 75
BICYCL 94000914 01 01 S 5/22/94 80
BICYCL 94000915 01 01 R 5/22/94 50 5/23/94 50
9400086? 01 01 R 5/16/94 145 5/16/94 145
94000929 01 01 S 5/25/94 530
94000922 01 01 S 5/24/94 300
94000922 01 02 S 5/24/94 350
94000929 01 02 S 5/25/94 250
94000929 01 03 S 5/25/94 1,150
94000795 01 01 S 5/05/94 200
94000795 01 02 S 5/05/94 350
94000922 01 03 S 5/24/94 800
94000922 01 06 S 5/24/94 50
94000832 01 01 S 5/11/94 1,500
94000748 01 01 S 4/28/94 260
94000749 01 01 S 4/28/94 125
94000750 01 01 S 4/28/94 104
94000794 01 01 S 5/06/94 1
94000862 01 01 R 5/15/94 35 5/15/94 35
94000922 01 05 S 5/24/94 35
94000751 01 01 S 4/28/94 2,500
94000922 01 04 S 5/24/94 125
94000833 01 01 R 5/11/94 1 5/11/94 1
9,316
**** Report Totals:
Brand Mode[ Off-1 Off-2
Assnd Assnd
U3497 DYNAIR DIRTBIKE 411
U3498 DIAMOND BA 20" 418
U3498 HUFFY 12 SPEED 418
U3498 HUFFY 20" 418
83564
416
83494 REMINGTON 1100 411 422
TC029 418 . 422
TC029
418 422
83494
411 422
83494 411 422
TC159 PIONEER TSg301C 419 422
TC159 PIONEER EMH120 419 422
TC029
418 422
TC029 PANASONIC AM/FM 418 422
83494 JOHNSON 15HP 411 422
B3864 411 422
B3~
411 422
B3764 416 422
TG061 419 422
83434 404
TC029
418 422
TC169
411 418
TC029 418 422
TG029 411 422
231 30.000
Run: 27-May-94 13:24 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/94 - 05/25/94
TJlne range each day: 00:00 - 25:59
How Received:
Activity Resutted: Alt
Dispositions: At[
Officers/Badges:
Grids: ALt
Patrot Areas: Att
Days of the week: All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors CalLs For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTiViTY CODE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
9000 SPEEDING
9001 J-SPEEDZNG
9006 TEST REFUSAL
9014 STOP SIGN
9015 J-STOP SIGN
9016 FA[LURE TO YIELD
9017 J-FAILURE TO YIELD
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
9022 EXHIBITION DRIVING
9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION
9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION
9035 J-NO PASSING
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER
9150 NO TRAILER PARKING
9200 DAS/DAR/DAC
9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF
9301 LOST PERSONS
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS
9313 FOUND PROPERTY
9420 DERELICT AUTO
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS
57
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
19
3
5
9
17
2
5
15
3
6
Page
Run: 27-May-94 13:24 CFS08
Primry ISN~s onty: No
~- Reported range: 0/~/26/94 - 05/25/94
range each day: 00:00 - 25:59
How Received:
Acti'vity Resulted: AIl
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges: AIl
Grids: AIl
Patro[ Areas: At[
Days of the week: Att
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Ca[ts For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
9450
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC.
9500 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ACC/OTHER
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
9710 MEDICAL/ASU
9730 MEDICALS
MEDICALS/DX
9732 MEDICALS/CI
9750 FIRES
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED
9801 DOHESTIC/NO ASSAULT
9900 ALL HCCP CASES
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS
9910 MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS
9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION
~45 SUSPICIOUS PERSON
~80 WARRANTS
~ MUTUAL AID/8100
9..~ MUTUAL AID/6500
~4 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
~996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 7
1
1
1
19
3
1
1
9
1
5
4
1
8
6
1
8
6
3
1
Page
Run: 27-May-94
13:2& CFS08
Primary lSN's only: No
Date Reported range: 0~/26/94 - 05/25/94
Time range each day: 00:00 - 25:59
Ho~ Received: ALL
Activity Resulted: ALL
Oispositions: AIL
Officers/Badges: AtL
Grids: ALL
Patrol Areas: ALt
Days of the ueek: ALL
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRLPTLON
MOUNO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 5
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC
A5354 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAH
A5355 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 1
A5356 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD'STR
B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT 1
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT 2
62564 BURG 3-0CC NRES FRC-N'UNK WEAP-COH THEFT 1
B376~ BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT 1
B386~ BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT 2
D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION 1
E4700 ESC-GH-FLEE AN OFFICER 1
J3SO0 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 5
J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 4
KO002 K. DNAP-UNK CONDITION-UNK ACT-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1
L7183 CSC 4-NO FRC-STRANGER'13-15-F 1
K~O01 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 6
1
144199 I'LQUOR - OTHER
1
145212 JUVENILE-CURFEW
145250 JUVEN I LE- RUNAWAY
148199 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER 1
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-HS-HARRASSING COHI4UNICATIONS 6
Page
Run: 27-Na¥-94 13:24 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
P~'~. Reported range: 0~/26/94 - 05/25/94
range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: Ali
Activity Resutted: Att
Dispositions: Ail
Officers/Badges: Al(
Grids: Al(
Patro( Areas: Att
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Carls For Service
iNCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE
NUMBER OF
OESCR]PTION
INCIDENTS
03882 OBSENITY-NS-OSSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT
Pl110 PROP DAMAGE'FE-PR]VATE-UNK iNTENT
P2110 PROP DANAGE-6N-PR]VATE-UNK INTENT
P3110 PROP DANAGE*NS-PR]VATE-UNK INTENT
P3120 PROP DA~AGE-NS-PUBL]C-UNK iNTENT
P3130 PROP DANAGE'NS-BUSINESS-UNK iNTENT
~ LiTTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS
TC029 THEFT'501'2500-FE-SUILD]NG-OTH PROP
TC159 THEFT-SO1-2500-FE-NOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TC169 THEFT'501'2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GN-BUiLD]NG-OTH PROP
TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-MONEY
TG099 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP
THEFT-NS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BiCYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
U3018
U3497
U3498
**** Report Totats:
336
Page
Run: 1 -Jun-94 9:26 OFF01
Primary lSN~s only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/9& ' 05/25/94
Time range each day: 00:00 - 2~:59
Dispositions: ALt
Activity codes: AtL
Officers/Badges: ALL
Grids: ALt
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
ACT ACTIVITY
REPORTED FOUHDED OFFENSES PENDING
Page 1
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ' ' '
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
CCOE DESCRIPTION ............................................
5 0 4 1 0 5 100.0
5
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
6
1
1
4
A5351 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAH
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-ASLT'AC
A5354 ASLT 5-%NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD'FAH
A5355 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
A5356 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-STR
B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
B3494 BURG ~-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
B3564 BURG 3-0CC NRES FRC-N-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
B376~ BURG ~-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
B3864 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AHOUNT MARIdUANA-POSSESSION
E4700 ESC-GH-FLEE AN OFFICER
J3500 TRAF-ACCiD-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH
KO002 KDNAP-UNK CONOITION-UNK ACT-UNK ~EAP-ADLT-ACQ
L718~ CSC ~-NO FRC-STRANGER'13-15'F
M3001 JUVENiLE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER
M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER
M5~13 JUVENILE-CURFE~
M5350 JUVE#ILE-RUNA~AY
N~190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COHMUNICATIONS
0~882 OBSENITY-MS-O~SCENE PHONE CALL-AOULT
Pl110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0 0.0
6 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
~ 75.0
~ 5~.~
0 0.0
0 0.0
Run: 1-Jun-94 9:26 OFF01 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Primary ]SN~s only: No Enfors Offense Report
Da~_e Reported range: 04/26/94 - 05/25/94
T'* *ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 OFFENSE ACTIVZTY DISPOSITIONS
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges:
Grids: Att
Page
ACT ACTIVITY ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
COOE DESCRIPTION OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT dUVENILE BY EX-
PERCENT
REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
P3110
P3120
P3130
P3600
TC029
TC159
TC[4O
TGU49
TG061
TG099
U3018
U3497
U3498
PROP DANAGE'MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
PROP OAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS
THEFT'501-2500-FE-BUILDiNG.OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT'501'2500-FE-WATERCRAFT.OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200'GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP
THEFT-MS-By CHECK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS
**** Report Tota[s:
1
1
1
1
3
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 8 7 0 0 1 1 12.5
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3
8O
3 77 36 17 10 14 41 53.2
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
1612) 472-0600
FAX t612/472-0620
June 9, 1994
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK
RE: MAY MONTHLY REPORT
There were 2 regular Council Meetings, and 2 Board of Review
Meetings in May. From these meetings there were minutes,
resolutions and follow-up items to be completed.
I attended the annual IIMC (International Institute of Municipal
Clerks) Conference from May 21 to 27. There were a variety of
topics covered in the educational sessions, presentations and the
exhibits. I feel this conference helps me to acquire knowledge
that can be used in Mound to better serve the residents and my
profession. There were over 40 different workshops on a variety of
topics. IIMC now has over 10,000 members from all over the world.
Review of all liquor and beer license applications and required
accompanying data that have been submitted.
The usual calls from citizens.
fc
printed on recycled paper
CITY of MOUND
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1994
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
MAY 1994 MONTHLY REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
612) 472-0600
FAX 16!2t 472-0620
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
In May 37 building permits were issued, along with 23 plumbing, mechanical and other
miscellaneous permits, for a total of 60, and 261 year to date. Construction activity continues
to be very busy. Total construction value for May was $570,097.
PLANNING & ZONING
Staff processed 17+ planning and zoning issues this month, a very busy schedule. The
highlights were Westonka Intervention's request for an ordinance amendment and conditional
use permit, the Teal Pointe final plat approval, and the upcoming public hearings for
modifications of the ordinance relating to truck parking in residential areas and time limits for
building completion.
_RENTAL COMPLAINT~
Four complaints were received this month, all are in the process of being resolved.
OMMUNITY SERVI E FFICER SO ACTIVITY
Total contacts for the month of June for both CSO's was 199, slightly down from April.
JS:pj
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: m,z Year:~
YEAR TO
NeW CONSTRUC~ON '
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 4 /~46,561 8 923, ~ 78
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY I DUPLEX
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS}
TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS I MOTELS}
SUBTOTAL 6, &46,561 8 923,478
NON-RESIDENTIAL i 'PERMITS I '1 VALUATION I 'PERMITS I VALUATION
NEVV CONSTRUCT~C~I i,,n ,,
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT)
OEFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
DDiTiONS/ALTERATION~ ,
ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 3 37 ,/+87 [3 [80,687
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 3 29 ,835
DECKS [0 29,830 12 ~.6,330
I 10,000
SWiMMiNG POOLS 1 10,000 .
REMODEL- M~SC RESIDENTIAL 18 46,219 73 265,574
3 303,000
REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
32 123,536 t05 835,426
;USTOTAL
DDITiONS/ALTERATIONS
4 35,600
COMMERCIAL {RETAILJRESTAURANTI
OFFICE I PROFESSIONAL
4 125,527
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC I SCHOOLS
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
8 [61,127
SUBTOTAL
DEMOLITIONS .... IIi# PERMITS ] I UNITS I VALUATION :. ,11 I PI~RMITS I YA~UAT(ON
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS [ 4 "I
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS ! 9
' I PERMITS I UNITS VALUATION ~ VALUATION
8
TOTAL 37 /+ 570,097 --'*'[TO-- [,929,03!
.P,EI~ MIT COUNT YEAR-TO-DATE
· BUILDING 37 * I 30
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 6 18 _
SIGNS 0 4
PLUMBING 9 59
6 36
MECHANICAL
GRADING 0 0
S&W, STREET EXCAV., FtRE, ETC. 2 [~4
TOTAL 60 26 !
CITY of MOUND
PARKS DEPARTMENT
MAY 1994 MONTHI,y REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (6t2~ 472-0620
Parks
As every year this period of the spring and early summer brings a lot of
work to the parks. We find ourselves short on workers due to the mowing
crew not being here until June when they get out of school. We have had
to ready Mound Bay Park and the cemetery for Memorial weekend, work on
the installation of the new playground structure at Mound Bay Park, and
ready Centerview Beach for the new fishing pier to be installed in June.
I do see a slow down until we get through mid-June when Mound City Days
is done.
Commons
The dock licenses have been issued and the Dock Inspector has begun his
first rounds dealing with dock installations. Again, we are seeing a
demand for sites that exceed what is available. We are helping with
with providing information on possible shared sites.
Trees/Weeds
Six trees have been removed from city property and one notice was
for a hazardous removal.
Beaches
sent
Mound Bay Park's beach is open beginning with Memorial weekend and will
have lifeguards only on weekends until school is out, then a schedule
for all beaches has been done by Westonka Community Services for
lifeguards.
JF:pj
printed on recycled paper
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473~7033
EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD MEMBERS
William A. Johnstone
Chair, Minnetonka
Tom Penn
Vice Chair, Tonka Bay
Douglas E. Babcock
Secretary, Spring Park
Robed Rascop
Treasurer, Shorewood
Mike Bloom
Minnetonka Beach
Albed (Bed) Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
Ronald Kline
Minnetrista
Duane Markus
Wayzata
Craig Mollet
Victoria
Thomas W. Reese
Mound
Herb J. Suedh
Woodland
Joseph Zwak
Greenwood
Orono
60% Recycled Content
30% Post Consumer Waste
RECEIVED
TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: .ruNE2, 1994
irE.OM: TOMREESE, LMCD REP~_ I~'SENTATIVE
SUBJEC"I': MAYREPORT- LMCD
I. l Onthe 18th, C. veneStmmenand I atttended ftlresent~ononthetatest
t.2 The LMCD is sponsx~ a_ZemM.~.~.~. __-~_._,,_~:_-._._,.
ia aa effort robe more ix'o-a~tive in the future whea~°acs mrea~ m myron'
1.3 The 1994 Imrv,~~ will be~n on June 2(M~. Some.U~,,i~ will
ttke~ rheweekbefore' We are DNE peflniued to cut 1008 rexes r-~e Yem'-
2 0 l--~k'eld'~"sfP-ma'ml'llill ''
,~'~ ~,,~ ~,.,,~ ~. rode ~ ae Memcrist I)tyweebend.
results sero tOlX~m a no[ omiycrowded lake des~e memce~m~mu~m'"'
weeke~ i~'ecent memory. - ......... ·
2.2 Thefual drsft~aeAccessSmo'y~--~een[uo..m~..m: _ ~._
C, mhw,d and r-hose others who pa'sa'va'~
3 I The lifhti, nf re'dj, hence has been put. on hold, while a wa.y '__m.~o.~.. to
· '~ ....- · ·
· ' wiflttts catto~, e~ea~e .
~wu~,,,,-,----- .-----~---. -~¢ ' ' · la.ln
..... -'-:*., weekday ,,,,,1~ occa.~, so that we can see and ~ w
m,a.t,a'in 1995 will brins the. LMCD ruerves m me o monm opau~,,;'~-
4.0 ldou_~d S__,~i~'fi¢Items ............ '--fa-Pelican
4.1 lheve noafi-edRachaet ~M~w~omr'erne°°m;sal~'
~)oim:to adloin the exi.g:i~ mulaple dock sreato the e,,-~
May 25, 1994
4707 Welcome Ave. N.
Crystal, MN 55429
(612) 420-4546
Hello!
Does the Mayor need a challenge? How about the Hennepin County
Mayors Cow Milking Challenge scheduled for 12:30 on Friday, July 29th,
at the HENNEPIN COUNTY OLD TYME FAIR in Corcoran? We're reserving the
dairy cattle now and need to know whether your mayor is ready to stand
up, uh, sit down, and meet this challenge not quite head on .... but sort
of from the side. Have no fear! Cows and mayors will be in the
presence of trained bovine professionals throughout the Challenge. We
anticipate a great turn out of both spectators and mayors (o__Er duly
appointed mayoral substitutes!) and encourage you to fill out the form
below and return ASAP.
Several Hennepin County municipalities have contributed financially
to the Fair. Each $25 or $50 donation to the Hennepin County Fair
helps to make it an enjoyable event filled with fun and information.
Enclosed are two Hennepin County Fair press releases. Please
print as much Fair information as you can in your resident newsletters.
Thank you for your help.
Please return to Karen Hogenson, 4707 Welcome Ave. N. Crystal, MN 55429
, mayor of
will be
delighted _, unable
-- , you've got to be kidding
to participate in the 1994 Hennepin County blayors Cow IIilking ChallenRe.
Name of Duly Appointed blayoral Substitute:
2. We will/will not be able to print info about the County Fair in our
next resident newsletter. (Did we get this to you in time?)
4707 Welcome Ave. N.
Crystal, MN 55429
(612) 420-4546
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.
The Old Tyme Hennepin County Fair
The Old T me Hennepin County Fair will take place July 28th, 29th,
~,`.~- --.~ Y~ ~, ~,, ~,,r~_oran at the Lion Park near the corne, r o.f .
~.u.~ .n, u.u o~,..o~, ,_, ,_ ~..; ;,-. -r~.~o ,,ninue County Fair under ten[s Teatures
·nwaS 1U1 arm i u. ~,,,~ ~, -~ ·
~d.g.. ,~o~'o nf 4-H and nosh Class exhibits ranging from ?vest,0c_k~ to__
,u,-. ,~?...._~ ..... ,,`.-* =oi'r food including grilled pheas.ant, p. orK.cnop~
CKeI =su~u~, ,, --. .
r~ontl Io~Ys'ter bites; carnival rides a.nd .games, pl_u._s__a_n}~.q.._u_e
· as anti steam engines u~, u~ala~al ....
cars, g __ _,~ ,.._,.~....,`a a,aff horse null, a Saturday night
motocross race, an o,u ,=.~,,,,,,,~-. --- r
country concert/dance with Cactus Cadillac, as well as clowns, a
magician, the Teddy Bear Band, p.edal tract.o.r and big wheel races for
the little ones, and more will highhght the d~fferent days of the
Hennepin County Fair·
· m list of o en classes for the competitive in Hennepin
For a prem[u. ___,P~_ ~..am~, nf each dav's events, visit your
On,~nfu'aRa/or a cu,,,p,=,= o,-,,~-- .... .. - --- ..- o~......,-.,,inn
~o'~'l'~nnepin Co. un.ty L!br.a. ry _or ca!! KFa~i~r~s~egee~l;~l~e'n~;iv~
-4546. Adm~smon to the [;oumy . ·
a_t_42.? Fair. On Thursday, July 28.th - ~'Brlng .a. _Kid
u.d under all days o..f th.e. ___ · amir[ed free, on
he Fair Free Day", cmldren ages.6 t.o.l. 2 w!ll .be .a . ..,` ,,_,,..
to t remainin 3 days of the Fair their dmly aamlssion ~s ~z.
th.e - g -- -', ---~ --.,.- is e4 excent on Friday, July 29th -
mission Tor ages ~o ~HU ~--~- ~ , r .....
aa - ,, ........ · .~.-. ~ and older snecJalS will De a_~;~
" ior ua wRen o.~ u. ~,,~ ,,~ ,- ·
Sen . Y., ...... ....... oo,u~,,n is alwavs free at the Fmr.
admission charge ]or s=mu,=.. ~..=-?.,, .= in C~unt ' businesses and
ercial exhibitors, espema,y Hennep Y - .
Co.mm .......... "~ed to annly for booth space at the_F.a?.
entre reneurs, are ~nuuu,o~ r-r- PM Fnoa
· - P--'-- '" .... '-, =°ir hours are: Thursday 12 Noon to~l.0.0,, ; Y
Hennepm ~.,uu.~:x
and Saturday 9 AM to Midnight; and Sunday 11 AM to
For more information contact Kath Juhl at 472-2485
4707 Welcome Ave. N.
Crystal, MN 55429
(612) 42O-4546
.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASF
HENNEPIN C UNTY FAIR LOOKS TO HON R OUTSTANDING sENIoRS
Know a senior 70 years or older who lives in Hennepin County, has made significant
volunteer contributions to his or her community since the age of 65 and will be available to be
honored at the Hennepin County Fair's "Outstanding Senior Citizen" Award ceremony July
29th? Then please call Anne Heideman at 473-5586 to get the nomination form. Forms must be
filled out and returned by July 4, 1994. Each senior nominated will receive a free ticket to the
County Fair. One man and one woman will be chosen from the nominees to represent
Hennepin County in the state wide competition for Minnesota's two outstanding senior citizens
at the 1994 Minnesota State Fair. Previous winners of Hennepin County's Outstanding Senior
Citizen Award are not eligible for county or state honors again. However, anyone nominated for
the county award can be nominated again.
The Hennepin County Fair is the only tent county fair left in Minnesota. Uniquely "old tyme",
the Fair runs from July 28th to the 31st at the Lion's Park in Corcoran and features a full scale
carnival, open class and 4-H exhibits and competition, an antique tractor and steam engine
display by the Rogers Pioneer Power Association of Nowthen, two demolition derbies, a
country dance, a motocross race, an old-fashioned draft horse pull, talent show, magician, a
one man band, a purple dinosaur and more! For a schedule of each day's events and/or a
premium list of classes, please contact Fair secretary Karen Hogenson evenings at 420-4546.
For more Hennepin County Fair information, please contact Kathy Juhl at 472-2485.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
1993 ANNUAL
RECYCLING REPORT
Hennepin County
Department of Public Works
Environmental Management Division
April 1.994
Hennepin County - 1993 Annual Recycling Report
Recycling is a Program of the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
Mike Opat, 1st District
Sandra M. Hi/ary, 2nd District
' Mark Andrew, 3rd District
Peter McLaughlin, 4th District
Randy $ohnson, 5th District
John Keefe, 6th District
Emily Ann Staples, 7th District
Pn'nted on 5096 Recycled Content Paper, 15~ Post-Consumer
Ilennep'm County - 1993 ~nnOal Recydlng Report
I. BACKGROUND
Hennepin County encompasses a 611 square mile area which is home to 1,039,099 residents,
approximately one quarter of the population of Minnesota. The lViississippi River forms a large
portion of the County's eastern border before angling through the heart of Minneapolis. Eastern
portions of the County are dominated by urban Minneapolis and large suburban areas. Rapidly
growing medium sized suburbs cover the central portion of the County. More sparsely
populated ~ and agricultural areas quietly occupy western portions of the County. Some 104
lakes cover 48 square miles of Hennepin County, the largest being the sprawling Lake
lVlinne~nka which dominates the southwestern corner of the County. Hennepin County stretches
32 miles north to south and 28 miles east to west.
The County has implemented a fully integrated solid waste management system which
emphasizes the waste hierarchy established by the State of Minnesota. Components include
education and demonstration projects for waste reduction, residential and commercial recycling,
yard waste eomposting and reduction, resource recovery through waste-to-energy and finally
landfilling. Approximately 1.4 million tons of mixed municipal solid waste flowed through this
system in 1993. Recycling and reduction programs absorbed over forty-eight percent of the
waste generated, up from forty-seven percent in 1992. Figure 1 demonstrates the progress the
County has made since implementing the solid management system and Figure 2 provides a
breakdown of the various components in 1993.
An aggressive emphasis has been placed on educating consumers on waste reduction and
techniques to apply this concept to everyday activities. The County distributed waste reduction
brochures, handbooks prepared by the State of Minnesota and posters to residents. Print
advertising and special events were utilized to highlight the message. The County also endorsed
and participated in a statewide Waste Reduction Week sponsored by the Minnesota Office of
Waste lVlanagement.
The County provided $6.? million of funding to municipalities for curbside recycling programs
which serve all single family through eight-plex residences in the County. Curbside recycling
programs include at a minimum newspaper, metal cans, glass containers, corrugated cardboard
and plastic boules. Some programs include other items such as maga~.ines and catalogs, mixed
paper and junk mail, phone books and household batteries. The County also provided $1.3
million to municipalities for yard waste management programs. Owners of multi-tenant
buildings are required by City ordinance to have on-site collection opporUmifies for their tenants.
Waste reduction and recycling continued to be promoted to commercial businesses in the
County. Resourceful V~aste Management, a waste management resource guide for businesses,
was updated and a second edition printed. Displays were set up at two trade shows to
disseminate information and directly interact with members of the business community.
E~
E
0
0
ltennepin County - 1993 Annual Recyclln~ Report
H. HIGHLIGHTS OF 1993 PROGRAMS
Waste Reductio~
- Sponsored Waste Reduction Week events and activities
- Distributed educational materials to residents
- Conducted projects to demonstrate waste reduction techniques to residents
- Developed and distributed new waste reduction poster
Municipal Recycling
- Awarded $6.7 million in grants to municipalities for recycling program expenses under the
new Residential Recycling Funding policy
- Awarded $46,000 for Incentive Grants to two municipalities for innovative multi-family
recycling projects
The percent of residential waste recycled or composted increased from 35% in 1992 to 38%
in 1993
- The average percent of households with recycling set out on collection day increased from
66% in 1992 to 71% in 1993, as measured during the month of October
- Yard waste collected increased by over 13,000 tons, a 24% increase from 1992, due in part
to an extremely wet spring and summer
Recycling Center8
Opened in October a second recycling drop-off center for residents and small businesses,
located in Bloomington, which handled 199 tons of recyclables by the end of December
- The recycling center in Brooklyn Park handled 4,292 tons of recyclables, a 33 % increase
over the 3,227 tons handled in 1992, of which 2,804 tons were dropped of by commercial
haulers and 1,488 tons were dropped of by citizens and small businesses
- Reduced net handling costs for recyclable materials at the recycling center in Brooklyn Park
by 36%, from $51,696 in 1992 to $33,299 in 1993, despite handling 33% more material
- Established a $10 per ton fee on recyclables delivered to recycling center in Brooklyn Park
by commercial recycling haulers, effective January 1, 1994, to offset costs for handling
materials
Hennepin County- 1993 Annual Recycling Report
Commerc!~ Recycling
- Updated and reprinted Resourceful Waste Management, a waste management resource guide
for businesses, and distributed over 1,000 copies
- Developed a portable display and set-up booths at two trade shows to disseminate information
to the business sector
- Facilitated expansion of waste materials exchange by providing $25,000 of funding to
B.A.R.T.E.R., a local materials exchange program, which expanded catalog distribution by
10,000 copies
In-House Recycling and Waste Reduction
- Held a promotional event in a public area of the Government Center to highlight waste
reduction concepts to County employees
- Conducted waste sorts at three major County buildings to determine composition of waste
stream and identify specific materials to target for waste reduction
- Placed 23 sets of four recycling containers in public areas of County buildings to promote
recycling
- Reduced waste generated by County employees by 9% from the beginning of 1992 to the end
of 1993
Ill. WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS
A. Waste Reduction
Aggressive waste reduction promotion to~ residents continued in 1993 with placement of several
print advertisements and special events. Waste reduction brochures, handbooks and posters were
made available to residents at the Hennepin County Government Center, city balls, libraries and
some bookstores and retail stores. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners joined
Minn~ta Governor Ame Carlson in proclaiming September 27 through October 2, 1993, Waste
Reduction Week. The County sponsored and conducted Waste Reduction Week events and
promotions in conjunction with several of its municipalities. Events included a fashion show
featuring recycled clothing, which was covered in a local TV news segment, a no-waste lunch
day promoted to local elementary school children and special print advertisements promoting
Waste Reduction Week. The County also developed a colorful poster that provides helpful waste
reduction tips.
Hennepin County - 1993 Annual Recycling Report
B. Cross Cultural Waste Reduction and Recycling Information
Hennepin County actively participated in a grant process, conducted by the Metropolitan
Council, to encourage and fund development of waste reduction and recycling educational
materials targeted at a variety of cultures. County staff worked with grantees to ensure
consistent and accurate waste reduction and recycling messages. Seven projects got underway
or were completed in 1993, including development of a preschool curriculum, a theater
presentation for young people, and television and radio programming. Completed projects
included the Minnesota Institute of Health's multi-cultural Waste Not curriculum for Head Start
programs, developed in Hmong, Spanish and English, and the Small Change Original Theater's
play for young people entitled Waste in T'vne. The Waste Not curriculum has been made
available to all area Head Start and Early Childhood and Family Education programs. The play
has been performed widely in area schools and other public settings. Working with grantees
ensured that the County's solid waste message would be received, understandable and relevant
to a wide array of individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds.
C. Municipal Recycling and Yard Waste Collection
Ail municipalities in Hennepin County are required by ordinance to provide curbside recycling
collection to their residents. A new Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy was
implemented in 1993 which moved to a fiat rate from a percentage of program cost funding
mechanism. Cities received $1.75 per month for each household served on curbside collection
routes to fund recycling administration, promotion, collection and capital expenses. Total
reimbursement to the Cities amounted to $6,684,466. The Funding Policy requires all citie~ to
collect newspaper and advertising supplements; corrugated cardboard; clear, brown and green
food and beverage containers; metal food and beverage cans; and all plastic bottles with a neck
except those previously containing motor oil or hazardous materials, on curbside collection
routes. Several cities also collect magazines and catalogs, rigid plastic containers and residential
mixed papers. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of materials collected curbside in 1993. Figure
4 provides historic levels of County funding for municipal recycling programs.
Residential waste recycled or composted increased to 38% in 1993 from 35% in 1992. Table
1 conlains a breakdown by municipality and County totals of material recovered. The average
percent of households with recycling set out on collection day increased to 71% in 1993 from
68% in 1992, as measured during the month of October, also shown on Table. 1.
Total municipal recycling program costs increased by 7% or $600,000 from 1992 to 1993 to a
total of $8,931,027. Table 2 provides a breakdown of program costs by municipality. Increased
administrative expense accounted for the majority of the increase. Figure 5 shows the
6
Figure 3
Breakdown of Materials Collected Curbside
Newsprint 57%
Other 1%
Plastic 3%
Metal Cans 8%
Mixed Paper/Magazines
3%
Glass 22%
gated 2%
Scrap Metal 4%
Figure 4
County Funding of Municipal Recycling Programs
(Millions of Dollars/Year)
$10'
$8
o $6
~6 Ss
o $4
$2
$1
$0
1989
1990 1991 1992 1993
Table I
Municipal Recycling Statistics
Yard Total Fie4. ~~ PmlJci-
Recycling Waste Municipal Waarb) merit pelion
Cit~ Tonnage (1) Tonnage Tonnal~e C.~,'~.
Bloomington 9,466 7,081 16,547 38.603 43% 67%
Brooklyn Park 5,289 2,405 7,694 25,209 31% 57%
Champlin 1,624 1,720 3,344 6,765 49% 84%
Corcoran 324 - 324 2,087 16% 55%
Dayton 374 7 381 1,763 22% 82%
Deephaven 539 62 601 1,633 37% 70%
Eden Praide 4,067 1,909 5,976 17.577 34% 57%
Edina 6,071 4,965 11,036 20,599 54% 66%
Excelsior 197 99 296 706 42% 63%
Golden Valley 2.429 1,195 3.624 9.377 39% 52%
Greenwood 55 4 59 275 21% 54%
Hanover 29 - 29 108 27% 55%
Hassan 201 - 201 783 26% 40%
Henn Rec Group (3) 6,595 9,649 16,244 33,323 49% 54%
Hopkins 1,634 2.201 3,835 7,393 52% 51%
Maple Grove 4,283 3,545 7,828 17.320 45% 54%
Minneapolis 26,441 17,127 43,568 146,944 30% 89%
Minnetonka 6,144 1,356 7.500 21,627 35% 59%
Minneton ka Beach 66 - 66 256 26% 80%
Minnetrista 341 602 943 1,381 68% 37%
Mound 1,178 1,057 2,235 3,868 58% 73%
Osseo 196 - 196 1,209 16% 46%
Plymouth 6.023 3,544 9.567 22.754 42% 62%
Richfield 3,715 3,610 7,325 15.967 46% 62%
Robbinsdale 1,598 - 1,598 6.437 25% 87%
Rockford 46 37 83 177 47% 57%
Rogers 77 42 119 280 43% 54%
St. Anthony 587 74 661 2,360 28% 75%
St. Bonifacius 133 - 133 474 28% 66%
St. Louis Park 5.333 5,696 11,029 19,578 56% 56%
Shorewood 607 173 780 2,646 29% 58%
Spring Park 147 - 147 702 21% 63%
Tonka Bay 242 198 440 658 67% 79%
Wayzata 600 123 723 1.702 42% 84%
West Hn Rec Corem (4) 2,053 389 2,442 8,069 30% 50%
Woodland 66 - 66 222 30% 64%
TOTAI.JAVG. 98,770 68.870 167,640 440.832 38% 71%
(1) Includes appliance tor~ages from municipaJly spomored colleclions and cerl~ed appliance recyclers and
phone books coflecled by U.S. West.
(2) F)ar~ip~lion listed is ~e average number of households ~d had recyclables set out on specified
recycling collection days in the monlh of ~. ~ ~ b a weighted average.
(4) The West Henrmpin Recycling Commission includ~ the Cities of Greenfield, Independence, Lm~ Lake,
Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono.
Table 2
Breakdown of Municipal Recycling Program Costs
,trative tional ~ I=mgram Recycli~g
~..~-~ ~ (L-~_? Rev.) Expense To~nage (1) To~
Bloomington $94.374 $13.310 $472.883 $580.568 9.073 $64
Brooklyn Park $81.973 $24.852 $508.806 $615.632 5.228 $118
Champlin $15.762 $1.997 $168.460 $186.219 1.568 $119
Corcoran $6.170 $406 $31.890 $38.466 319 $121
Dayton $2.250 $2.113 $29.905 $34.268 365 $94
Deephaven $6.108 $342 $37.506 $40.956 527 $78
Eden Prairie $4.000 $981 $263.819 (2) $268.800 3.880 $69
Edina $31.622 $5.000 $463.940 $500.561 5.865 $85
Excelsior $11.050 $710 $11.635 $23.395 176 $133
Golden Valley $22.311 $2.362 $174.696 $199.368 2.334 $85
Greenwood $315 $94 $6.088 $6.497 53 $123
Hanover $69 $69 $1.923 $2.060 23 $90
H assan $600 $650 $16.500 $17.750 199 $89
Henn. Rec. Group (3) $69.569 $35.959 $589.639 $695.167 6.266 $111
Hopkins $17.551 $500 $93.261 $111.312 1.529 $73
Maple Grove $23.209 $1.562 $314.777 $339.548 4.099 $83
Minneapolis $641.193 $76.702 $2.441.164 $3.159.059 24.629 $128
Minnetonka $48.800 $500 $383.790 $433.090 5.907 $73
Minnetonka Beach $875 $121 $3.999 $4.995 65 $77
Minnetrista $2.867 $20 $36.318 $39.205 326 $120
Mound $13.158 $241 $80.915 $94.313 1.116 $85
Osseo $2.800 -- $17.141 $19.941 185 $108
Plymouth $37.579 $4.313 $429.135 $471.027 5.760 $82
Richfield $20.530 $3.380 $210.739 (2) $234.649 3.588 $65
Robbinsdale $13.294 $2.553 $128.651 $144.498 1.520 $95
Rockford $1.103 $80 $2.563 $3.746 40 $94
Rogers $900 $251 $4.201 $5.351 67 $80
St. Anthony $5.940 $1.953 $29.739 (2) $37.632 572 $66
St. Bonifacius $105 $850 $7.248 $8.203 68 $121
St. Louis Park $24.350 -- $277.586 $301.936 4.981 $61
Shorewood $3.193 $2.500 $48.270 $53.963 586 $92
Spring Park $471 $170 $12.972 $13.613 143 $95
Tonka Bay $5.375 - - $11.979 $17.354 201 $86
Wayzata $24.543 $291 $23.069 $47.903 554 $86
W.H.R.C. (4) $14.424 $4.808 $151.552 $170.784 2.004 $85
Woodland $366 $17 $8.816 $9.199 65 $142
TOTALS $1.245.798 $189.656 $7.495.573 $8.931.027 (5) 93.881 $95
(1) Includes appliance and phone bo~k recycrr~g tonnage from munlcipaJly ~po~sored collections. R does not
(4) West Hmnapin Recycling Commission includes ~ Rs of Greer~eld, Independence, ~ Lake, Loretto,
(5') 'the County reimb~sed municiparfies a t~tal of $6,684,466 for 1993 recycling program expenses.
Ill,,
Fl'ennepin Count~ - 1993 Ann._sa_! Recycling Report
percentage breakdown of municipal recycling program costs. Figure 6 shows historic program
costs per ton which historically trend down due to rapidly increasing tonnage of materials
collected. Growth of materials collected curbside have flattened though causing the cost per ton
to increase in 1993. Cost per household have historically increased, as shown on Figure 7,
reflecting increased costs due to addition of new materials and increased administration and
collection costs.
The Funding Policy also established an Incentive Grant program to award grants to new or
innovative programs that contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of residential waste
reduction and recycling programs. Grants totaling $46,000 were awarded to the City of
Brooklyn Park and the Hennepin Recycling Group to test methods for encouraging additional
participation in apartment recycling programs. Brooklyn Park designed and distributed small
poly-cotton bags to all apartment dwellers to be used to transport recyclables to central collection
points in their building or complex. The Hennepin Recycling Group, which includes the Cities
of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and New Hope, developed a video to be used by local high school
community problem solving teams to educate apartment owners and residents about the
importance of recycling.
Hennepin County also provided $1,275,109 in Yard Waste Rebates to several municipalities.
Figure 8 provides Mstorie levels of County funding for municipal yard waste programs. The
Yard Waste Rebate helped fund municipally sponsored programs to promote proper management
of yard, brush and tree waste, wMeh are banned from the waste stream in Minnesota. The
County also promoted backyard composting and leaving grass clippings on hwns. Most private
waste haulers throughout the County offered separate collection of yard waste for a fee. A total
of 68,870 tons of yard waste were collected in 1993, as shown on Table 1, a 13,371 ton and
24% increase from the 55,499 tons collected in 1992. Most of the increase was due to an
extremely wet spring and summer.
D. Commercial Waste Reduction and Recycling
Recycling Unit staff promoted waste reduction and recycling to businesses during the year. The
primary educational piece for businesses, Resourceful Waste Management, was expanded to
include more information on waste reduction and procurement of recycled products and a second
edition was printed. The guide was produced through a cooperative effort of several counties
and municipalities in the metro area. Staff also made presentations to at least a dozen businesses
and trade organizations.
A portable display unit was purchased and a display created to allow more active and direct
promotion of proper waste management to the business community. Displays were set up at two
trade shows in 1993 with plans for additional shows in 1994.
10
Figure 5
Breakdown of Municipal
Recycling Program Costs
Collection/
Processing/Ma;keting
$7,495,573
84%
Promotion
Administration ~ $189,656
$1,245,798 2%
14%
Figure 6
Municipal Recycling Program Costs
(Dollars per Ton)
$139
$150
$1
~- $~oo
n $75-
~ S5o
$0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993'
I ' County Share D City Share '1
* Hennepin County reimbursed municipalities $6.7 million for recycling program expenses in 1908.
Figure 7
Municipal Recycling Program Costs
(Dollars/Household/Year)
$35.00
$30.0O'
$20.00
$15.00
$1o.oo
$22.44
$26.52
$0.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993'
J I~ County Share D City Share J
* Hennepln County reimbursed municipalities $6.7 million for recycling program expenses in 1993,
Figure 8
County Funding of Municipal Yard Waste Programs
(Millions of Dollars/Year)
$2
$1.75
S1.S
$1.25
Sl
$0.75
$0.5
$0.25
$0
-$1 ;22- ~ $1.28
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 '
Hennepin County- 1993 Annual Recycling Report
The County facilitated expansion of waste exchange by providing $25,000 to the Minnesota
Public Interest Group's B.A.R.T.E.R. (Businesses Allied to Recycle Through Exchange and
Reuse) program. 'B.A.R.T.E.R. had been operating a materials exchange for businesses serving
mostly metro area businesses since 1992. Funds given to B.A.R.T.E.R. through the contract
were to allow continued expansion and promotion of the exchange to County businesses.
B.A.R.T.E.R. distributed an additional 10,664 catalogs and researched exchange potential for
transport packaging, wood waste, industrial fabric and materials generated by construction, ret:~il
food and agricultural industries as a result of the grant from the County.
E. In-House Waste Reduction and Recycling
A campaign to promote waste reduction to County employees was kicked off with a special event
on the main level of the Hennepin County Government Center. A professional comedian,
portraying the County's in-house recycling and waste reduction persona Ream O. Bond, hosted
a series of skits and waste reduction messages, accompanied by his three piece band Ream O.'s
Repros. Ream O. Bond also made special appcaran~ at a number of coffee b _reo~k~ and similar
events sponsored by individual County departments.
Waste sorts were conducted in three County facilities, the Government Center, the Home School
and the Medical Center, in order to estimate the County's total waste stream composition using
representative samples. The results have been used to indicate targets for waste reduction. The
County's waste stream has been reduced by 9% from the beginning of 1992 through the end of
1993.
As a result of a grant received from the Minnesota Office of Waste Management, 23 sets of four
recycling containers were purchased for public areas of County buildings. The purpose of the
containers was to visibly promote recycling in County buildings to both employees, clients and
the public.
F. Recycling Centers
A second recycling center, located in Bloomington to serve County residents and small
businesses in the southern part of the County, was opened in October. Residents and small
businesses can drop-off the following materials at both recycling centers: office paper, magazines
and catalogs, newspaper, cardboard, glass and metal food and beverage cont__~_iners and scrap
metal. A Goodwill drop-off for household goods has been located in the recycling center in
Brooklyn Park. Both centers also accept problem materials and household hazardous waste from
homeowners only.
13
Henuepin County - 1~93 Annn~l_ Recycling Report
By the end of December, the recycling center in Bloomington had already handled 199 tons of
recyelables. The recycling center in Brooklyn Park handled 4,292 tons of recyclables in 1993
as compared to 3,227 tons in 1992, a 33% increase mused mostly by increase usage by
commercial recycling haulers. Of the 4,292 tons, 2,804 tons were dropped off by commercial
haulers and 1,488 tons were dropped off by citizens and small businesses hauling their own
material. Several material sales contract were rebid in 1993 resulting in a 36% reduction in net
material handling costs at the recycling center in Brooklyn Park to $33,299 in 1993 from
$51,696 in 1992. The County Board approved a $I0 per ton fee on recyclables delivered to the
recycling center in Brooklyn Park by commercial haulers to additionally reduce net handling
costs. The fee was effective as of January 1, 1994.
IV. RECYCLING MARKETS
The most significant change in market conditions occurred in the market for newsprint.
Traditionally newsprint collected in the County has had little or no value. Several mills have
opened recently which utilize newsprint as a feedstock. Consequently, newsprint has increase
in value to a price as high as $25 per ton. Markets have also developed for magazines and
catalogs, although the material has little value at this time. Corrugated cardboard prices
increased only slightly although market demand increased slightly. Markets for mixed paper
continued to be somewhat weak, particularly for mixed paper collected residentially. Discussion
of future mill expansions in the upper Midwest provide optimism for future markets. Mixed
paper collected both commercially and residentially has the potential to significantly increase
abatement levels and therefore the County will be closely monitoring development in this
market.
Markets for plastic bottles which are unsorted and unwashed continue to charge for accepting
the material. Development in additional wash and sorting capacity has added strength and
decreased uncertainty about markets and may eventually increase market prices. Certain resins
sorted from an all bottle mix, such as PET and HDPE, have a positive market value and strong
markets. Glass bottles and metal can markets continue to remain strong in both demand and
price although prices for colored glass bottles have slipped slightly in the last twelve to eighteen
months due to over supply in the upper Midwest.
14
Hennepin County - 1993 Annual Recycling Report
V. FocuS FOR 1994
Evaluation of the County's current procurement practices is currently underway. The goal is
to identify products currently being purchased by the County that are available with recycled
material content and that minimize the use of toxic materials. The information and knowledge
gained will then be used to encourage similar practices by businesses and municipalities in
Hennepin County.
The County will also review the list of materials required for curbside collection and evaluating
the value of adding new materials. Magazines and catalogs are already being collected by a
majority of programs and therefore are likely candidates to be added to the list of required
materials. Mixed paper is also a candidate to be added although given the current market
situation it may be premature to require County wide collection.
The County will continue to promote waste reduction and recycling. Promotion of in-house
waste reduction and recycling opportunities to County employees will be increased. The County
will be cooperating with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's 'Waste Wise Program' to
promote waste reduction and recycling to businesses in Hennepin County. The County plans
to again sponsor a Waste Reduction Week and coordinate events and activities with the State of
Minnesota and municipalities in thc County.
Staff will evaluate the operations of the two County recycling centcu's to identify ways to reduce
the cost of han~llug and transporting recyclables to market. Increased customer service will also
be a goal of the evaluation. Staff will survey users to determine their level of satisfaction with
the recycling centers and customer service.
15
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
May 27, 1994
RECEIVED JUN
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle, City Administrator
City of Mound ~~~
Executive Director Gene Stromme
Levy Adjustment for 199~ LMCD Budget Requirements
and Shoreland Reimbursement
The LMCD board approved payment per the budget adjustment
made on the 1994 LMCD administrative levy, a check being
enclosed for the amount of adjustment based upon payment
made by your city for 1994.
You will recall from previous correspondence that the 1994
LMCD administrative budget was reduced from $103,500 to
$25,117 to accomplish two objectives:
1. Bring the total 1994 budget within .00242 percent of
the levy allowance and
2. Reduce the LMCD fund balance to a six-month
operating level, half of the reduction to take place
in 1994 and the other half in 1995.
Mound's adjusted 1994 levy is $8,283, and $15,518 has been
paid. A refund of $7,235 is enclosed.
Also, the City of Mound's shoreland ordinance is still under
final review by the MN DNR. However, the city has submitted
costs eligible for reimbursement up to 80% of the $2,500 DNR
grant for which the city qualifies. We are thus enclosing a
$750 payment, leaving a balance of $500 due subject to the MN
DNR final approval of the city's shoreland ordinance.
We trust these funds will benefit other city programs.
Please thank the mayor and council for their patience and
cooperation in working with the LMCD on the fund balance
adjustments which have taken place this year.
cc: Tom Reese
RECEIVED .JUN
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
AGENDA
me
Monday, June 13, 1994, 5:30 PM
LMCD Office, Norwest Bank Building
900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata
(Elevator access for Handicapped;
use west entrance on Wayzata Blvd.)
Review of 4/18/94 minutes, with comments by committee
chair
Draft Code amendment relating to Lighting on Docks,
amending Sect. 2.03 and Sect. 2.12, referred back to
committee for further discussion and input after the
6/7/94 evening lake tour before second reading
3. Draft model city ordinances for lighting near the lake
Draft Code amendment relating to Charter Boats, amending
Sect. 3.07 Watercraft for Hire, adding Coast Guard safety
standards-review input from charter boat companies
Draft Code amendment relating to Special Events, amending
Sect. 3.09, authorizing Sheriff's Water Patrol to issue
permits for LMCD
Se
Draft Code amendment relating to Marine Toilets, amending
Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7; for second reading with additional
interpretation of state law by LMCD counsel
Review of 5/6/94 request for a minimum wake/quiet waters
area at Deering Island, West Arm because of shoreline
erosion problems (per 6/7/94 lake inspection tour)
Proposed litter control signs, examples for discussion:
A. For fishing areas under bridges:
Please Take All Waste With You
Help Preserve This Shore Fishing Area
Thank You!
Be
At public accesses:
Please Take Ail Waste With You
Thank You!
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol
A. Monthly Activity Report
10. Additional business
A. Consideration of 5:00 PM meeting start time
6/8/94
WED, 1ST
THU, 2ND
FRI, 3RD
SAT, 4TH
SUN, 5TH
MON, 6TH
TUE, 7TH
WED, 8TH
THU, 9TH
~RI, 10TH
RECEIVED JUN 1
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
JUNE Z994 LAKE ~ EVE_~ CALENDAR
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
6:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
ll:00 AM
1:30 PM
10:00 AM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
6:00 PM
wednesday Evening Bassin' Goose Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Minnetonka Bass Classic, Goose Is/Mtka Boat Works
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island Course
UMYC sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Wednesday Evening Bassin',Goose Is/Exc Park Tavern
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island Course
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
Wednesday Evening Bassin' Goose Island
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
TUNE .1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR page 2
SAT, llTH
SUN, 12TH
MON, 13TH
TUE, 14TH
~D, 15TH
THU, 16TH
FRI, 17TH
SAT, 18TH
SUN, 19TH
6:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
12:00 PM
2:00 PM
6:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
1:30 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
6:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:'00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
1:30 PM
4:00 PM
DUSK
IN Bass Tournament, Mtka Boat Works
M¥C Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island Course
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
IN Bass Tournament, Mtka Boat Works
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
S¥C Sailboat Race, Big Island Course
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
Wednesday Evening Bassin, Goose Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island Course
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island Course
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Mound City Days Bald Eagle Waterski Show, Cooks Bay
Mound City Days Fireworks Display, Cooks Bay
'UNE ~994 LAK~ MINNETONKA EVEN~ CALENDAR ap~~
MON, 20TH
TUE, 21ST
WED, 22ND
THU, 23RD
FRI, 24TH
SAT, 25TH
SUN~ 26TH
MON, 27TH
TUE, 28TH
WED, 29TH
THU, 30TH
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 AM
7:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
6:00 PM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:30 pm
5:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Mtka Boat Works
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
WYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MS Walleye Contest, Excelsior Park Tavern
Silverado Pro-Am Bass Classic, Mtka Boat Works
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC sailboat Race, Big Island course
UMYC sailboat Race, West Upper Lake area
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
SYC sailboat Race, Big Island course
UMYC sailboat Race, Upper Lake area
WYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC sailboat Race, West Upper Lake area
WYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
RECEivEO
6 '199
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
Agenda
8:30 am, Friday, June 10, 1994
Norwest Bank Bldg Conference Rm 135, Wayzata
Introductions, Chair Tom Penn
Review, accept/amend minutes of 4/15/94 as mailed May 5
with May meeting cancellation notice;
3. MN DNR Report, Chip Welling:
Garlon 3A (triclopyr) Corps of Engineers test plan
update (see enclosures)
* Informational meeting scheduled with lakeshore
owners in bays to be used for test applications
at 8:00 pm, Tues., June 14 1994 Deephaven City
Hall. ' '
Highlights of biocontrol presentation by Cofrancesco,
U S Army Corps of Engineers;
c. Additional milfoi]/exotic control priorities;
4. Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan subcommittee report;
(see enclosed minutes -- next meeting set for 6/15/94)
5. Steve McComas, Blue Water Science, presentation on "Lake
Smarts" publication dealing with aquatic plant control;
6. LMCD 1994 harvest operations preparations update, Gene
Strommen and project manager Todd Grams:
a. DNR harvest permit provisions for 1,008 acres
b. Herbicide (2.4-D) treatment of 8 public accesses;
c. Assessment of milfoil growth and harvest priorities;
d. Progress on weekly launch ramp fragment clean-up;
e. Equipment and personnel selection status;
f. Hennepin Parks eqUipment/operation participation;
g. Questions, recommendations by the Task Force;
Lake association reports;
Hennepin Parks update;
9. Additional business;
10. Next meeting July 15;
ll. Adjourn
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 E. Wayzata Blvd., suite 160
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
473-7033
REVISED
LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE
JU.E 1.94 RECEWEO J'J; 3
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Friday
baturday
Monday
Wednesday
Wednesday
2
'7
10
11
13
Multiple Dock ..Envelope" Concept Subcommittee
5:30 pm, LMCD office, Wayzata
Save the Lake Advisory Committee
5:00 pm, LMCD office, Wayzata
Lake Inspection Tour
7:30 pm, Call LMCD office, 473-7033 for pick-up
location
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
15
Water Structures Committee
7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Lake Use & Recreation-Committee
5:30 pm, LMCD office, Wayzata
Zebra Mussel/Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee
8:30 am, LMCD office, Wayzata
22 * Lake Access Committee
6:00 pm Tonka Bay city Hall, Tonka Bay
Administrative Committee
6:30 pm, Tonka Bay city Hall, Tonka Bay
LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Tonka Bay city Hall, Tonka Bay
* LMCD Revised June Meeting Schedule correcting the Lake Access Committee
meeting date to Wednesday June 22, 1994.
P, ECEivED JUl
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
·
WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA
Saturday, June 11, 1994
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
1. Bayshore Manor Condominiums, Excelsior, Excelsior Bay, multiple
dock license; revised site plan to reflect existing structures with
review of aerial photograph to confirm dock lengths
2. Lord Fletchers Apartments, Spring Park, West Arm, multiple dock
license; 1) requesting approval of reconfiguration with no increase
in slip size per site plan dated 5/6/94 and 2) requesting approval
of partial dock construction, per Ord. 123, amending Sect. 2.05
Subd. 8, Special Density licenses '
3. Ordinance 123, relating to Special Density Licenses; review of
board's intention regarding partial construction of docks
4. Facilities with unrestricted watercraft affected by Resolution 90,
subject to refunds on application fee, staff memo
5. Review of Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures, per staff memo
6. City of Wayzata's Lakewalk plans, for further committee study
7. Report on 6/1/94 Envelope Subcommittee meeting
8. Request for consideration of allowing 10' dock width for gas docks
and shelter for electronic equipment for gas sales
9. Discussion of DNR proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement
with the LMCD, to authorize the LMCD to issue dock permits for the
DNR, to simplify the process and avoid duplication of efforts
10. Minnetonka Yacht Club new multiple dock license application;
Pending resolution of issue regarding shoreline ownership (not
ready for action)
Committee to address conversion of slides to slips and
necessity for a special density license
B. Approve a renewal without change license for 1994
11. Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay, multiple dock license,
special density license and dock length variance applications;
Pending revised site plan with structures within 200' (not ready
for action)
12. Additional business
6/2/94
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM REC, EI O
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
LMCD CITIES
BILL JOHNSTONE, CHAIR LMCD
JUNE 2, 1994
PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET
Under its enabling act, the LMCD is required to adopt a
budget before July 1 of each year for the next calendar year and
submit the budget as adopted to the member cities for comment.
If any member city objects to the budget, the LMCD is required to
hold a hearing, consider the objection and determine whether
changes should be made in the budget as a result thereof.
In recent years the LMCD Board has solicited city input
concerning the budget prior to its adoption pursuant to the
enabling act. This is not intended to and does not prevent
cities from exercising their right to object to the actual budget
and request a hearing thereon pursuant to the enabling act. It
does afford the cities more time to consider the budget and raise
and discuss questions with respect thereto with their
representatives and the LMCD staff. Consistent with this
practice, enclosed is a preliminary draft of the budget for the
LMCD for the year commencing January 1, 1995. The LMCD Board
received the draft budget from the staff at its May 25th meeting,
and authorized it to be distributed to the cities prior to its
consideration at the Board meeting of June 22th. Please take the
time to review it and direct your questions and comments with
respect thereto to your representative, myself or Gene Strommen,
the LMCD Executive Director. We would appreciate hearing your
comments by June 21, 1994.
Several comments are relevant:
- The enclosed budget is a draft. It has not been
considered or acted upon by the Board. It will not be acted upon
until June 22th, at which time changes and adjustments may be
made.
For ur oses of presentation the budget is divided into
- P~ P _ _~A_ ~dministrative and Milfoil.
· I cate or~: ~
two rinclpa g __~ ......... ~ ~ xpenditures with
Adminlstra~lvu ~uv=~o ~u
resect to the normal operations of the LMCD, exclusive of the
milfoil control program. Milfoil covers the projected revenues
and expenditures with respect to the milfoil control program.
- Consistent with the policy adopted by the Board in
February of this year, money in both the Administrative Fund
Operating Reserve (the ,,Administrative Reserve") and the Milfoil
Fund Operating Reserve (the "Milfoil Reserve") is being budgeted
for current expenses from each Fund in amounts which are
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Page 2
estimated to reduce the Administrative Reserve to approximately
six months of operating expenses ($125,000) and the Milfoil
Reserve to approximately 12 months of operating expenses
($125,000). In addition to the Milfoil Reserve, the LMCD has
established an equipment depreciation reserve therein. The draft
budget anticipates transfer of $35,000 from the Milfoil Reserve
to the depreciation reserve in 1995. This will increase the
depreciation reserve balance to approximately $210,000.
- The LMCD also administers the Save the Lake Fund which
contains donations by private parties and interest income
thereon. The Save the Lake Fund is used to fund special projects
of benefit to the lake which the Board does not believe are
appropriate for funding from public funds. The enclosed draft
budget anticipates approximately $32,500 of expenditures from the
Save the Lake Fund in 1995. This amount will be reviewed later
in the year based on the success of the fund raising efforts and
the needs for special project funding.
- Overall, the enclosed 1995 Budget is essentially flat
from the 1994 Budget.
- With respect to estimated revenues in 1995 the following
comments are relevant:
(a) The requested funds from the cities total $143,323
consisting of $80,323 for administrative purposes and
$63,000 for milfoil purposes. Under state law, the
maximum amount that the cites can provide (without a
3/4 vote of all of the cities) is $144,135 based on
1993 assessed valuation. In 1994, the amount of city
funds requested, after adjustments for reserve
reductions, was $88,117.
(b) License revenue from multiple dock and other
licenses is estimated to be $86,000 in 1995 compared to
$112,000 in 1994. The reduction is due to (i) a
decrease in multiple dock license fees resulting from
protests from the licensees and an analysis by the LMCD
of the costs associated with regulating the multiple
dock licenses and (ii) the elimination of duplicating
licensing of special events.
(c) Revenue from fines and interest income is reduced
to reflect actual 1993 experience and reduced fund
balances.
(d) The proposed 1995 budget anticipates receipt of
approximately $40,000 of funds from the DNR and
Hennepin County for purpose of the milfoil program.
This is consistent with our 1994 experience. However,
we have no assurance that we will in fact receive the
money. If we do not, it may be necessary to curtail
the milfoil program.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Page 3
- On the expense side, the following comments are relevant:
(a) The salary expense has increased about 6% due to a
The
personnel change in 1994 and salary increases.
salary increases account for approximately 4% of the
total increase.
(b) Office lease expense has increased from 1993 due to
a new lease. It is essentially the same as the 1994
budget.
(c) Legal expenses are estimated to increase by about
10% from 1994's budget, but are about 10% less than
1993 actual. We are continuing to look at this item.
(d) Our contractual services expenses are estimated to
be down 40%, due in large part to the completion of
several projects.
(e) The 1995 budgeted expenditures for the milfoil
program are in line with the 1994 budget. As always
actual expenditures will be affected by lake levels and
the intensity of our harvesting.
One final overall note. The proposed 1995 budget indicates
that the LMCD will have to further reduce expenditures in future
years or find supplemental'funding sources~ The proposed 1995
budget relies on the use of approximately $60,000 of reserves to
fund current program expenditures. This is acceptable this year
because of the size of our reserves. It will not be in future
years.
Thanks for your assistance. We look forward to your
comments.
Iotus.budge~95
May 26. 1994
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Proposed Budget
DRAFT
1993 1993 1994 1995
Budget Actual Budget Budget
1 LMCD Communities Admn Levy $60,000 $54,215
2 Reserve Fund Allocation
3 Court Fines 43,432 0
4 Licenses 45,000 37,733
5 Interest, Public Funds 117,300 119,577
7,000 13,105
6 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 0 22,665
7 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultants 0 0
8 Other Income
Sub~otal;i Adminis'tfatlon: ::i
(a) Income Prepaid at 80% in 1992
9 EW Milfoil Program
a City Levy $63,000 $56,925
b Other Public Agencies 57,280 43,069
c Private Solicitation 7,930 7,702
d Reserve Fund Allocation
e Interest 0 0
SUbT°tal~.! EW 'UilfoiI
TOTAL RE~'EN'UEi :i~ :: !i :: ~4061642 ~370,825 4383,000 iii ~382~447
$25,117 $80,322
65,383 39,625
45,000 41,000
112,000 86,000
6,000 6,000
4,000 (a) 0
2,000 (a) 0
0 508 0 0
$272,732 :$247;803 :~259,500; iiii 4252~947
463,000 t63,000
49,500 40,000
0 0
5,000 18,500
5,700 15,326 6,000 8,000
$!33,910:!$123,022 $123,500iiiiiii~;iiiiii~8!29,500:
D!SBURSEMENTS ~:~
ADMINISTRATION
Personnel Services:
1 Salaries $105,700 $103,372 $106,150 $113,000
2 Mgmt Plan Impl/PT Tach. 15,000 0 0 0
3... Employer Benefit Contributions
18,000 18,005 19,600 19,700
4: :TotaiPe~on~el services : : ~138,700 :~121;377 $125,750 $132;700!
Contractual Services:
5 Office Lease & Storage
6 Professional Services
7 :!TotaI cont'~ ctual~ services:
Office & Administrative:
8 Office, General Supplies
9 Telephone
10 Postage
11 Printing, Publ.
~ o Maintenance, Office Equipment
Subscriptions, Memberships
· t Insurance, Bonds
15 Mileage, Expenses, Training
16 Total office :&.Administration ':
$10,482 $10,897 $11,600 $11,647
5,550 5,439 5,400 5,700
$16,032 416,336 ~$17,000iiii!i ~$17,347
$3,500 $4,557 44,300 $4,500
2,300 1,939 2,000 2,000
4,000 3,913 4,000 4,500
3,000 1,345 3,000 2,000
2,000 1,656 2,000 2,000
200 175 250 200
5,800 3,932 5,000 4,200
2,500 1,689 3,000 2,500
$23,3001 519,206 $23,550 i~:i:;/ $21,900-
Page 2
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Proposed Budget
1993 1993 1994 1995
Budget Actual Budget Budget
Capital Outlay: $5,000 $1,084 $3,000 $2,000
17 Furniture, Equipment
18 Tbtal capi{'ai o~t'la~ :: :.:: $5,000 :': $1;084· :;~ $3,000 ! iill $2i000i~
Legal $25,000 $25,780 $20,000 $22,000
19 Legal Services 27,000 31,670 30,000 30,000
20 Prosecution Services 3,170 0 3,000
21 Henn, Cry Room & Board 200 0 200 0
22 Process Service ~ ~ ~nn $60 620
23 T°talLegal :i~ ~ ' :~: '~"'"'~' ~:
Contract Services/Studies
24 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultant
25 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants
26 Lake Use Density Study
27 Public Information, Legal Notices
28 Public Access Studies
29 Mgmt Plan Environment Implementation
School District Boater Ed, Program
TOtal Contract ~Servicesistudies ~::~ ::!~:: '
32 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM)
Weed Harvesting Program
33 Trucking Contract
34 Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance
35 Administrative
36 Operation Supplies
80 81,250 82,000 80
0 4,665 4,000 0
0 0 7,000 0
3,000 592 2,000 1,000
2,000 0 0 0
27,500 14,361 15,000 13,000
5,000 0 10,000 10,000~
'---~37,500 820,868 -'-~-0,000 ~.i::i!~.,~24,000:
8272,732 ~239,491 : $259,500 iiii~:.~252'947~:'
835,280 820,324 828,160 832,000
51,060 34,939 43,360 46,000
6,440 4,049 5,900 6,100
25,500 23,198 29,000 30,500
9,250 7,303 8,500 8,900
37 Contract Services 6,380 0 8,580 6,000_
38 Contingency 889;813: 8~-23,500 i::i~:.i~129'500
Save The Lake Program Income:
a Private Donations
b Interest
Sub Total, Save the Lake
Save the Lake Program Expense:
INFORMATIONAL:
EWM Equipment Reserve Allocation
810,000 815,076 822,500 828,000
4,000 3,832 4,000 __4,500
814,000 818,908 $26,500 832,500
814,000 814,792 826,500 832,500
80 80 835,000
835,000
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 BUDGET
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE
Market Value
DRAFT
Share of Share of Share of
% of Total EWM Pg. Admin. Total Budget
Market Value 963,000 980,322 9143,322
Deephaven 303,839,500 8.08 5,088 6,492
Excelsior 97,155,800 2.58 1,627 2,O71
Greenwood 59,671,300 1.59 999 1,280
Minnetonka 2,946,311,200 20.00 12,600 16,064
Mtka. Beach 69,127,100 1.84 1,158 1,479
Minnetrista 271,390,000 7.21 4,545 5,789
Mound 343,925,000 ' 9.14 5,759 7,341
Orono 658,911,700 1.7.51 11,034 14,O62
Shorewood 425,119,000 11.30 7,119 9,076
Spring Park 57,378,500 1.53 961 1,232
Tonka Bay 128,390,200 3.41 2,150 2,737
Victoria 150,848,900 4.01 2,526 3,221
Wayzata 356,093,300 9.47 5,963 7,610
Woodland 87,833,200 2.33 1,471 1,868
TOTAL 5,955,994,700 100.00 63,000 80,322
11,580
3,698
2,279
28,664
2,637
10,334
13,100
25,096
16,195
2,193
4,887
5,747
13,573
3,339
143,322
Less Minnetonka
2,946,311,200
3,009,683,500
5,955,994,700
X .0000242
144,135.07
Total of market value less Minnetonka because Minnetonka is a constant 20%.
Calculating per centage:
City market value divided by 3,009,683,500 times .80 equals per cent
Use only 80% because Minnetonka is always 20%.
i.e. amount of city market value divided by 3,009,683,500 X .80 - % of total
May 26, 1994
Lotus:95MKTVAL
RECEIVED jUN 3 lgg
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
June 1, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Lake Access Task Force Designated Spokespersons
Task Force Chair James N. Grathwol
Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka
Lake Access Task Force
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District board of directors
received~the Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access
Task Force at its May 25, 1992 board meeting.
This report represents the culmination of the Lake Access
Task Force study which was concluded at the Task Force
meeting of May 11, 1994. Members agreed at this meeting that
its study was complete and its work finished.
The report included is the final draft prior to adoption by
the LMCD board of directors. That adoption could take place
at the June 22 board meeting or later.
Any comments may still be directed to the Task Force chair,
James N. Grathwol, c/o the LMCD, 900 East Wayzata Blvd.,
Room 160, Wayzata, MN 55391.
LMCD chair Bill Johnstone and the entire board of directors
extend warm appreciation to every person represented on the
Task Force, and to every other individual and organization
which shared its thoughts and interests on this subjeCt.
The LMCD board will implement the report recommendations.
1992 LMCD Lake Minne~onka Access Task Force Report
REPORT OF THE 1992
LAKE MINNETONKA
LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE
To The
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
May 11, 1994
1992 LMCD Lake Minoe.oah Act,~ Task Fos~ Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Sununmy and Conclusions .....................................................................................
3
History and Background ........................................................................................
$
Introduction ..........................................................................................................
Task Force Goals ..................................................................................................
6
Existing Access .....................................................................................................
6
Goal of 700 Car/Trailer Parking Spaces .................................................................
7
Elimination of Street Car/Trailer Parking ...............................................................
7
Parking Standards for Car/Trailer Parking .............................................................
8
Parking Inventory ........................................................................ , .........................
9
Parking Agreements and DNR Cost Sharing ..........................................................
l0
New Access Sites ..................................................................................................
10
Equitable Distribution ............................................................................................
10
Marina Potential for Lake Access ..........................................................................
11
Proceedings Summary ..........................................................................................
11
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................
Appendix:
12
I Roster of Members .........................................................................
2 Map of Access Sites, Commercial Marinas ..................................... 13
14
3 Parking Standards ..........................................................................
4 Current and Potential car/trailer parking inventory .......................... 16
17
5 Lake access model parking agreement ............................................
6 lVlinnesota DNR Landowners Bill of Rights .................................... 20
7 Lake lVfinnetonka DNR Acquisition Process ................................... 23
25
8 Access site evaluation criteria .........................................................
26
9 Ia~ke Zone Map ..............................................................................
27
10 Proceedings Summary ...................................................................
1992 LMCD Lake Minnctonka Access Task Force Rep~
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. 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.
2. 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 free car/tr~;ler parking.
Currently, there are over 700 spaces used on the busiest days.
3. Poor quality parking results in residents complaining about boater's intrusive behavior and
excessive tra~c congestion. It results in extreme frustration by boaters over the lack of a decent
place to park to go boating on Lake Minnetonka This generates tension between the local
community interest and the car/trailer boater interest.
4. If the car/trailers currently parked near the lake could be put in well organized places with
adequate, safe parking conditions with car/trailer turnarounds, the local communities would
benefit from reduced congestion and less intrusion on their neighborhoods.
5. The task force re, alu'meal the conclusions of two prior studies that 700 high quality, free,
reliable car/trailer parking spaces are fair and reasonable for Lake Minnetonka and are
achievable.
The Task Force concluded that when quality free reliable car/trailer parking spaces are provided
in a zone, all 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 inercase the number of boats on the lake but actually create a modest
reduction.
Every other year, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is to certify Coy
count) and publish on a map showing the locations and the number of free, 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
Page 1
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 ?00 car/trailer parking spaces cooperation is needed
e. Additional parking agreements are needed for as many existing sites as possible. This may
include payments by the DNR under cooperative agreements.
f. Some street and remote lots need "car/trailer only" signs.
g. Signs need to be placed at launch ramps showing where to park.
h. Street signs need to be installed showing direction to the ramps.
i. The LlVlCD and the DNR need to negotiate with some commercial marinas to provide fi'ee
car/trailer parking for the public that can be certified. Negotiations may include payments
by the DNR and/or other incentives by the LMCD.
j. Make ready docks need to be installed at ramps where remote car/trailer parking is used.
k. New access sites 0aunch 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 expexted
to pay a significant portion of improved car/trailer parking even though their local
community may benefit
' ;}93 LMCD Car/Trailer Parking Inventory
12.
To~ ~ U~
~t M~t To~
1992 To~
C~ent ~d To~ in U~ ~t ~bili~ Fu~ U~ ~d
Potenfi~ U~ or : M~t ~e S~d & PI~ P~
P~ng Spa~ ~ler A~hble Ph~i~ ~ to ~ LM~
Categories lnvento~ T~y S~d
In A~s ~ts 3~ 259, 239 239 124 363
In Remote lots 93 93 70 43 27 70
On the Str~ 282 215 114~ 97 17 (1) 83
G~ TOT~ 735 567 423 379 168 5~6
.......
(1) 31 ~ar,,tr~lor~willb~e, limimuzlinthovi~ityofN°rth ~m wl~n th~ DNR ~c~ st M.xwdi BsY b in el~mi°°-
13. For the new public access at Maxwell Bay successful cooperation with Crone 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.
Page 2
1992 LMCD Lake Minnetonka Ac, ce~ Task Force Report
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Launch ramps and car-trailer parking at Lake Minnetonka have been under discussion for many years.
The Minnesota State Constitution states that the waters 0fthe state will be fi'ee 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 to "provide fi'ee and adequate public access to all of
Minnesota'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 free car/trailer parking as a benefit. To obtain this free access, the D1VR set policies for what
constitutes reliable, free car/trailer parking. The DNR attempts to utilize the following guidelines:
1. One car/trailer parking space for every 20 acres of lake surface Lake Minnetonka0s 14,000 acres
requires a minimum of 700 spaces.
2. Ramps with remote 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 feet from the launch ramp.
5. Street or remote lot parking doesn't count.
6. Car/trailer parking spaces must be available 24 hours per day, ? 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 Minnetonka. They published
information and testified before various bodies that there were only 143 car/trailer parking spaces for
Lake Minnetonka 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 Minnetonka.
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 busiest days. They claimed there were substantially more
than the 700 car/trailer parking spaces and the lake didn't need any more car/trailer parking. In fact, they
claimed that the boats offthe 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 fair and reasonable for Lake Minnetonka.
3. Equitable distribution of car/trailer parking around the lake is desirable.
Page 3
1992 LMCD L~k¢ Minnctonlm A~.~s~ T~mk I~or~ R~pori
4. Parking standards for Lake lVlinnetonka may need to be adjusted.
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 s fair
and reasonable number.
In 1987, as a result of no action in providing car/trailer parking spaces and no plans to build them, the
Metropolitan Council told the LMCD that they would seek state lelislative action for a relional 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 thc car/trailer parking would be accomplished.
The LMCD believed thc car/trailer parking could not be considered without developing an overall Ion8
range management plan for the lake that would include adequate free car/trailer parking. The LMCD
Management Plan was published at thc end of 1990 and approved in December 1991.
The LMCD Management Plan which the DN1L the Metropolitan Council, the cities and many others
helped develop, reaffirmed thc 700 car/trailer parking space goal as being fair and reasonable. Three
additional fundamental points were discussed:
1. For Lake IVlinnetonka 700 parking spaces would be both the minimum and the maximum.
2. Once thc 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
parkingu signs as long as thc 700 goal continues to be met.
3. The LMCD, with assistance from the DNIL should review thc existing parking quality standards
to determine if some adjustments could be made for the special situation on Lake lVlinnetonka.
In the fall of 1991, the DN-R 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 of Orono. Orono tried to
persuade the DN-R 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, thc DNR commissioner wrote
a letter to both the LMCD and the city of Orono. The letter stated that thc DNR would postpone
development of thc Maxwell Bay property until a task force appointed by thc LMCD developed a
detailed plan for car/trailer parking for all of Lake Minnetonka.
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
The Lake Access Task Force was recommended by the commissioner ofthe DNR, 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 from
1. Its member cities
2. Government 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 Sportfishing 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
$. Model Parking Agreement
6. DNR Landowner's Bill of Rights
7. DNR Acquisition 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. Affirm the prior goal of 700 certifiable car/trailer parking spaces for reliable free 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.
8. Review the principle and define equitable distribution.
9. Examine the possibility for commercial marinas to provide some free public car/trailer parking.
Page
1992 LMCD Lake Minnctonka A¢¢_~__s Task Force Report
* 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, DNIL earlier 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
& Racks Water
Where Boats Originate (4)
(1) Max Peak Avg Peak (2)(5) (3)(5)(S)
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 421 300 23 %
[ TOTAL 8,847 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 (meeting the standards of
appendix 3) and agreed with the goal of closing street parking to car/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 I parking space per 10 acres of water surface.
Page 6
t ~., t.~ 1..~¢ MmnetonXa Accc~ Task Force Relx)rt
The Task Force considered
~ lowering the goal.- The Lake lviinnetonka Lake Shore Owners Assodat/on
'Ct2vlLoA) believes that 700 park/ng spaces would increase boat density and reduce the enjoyment of the
lake by lakeshore users. Taking 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 reaffirmed.
ELIMINATION OF STREET CAR/TRAILER PARKING
There was consideration in the LMCD Management Plan whereby other street ear/trailer parking would
be eliminated as the goal of 700 was being established, and when the 700 goal was complete, ail other
street parking ought to be removed as a way oflimiting 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 Minnetonka 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 future.
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. 700 must be available
5. on weekends, of which 350 may have limited hours.
Up to 10% of the spaces at any one ramp 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 from 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% ofthe 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 ofthe above are met.
Reliable parking meets the standards of appendix 3. The Task Force recommends upgrading all parking
to reduce undesirable parking. The changes from prior standards allow the Task Force greater fleodbility
Page 7
1992 LMCD Lake Minnctonka A~-'~---* Task Force Report
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 from a variety of sourc'es 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 certifiable 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 free at peak times in good weather than the inventory has identified.
The 1993 LMCD Car/Trailer Parking
1992 Total In Use Total
Cun~nt and Total in that Meet the Additional Total in
Potential Total Use that Reliability Furore Use and
Parking Space Car/Trailer In Use or Meet the Standard & Planned Planned
Categories Inventory Available Physical LMCD to be LMCD
(1) Today Stapdzrd Certified Certified Certified
In Accoss Lots
North Arm 65 80 $0 $0 0 $0
Grays Bay Csway 37 37 17 17 0 17
Grays Bay Dam 20 20 20 20 0 20
Spring Park 145 86 $6 $6 0 86
Kings Point 0 32 32 32 0 32
Pholps Bay 10 4 4 4 0, 4
Henn. Reg. Park $0 0 0 0 48 48
Maxwell 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 3] 3t 3] 3] 0 (2) 0
W'dliams St. 40 40 40 40 0 40
Cooks Bay 110 43 43 26 17 43
Wayzata Bay 101 101 0 O~ 0 0
SUBTOTAL 282 215 114 97 17 83
GRAND TOTAL 735 567 423 379 168 516
Page 8
1992 LMCD Lake Minnetonka Acce~ T~k Force Report
(1) Includes cre~t~for space~ re..~rv~ in lots:for car top carried watercraft, 7' at North Arm Acc~s, and
3 at C-rays Bay Dam.
(2) 31 car/trailer spaces will be eliminated in the vicinity of North Arm and Maxwell Bay as part of an
agreement with Orono when the DNR access at MaXWell Bat is in operation.
The Task Force recognize~ there is additional car/trailer parking beyond 2000 feet that is available today
and not part of the above count. It, aiso, 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
Hennepin County and the cities. The revised total inventory 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 fi.om
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. Ii'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 current model agreement. The Lake Access Parking Agreement form
for evaluating public access parking agreements are provided in APPENDIX 5, pages 17-19.
These agreements should be between the LMCD and the local unit ofgovernment or property owner.
The DN-R 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 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
Page
1992 LMCD Lake Mmnetonka Access Task Force Report
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 $1, serving Hennepin County North Arm ramp (31 spaces)
2. Spring Park, Spring Park Bay, with accompanying county maintenance yard nearby in Orono (86
spaces)
3. Deephaven:
a. Carsons Bay, Minnetonka Blvd. ramp with city maintenance lot (30 spaces)
b. Carsons Bay, Minnetonka Blvd. ramp with school lot on Vinehill Road (40 spaces)
4. Wayzata: Wayzata Bay County Road 16 ramp, County Road 16 (40 spaces)
5. 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 Gideons Bay
2. Timber Lane, Gideons Bay, Shorewood
3. Mai-Tai Restaurant Site, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior (property was sold)
4. 456 Arlington Ave., Wayzata Bay (private residence), Wayzata
5. Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, Mound
6. Lost Lake, Cooks Bay, Mound
7. Advance Machine, West Arm, Spring Park
Grays Bay Causeway
The unimproved substandard public access on Trunk Highway 101 will not be redeveloped 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 lVlinnetonka are continuing discussions about improvements at
the site.
Maxwell 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 Minnetonka. The principle
adopted in earlier task force repons 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.
Page 10
1992 LMCD Lake Minncionka Access Task Force Report
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 mm-ina 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 free
public access use of marinas:
1.
2.
Ability to extend existing capacity.
Extent to which a marina already serves the public through fee paid access. (Fee paid public
access does not meet the definition of free and open public access.)
3. Attitude 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 reservin8 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.
PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY
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, aseney,
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
lViinneto~a. Subcommittee members invested extensive volunteer hours. All participants deserve
recognition. The Task force thanks every individual and organization for their contributions.
Page 11
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 Marlde
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 Beach
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 Association
Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
Fisherman Advocating
Intelligent Regulation
MN Sportfishing Congress
Maxwell Bay Residents
Dennis Asmussen
Mike Markell
Gordon Kimball
Martha Reger
Larry Killien
Donald W. Buckhout
Eugene IL Strommen
Rachel Thibault
AGENCY STAFF
Director
Water Recreation
Supervisor
Regional Supervisor
Area Supervisor
Regional Supervisor
ADR Coordinator
Executive Director
Adminis. Technician
Page 12
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
,~C) ~0 0G
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Existing Public Access Sites and Commercial Marinas
1
2
2A
3
4
6
6A
7
$
9
10
11
12
12A
13
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
20A
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Beans Greenwood Marina*
Causeway - Hwy. 101
Chapman Place Marina
Cochranc Boat Yards*
Crystal Bay Service*
Curlys Minnctonka Marina
Deephaven, City of
Dennis Boats*
Gayl¢ Marina
Grays Bay Access Coy 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 (VO & (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
*No launching facilities
11/17/93
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
Harfisons 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
Page 13 A
PARXING STANDARDS
LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES
· appendix 3
The 1992 Lake Minnctonka Lake Access Task Force has adopted the goal of 700 long-term reliable spaces
for car/trailer parking in thc vicinity of prcscnt and future acccss sites at Lake Minnctonka. The Task Force
further agrees that the Lake Mirmetonka 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:
1. All spaces must be within 2,000' of a public access point. For ear/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.
All parking locations away from 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
Car/trailer
9 X 19 (Handicapped 12 x 19)
10 X40
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 ear/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
6~2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Minimum length of $0 feet per space.
Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into a traffic lane and to provide a safe
route to thc access point.
Of thc 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.
Designated and signed on-street car/trailer parking spaces will be counted 100% for car/trailer
On-street ear/trailer parking spaces must be illustrated on a plan by street marne on file with
the LMCD.
Page 15
Appendix 5
LAKE MINNETO~ CONSERVATION DISTRICT
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
WttEREAS 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
j 19__.
LAKE MINNETONKA
CONSERVATION DISTRICT:
AGENCY/CITY:
By
By
EXHIBIT A
Checklist for Evaluating Lake Minnetonka
Public Access Car/Trailer Parking Agreements
o
1. Access Name
2. Access Ci~.
Lake Zone No. _
3. Car/Trailer (C/T) Parking by Location:
a. Off-street, on access site .................
(On-s!te designated trailer parking on '
grass Is acceptable if vehicle is parked on
graded or paved surface.)
b. Off-street, remote from access site
* Distance in feet fi'om access site _
e. 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 _
d. on-street, !,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 C/T parking spaces in lots _whiehev~ is !~
Total, car/trailer parking spaces at site
COOPERATING PROVISIONS:
1. Access site plan illustrating each C/T space
with adequate ingress, egress, and maneuvering
space is kept on file and current with LMCD.
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.
Initial as accepted:
Page 18
EXHIBIT A
Checklist for Evaluating Lake Minnctonka
Public Access Car/Trailer Parking Agreement
Ali on-street parking spaces meet the following
standards:
a. Minimum length of 50 fcet pcr spacc.
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/T 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 aec.ss 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 spa,es
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.
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 aec.ss site.
Agency/city agrees to enter into this agreement
for a period of years (five years desired)
in recognition c~f the valuable recreational
opportunities offered on Lake Minnetonka.
Page 19
Appendix 6
i~ESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NA1URAL 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 thc State water bank program all provide recreational opportunities for thc general public
or protection of the State' natural resources. Each of these programs authorizes either thc
purchase of the fee title to land or the purchase of a lesser interest in land, such as an
casement.
Selling land to thc Department of Natural Rcsources 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' rights and to assure that public money is well
spent to serve thc public interest. This letter describes thc 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.
Appraisal Pr0ces.~
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 right 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
Landowners Bill of Rights
Negotiation Process
The State is not allowed to discuss the 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 sa~mrnary 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.
Purchase 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 at~er the option period expires.
After signing the option, you have one month to mail or deliver an Abstract of Title to the
Depat~.aient of Natural Resources. If your land title is registered, you should submit your
Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tide 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 thc 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.
Landowners Bill of Rights
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 atto. mey's fees are not reimbursable.
Method of Pa_vment
Payment for thc land is mailed to the landowner after thc 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.
State does not pay interest on monies held during an installment agreement.
Yacating Your Property
The
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 Ben,fit~
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.
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 right 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 551554030
(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.
BACKGROUNI)
A Process to provide Public Water Access (PWA) in the metropolitan area was developed by
the Metropolitan Council, The Minnesota Department 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 M]qDNR and other public agencies use these
procedures to develop accesses in the metropolitan area. This doo~ment 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 M]qDNR 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 MlqDNR 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 indentify 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
Lde Mim etonka Acquisition Process
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
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 rejecting the
property or the project, the MNDNR w/il 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 $
LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE
ACCESS SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
These evaluation criteria should be used in selecting potential new access sites for fishing crai~ 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.
1. Relationship to residential areas -- Positive and negative impacts of the site on adjacent
residential areas, such as distance between a site and nearby homes, s~re~ing the site from
homes, noise, traffic, etc.
2. Accessibility to primary highways -- Potential sites near major highways (State Highways ? 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.
3. Public use precedent -o 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.
4. 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.
5. Cost o- Property acquisition, development and maintenance costs.
6. Physical development constraints -- positive and negative features on land and in the water and
changes possible to make the potential site usable.
?. 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 -o Larger sites with off-street parking are preferred.
10. Environmental considerations -- dredging, fill, run-off control, wetlands preservation, etc.
Footnotes:
I. 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 15, 1993
Page 25
250/
LU
Z
LU
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
~J 0 0
0
Apendix 10
PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY
1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY
FOR LAKE MINNETONKA
TASK FORCE CHRONOLOGY
The initial Task Force meeting was held 3/il/92. Its purpose goal and objectives were
introduced as follows:
pURPOSE -- to establish a plan to meet the Management Plan lake access policies
developed in the 1983 and 1986 Lake Minnetonka 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.
a.
Co
OBJECTIVES:
Establish criteria in the LMCD Code for acceptable year-round lake access, including
access ramps, lakeside and remote edt parking, handicapped access and signage.
Conduct a joint study of all access ramps and associated e/t parking, identifying all
existing ramps and associated lake parking.
Develop a plan for and provide LMCD-approved boat access ramps with 700 reliable
c/t parking spaces.
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, DNIL 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 Oayle's Marina and the
DNR 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
PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY, 1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY
The Task Force formed three subcommittees, namely:
Data Gathering
Standards
Steering
DATA GATHERING SUBCOMMITTEE Cfr PARKING INVENTORY
DEVELOPMENT
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
1 North Arm 139 60 63
Grays Bay Hwy 101 24 37
Grays Bay Dam 19 19
Wayzata Bay Hwy 16 ._3. 25
Sub Total 144 46 81
3 Carsons Bay 1SS 0 40
4
Spring Park Bay 79 93
Phelps Bay -fl- _.4.
Sub Total 126 79 97
Halsted, Wms. St. 0 30
Halsted, Kings Point 0 32
Henn. Regional Park 0 100
Cooks .Bay, Mount Park 0 ._~
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 cdt street parking potentially available to 2,000' from the access, identified
later in this report.
Criteria were needed to identify reliable cdt parking spaces. The Standards Committee was
asked to develop such criteria.
Page 28.
STANDARDS SUBCObtMITrEE 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:
1. MN DNR 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 Cfr 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, Haisted Bay access)
337
GRAND TOTAL
845
Page 29
DNR ANALYSIS OF C/I' PARKING SPACES AT ACCESS LOTS:
The cdt parking space count at access on-site lots differ only slightly from 1983 and 1986
counts. Some car-only parking spaces could be convened to cdt parking spaces.
AERIAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC ACCESS SITES
Aerial photos of cdt 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 C/T 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 SUBCO~E ACTIONS
c/r PARKING INVENTORY REVIEW
Subcommittee action of 8/12/92 amended the 7/15/92 cdt Parking Inventory from 845 to 755 cdt
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 footnote adjustments, the Parking Inventory of 755 current and potential cdt
parking spaces was finalized and recommended for presentation to the Task Force.
Page 30
STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Thc recommendations of thc 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 Hennepin 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 edt parking
spaces goal.
DN1L LMCD and sport fishing representatives supported the 700 edt 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, 1992, was activated
tO:
'a. Coordinate related lake access objectives and policies with the Task
Force.
b. Carry out lake access objectives and policies in the Management Plan
which will not be addressed by the Task Force.
LMCD BOARD ACTION ON TASK FORCE PosmoNs
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 edt parking spaces
A draft model Parking Agreement for cities or agencies identifying edt parking
spaces which meet the Parking Standards.
Parking Agreements to be secured by LMCD with cities or agencies.
Page 31
TASK FORC"E ACTIONS
Lake Access Task Force actions taken on 12/9/92:
I. Approved Current and Potential C/T Parking Inventory total adjusted to 735 cdt
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 cdt 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 cdt 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
footnotes 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
ACCESS SITING SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS
Access Siting Subcommittee Actions taken 4/6/93:
!. 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 SUBCOMMrVrEE ACTIONS
Access Siting Subcommittee actions taken 5/4/93:
!. 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
3. 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. ~ DNR budget constraints in funding leased space
LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE ACTION
Lake Access Committee action taken 5/7/93:
I. The Lake Access Parking Agreement with the City of Minnctrista 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:
1. The seven potential access sites were accepted as identified by the Access
Siting Subcommittee 5/4/93.
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 thc 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 thc LMCD committee intends
to continue processing:
1. Determine the equitable distribution of public access among existing and
potential new access sites.
Evaluate and negotiate with commercial marinas for their potential in providing
e/t parking and launch service:
a. Apply equitable distribution criteria.
b. DNR to negotiate agreements for space/service provided.
Page 34
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 signagc to be developed per agreement provisions, cities and agencies
asked to assist.
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
May 31, 1994
TO: j Ed Shukle, City Manager
FROM: Len Harrell, Chief
SUBJEC~ FBI Academy
I was contacted last week by Agent Brubaker and notified that I
am currently scheduled to attend the FBI Academy in January of
1995. The Academy is an intensive curriculum for police managers
that covers new technology, leadership skills enhancement, and
assorted topics in police science. The program is presented in
Quantico, VA. at the FBI training facility for twelve weeks.
The bulk of the expenses are covered by the federal government;
except for my salary. The FBI also requests that you stay within
the organization that sponsors you for a period of three years
after completion of the course. I have made that commitment
known.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 23, 1994
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Jerry
Clapsaddle, and Lisa Bird, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, City
Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and
excused were: Bill ross and Mark Hanus.
The following people were also in attendance: Julie Sandberg, Dan Gorshe, Mark Smith, Bruce Reno,
Kevin Norby, Bob Boyer, Gary Elken, Everett Junge, Trude Turnquist, Ron and Marvel Johnson, and
John Blumentritt.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1994 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of May 9, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
~ --,D LAR"ON AND MYRNA NctYD- 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD~THAT PART F
ND 2
ASSEMBLY , PID #23-117-2441 0016. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION.
At the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 1994, this request was tabled in order to clarify the
hardcover calculations. The applicant's contractor, Sawhorse Designers, has revised the calculations
for impervious surface coverage for the subject property. The calculations appear accurate, with the
exception of the lot area. The surveyor has verified the lot area at 25,674 square feet, and this
number is slightly larger than the lot area used by the contractor of 25,358.13. This difference
results in a slight improvement to the impervious coverage calculations, and therefore, a variance to
impervious cover of 12 square feet, or .045%, is being requested.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize the
existing nonconformance of two dwellings on one lot and the existing nonconforming setback to the
street side structure; and approval of a variance to impervious surface coverage of 12 square feet,
or .045 percent, to allow construction of a 34' x 30' attached garage as shown on the survey revised
11-19-93 with the following conditions:
1. The street side dwelling is a nonconforming use. Nothing contained in the approval for the
addition on the main structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances for the street side
dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same parcel is prohibited by Mound City Code. The owners
are advised that City staff and City Council will likely not allow any variances for the street
side dwelling in the future as we desire that the property be brought into conformance with
the current codes.
2. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel.
Mueller clarified that now there is a variance to impervious cover being requested when there was
none before. Mueller raised questions regarding the issue of two residences on one lot, how and
when will this be changed? Since this use has been grandfathered and the two residences have
existed prior to any zoning ordinance being adopted by the City, then why worry about having two
addresses? He feels the residences should be allowed to have two different addresses. Clapsaddle
added that the post office will probably not allow them to have only one address.
, 313
Planning Commission Minutes
May 994
Mueller further commented that considering the size of this lot, he does not understand why a
variance to impervious cover would be needed. Jensen commented that when and if the second
residence is removed, the hardcover will improve. Jensen is also okay with requiring one house
number as this will encourage an ultimate change to the goal of having only one dwelling.
Mueller requested an explanation from the City Attorney on why it is recommended that only one
address be allowed for the two residences.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance as recommended
by staff with the deletion of item #2 which requires only one house number. Motion
failed due to lack of a second.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Bird, to recommend approval of the variance
as recommended by staff. Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were Jensen, Bird,
Michael, and Clapsaddle. Mueller opposed.
Mueller opposed because he questions the method used to deal with lots with two dwellings.
Clapsaddle commented that he believes the post office will ultimately over rule the City and require
two addresses.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 24, 1994.
~ BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNI=i-~
.DEVELOPMENT AREA REVIEW FOR PELICAN POINT.
City Planner,'Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. This application includes three items for
review: the Planned Development Area (PDA), the Preliminary Plat, and variances.
Boyer Building Corporation is seeking approval to develop the property commonly known as Pelican
Point which consists of approximately 13.7 acres and an island with about 3/4 of an acres. The
property fronts on Tuxedo Blvd. and adjoins the Lakewinds Condominiums on the north and single
family homes on the south. Boyer's proposal involves the construction 40 units in a twin home
configuration targeted for the "empty nester" market.
Pelican Point is the most prominent undeveloped site in the City of Mound.
Approval of the preliminary plat is required by the City of Mound, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Health Department, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD).
Shoreland regulations apply to this preliminary plat. Mound's current shoreland ordinance has not
received final approval from the Commission of the DNR. As a result, the "Statewide Standards for
Management of Shoreland Areas" requires that the Pelican Point plan "be reviewed by the DNR and
approved by the Commissioner before final local government approval." Final approval as used by
the State refers to "final plat approval." As a result, the State rules regarding shoreland management
will apply in this case rather than Mound's adopted shoreland provisions which are found in Section
350:1200 of the City Code.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25, 1994
The development proposal includes 40 lots containing a total of 20 buildings with a common wall
separation between residential units. Three outlets are to be held in common ownership by a
homeowner's association. Outlet C includes a 70 foot wide strip along the shoreland, and the island.
A water oriented accessory structure of approximately 900 square feet is proposed within Outlet C.
Other issues that need to be addressed which were outlined in both the City Planner's report and the
City Engineer's report include:
1. Environmental Review. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be prepared.
An Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) is not expected to be necessary as Mound's
shoreland ordinance should receive DNR approval prior to the final plat approval (at least 60
days).
2. Density and Total Units. The maximum density allowed on the Pelican Point site, based on
the proposed plan, is 48 units. The total number of proposed units is within the requirements
of both the Mound Zoning Code and the State shoreland requirements.
3. East Port Road. The developer's attorney and surveyor will need to research the platting
history of East Port Road and work with the City Attorney to resolve any issues.
4. Streets. Pelican Point Circle is proposed to be constructed as a public street. The design and
installation of the pavers must not create a future maintenance problem due to frost heaving,
snow plowing or differential settlement.
5. Driveways. If driveways are to be installed over lot lines, appropriate easements will need to
be established.
6. Variances. Variances for setbacks, lot width, lot area, street frontage, and street width are
included in this application.
7. Impervious Cover. Mound's shoreland ordinance limited impervious cover to 30% of the total
site. The State shoreland rules limit impervious cover to 25%. Pelican Point, as proposed,
has an approximately impervious cover rate of 28.8% including both the mainland and island
areas.
8. Bluff Areas. Most of the riparian units observe at least the 30 foot setback. Exceptions
include Lot 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Block 2. Bluff setbacks for these units range from 13
to 28 feet. Only lots 9 and 10 have a setback less than 20 feet.
9. Water Oriented Accessory Structure (WOS). AWOS is being proposed with a floor area of
900 square feet, requiring a variance from the State shoreland standards.
10. Vegetation Removal. Covenants regulating vegetation removal could be included within the
homeowner's association agreements.
11. Docks. A common dock area accommodating 40 boats is proposed. Mound does not have
any specific review authority regarding docks, but can offer comments to applicable permitting
agencies.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
12.
13.
Park Dedication. The Mound Park Commission will be reviewing the plat in June.
Channel Easement. The preliminary plat identifies a 70 foot wide channel easement between
the mainland area and the island.
14.
15.
Trail. The plan identifies a trail leading from the housing units to the common dock area, and
is generally consistent with the shoreland regulations.
Landscaping. Concept plans have been submitted and adequately convey the character and
level of landscaping. Additional detail, including identified species and sizes, will need to be
supplied at a later date.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit
to establish a Planned Development Area (PDA) including applicable variances, approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Pelican Point, and incorporation of the Preliminary Plat dated 4-21-94, last revision
5-10-94as Exhibit I of the conditional use permit subject to applicable conditions. If the Planning
Commission concurs with this finding, the following motion is suggested:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for the
establishment of Pelican Point as a Planned Development Area including applicable variances for lot
sizes, lot width, lot line setbacks, and street frontage corresponding to the lot configuration shown
on the Preliminary Plat. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plat as we//as its incorporation into the Conditional Use Permit as Exhibit 1. The
aforementioned approvals are contingent on the following conditions:
1. Because of exceeding the threshold for an EA W resulting from the proposed common dock
area (marina) and in order to satisfy local environmental concerns, the applicant sba#prepare
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (FA Wi, cons/stent w/th the requirements found in
the Minnesota Environmental Quality 8oard Environmental Review Program, 4410.0200 to
4410.7800. The EAW shall include a biological inventory of the site as we//as a Phase I
archaeological reconnaissance survey of the property, ff the E,4 W results /n information
requiring additional conditions to this preliminary p/at approval, said conditions will be added
prior to final p/at consideration.
The applicant shall secure all applicable permits from ali entities with/ur/sd/ct/on over this
project including, but not 1lin/ted to, the Department of Natural Resources, the M/nnehaha
Creek Watershed D/strict, the Lake M/nnetonka Conservation D/strict and the Department of
Health.
The applicant shall invest/gate and supply information to the City Attorney regarding the
historic platting of the East Port Road area and Island View Drive/n order to verify that the
property shown within the Prelim/nary P/at/s free of outside encumbrances.
AII private driveways shall either be located w/thin the lot that they serve or easements shall
be prepared a/lowing access on neighboring lots.
The project shall be limited to a total amount of impervious cover not to exceed 30 percent.
As such, the City recommends that the DNR approve an impervious coverage variance if
applicable.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 1994
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Bluff areas as delineated on the Preliminary Plat shall remain undisturbed. The City
recommends that the DNR approve top of bluff setback variances consistent with the unit
placement shown on the Preliminary Plat.
The City finds that the one proposed water oriented accessory structure is reasonable and
recommends variance approval by the DNR since it serves 40 homes. The proposed building
is of far less impact than a series of private water oriented accessory structures that would
be allowed if the lakeshore was platted into private lots in a more traditional subdivision
design. Said water oriented accessory structure shall comply with the setback and color
restrictions identified in the State shoreland rules.
Covenants and bylaws of the homeowner's association shall include provisions restricting
vegetation removal from Outlot C. Said documents shall be approved by the City of Mound
at the time of final plat approval.
Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as applicable.
Park dedication fees shall be collected in conformance with the Mound Subdivision Ordinance.
Tree management practices shall be followed consistent with the Tree Management narrative
submitted as part of the developers narrative and included as part of the Conditional Use
Permit as Exhibit 2.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan for the project entry for review and
approval by the City Planner.
Detailed information on paving at the entry area and at trail crossing points shall be prepared
by the applicant and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
AIl int'erior lot lines shall be required to have a 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement along
both sides except common lot lines which pass through bu#dings.
Easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided for utilities not located within
street rights-of-way.
A drainage and utility easement shall be provided at the north end of Outlot C for the storm
sewer and drainage channel that leads to Lake Minnetonka.
The City's existing storm sewer in East Port Road shall be added to the Preliminary Utility Plan.
Furthermore the proposed drainage pond shall ha ve adequate capacity to accommodate runoff
from the Pelican Point development as well as from the existing City storm sewer. Drainage
calculations demonstrating adequate capacity shall be submitted and approved by the City
Engineer. The sediment control structure for the pond outlet shall be relocated midway
between the inlets.
Silt fence shall be located to contain all areas disturbed by grading. Method # 1 for silt fence
installation as shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shall be
utilized.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
19.
20.
21.
Ail uti/it/es adjacent to Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed within the public right-of-way.
The proposed sanitary sewer shall be extended from manhole # 7 with an additional manhole
placed to provide service for Lots 19 and 20, 8lock 2.
An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be added closer to the intersection of the private
drive (as shown on the plat) and Pelican Point Circle to retain the line within the public right-of-
way and to reduce the length of the services to Lots 5 and 6, 8lock 1. The watermain in this
area shall a/so be moved.
22.
23.
24.
An additional fire hydrant shall be added at the proposed cul-de-sac.
Additional mainline gate valves at locations acceptable to the City Engineer shall be added to
provide zoning of the water distribution system.
Pelican Point Circle shall be constructed as a 28 foot w/de (back to back) public street
accommodating parMng on one side. ,4 10 foot variance from the right-of-way requirement
is approved due to the desire of both the applicant and the City of Mound to maximize
retention of existing tree cover.
25.
Ingress and egress lanes at the project entrance shall be widened to 16 feet (back to back)
and B618 curb and gutter shall be installed.
26.
27.
The proposed cul-de-sac that is identified on the Preliminary Plat as a "Shared Private
Driveway' shall be platted and constructed as a public street with right-of-way and pavement
widths consistent w/th Pelican Point Circle. ,4 variance for the cul-de-sac bubble of 20 feet
is approved to establish an 80 foot diameter bubble w/th a paved area with a 70 foot
diameter. The pavement width at the bubble can be reduced by the placement of a
landscaped island providing that the cul-de-sac is posted for one-way traffic only.
Plans for street lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Said
plans shall identify the system ownership as either public or private and shall specify pole and
fixture types and locations.
28.
No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Out/ot C/without specific mod/f/cation
of the. Conditional Use Permit.
(Commissioner We/land arrived, and Bird was dismissed from the meeting.)
The Commissioners addressed questions to the staff. Staff clarified that the EAW will need to be
approved prior to the final plat.
Bluff setbacks were clarified to be 30 feet for the DNR, and 10 feet for the City, therefore, it was
recommended that variances up to 20 feet be allowed.
The applicant's clarified for the Commission that the WOS is proposed to be setback 50 feet from
the ordinary high water.
Street designs were discussed.
6
Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994
John Boy.r, of Boyer Building Corporation, introduced John Blumentritt who reviewed the project and
addressed the following concerns and questions:
What are you planning to build? Twenty twinhomes.
What is different about this proposal from former designs and previous requests? This
proposal has much less density and is far more sensitive to the property and surrounding area.
12.
13.
14.
Does this meet our density requirements? Yes.
How much car traffic is anticipated? According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, it is
estimated that 6 cars per day, per residence, totalling 240 trips per day will occur ingress and
egress from site.
How much boat traffic is anticipated. This is still Questionable.
Who will be buying these homes? Empty nesters, people who are retired and are downsizing
their homes.
How large and tall will they be? Rambler, one story at street side.
What about the existing trees? Kevin Norby, Landscape Architect spoke to this issue. As
many'trees as possible will be attempted to be saved. About 500 trees will be saved, and
about 300 will be removed.
Does Pelican Point make for logical zoning and fit the neighborhood? Yes.
Who will manage the project after completion? Association.
How long will it take to build. They plan to start excavation for the streets this fall, and hope
to have the entire project completed in three years. They will start construction at the
southerly end for the first phase.
What will happen to the island? No plans, remain natural.
Our Planning staff has recommended approval with 28 stipulations attached, please comment
on them. Mr. Blumentritt reviewed most of the conditions listed in the staff report, and
basically agreed that compliance to the items can be achieved.
We like what is being presented. How can we help?
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Bruce Reno (~f 2851 Tuxedo Blvd. expressed the following concerns:
Relating to traffic on Tuxedo, he feels it is already too busy, and questioned the calculations
submitted by the applicant.
John Blumentritt emphasized that their estimated figures came from a reliable source.
7
Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994
How will 40 more units, each with lawn sprinklers, affect the water pressure?
City Engineer, John Cameron, stated that they are waiting for flow test results for the water
pressure.
Impact on sewer system?
John Cameron stated that the lift station for this area has recently been upgraded and will be
able to handle increased capacity for sewer.
Will the proposed pond be a holding pond for drainage?
John Blumentritt explained that the pond may possibly be mechanically aerated. They are
concerned about the visual aesthetics. The purpose of the pond is to filter water runoff before
is goes into the lake. This pond area is currently not a wetland. The pond will probably be
bordered with boulders. Any chemical treatments will require approval from governing
agencies.
- Will there be a cost to the public to maintain the roads?
The City has recommended that the roads be public and constructed to certain standards for
maintenance purposes. Mr. Blumentritt stated that they are willing to abide by the City's
criteria. They had hoped the roads to be of minimal impact.
Mark Smith of 2863 Tuxedo lives just north of the hill across the parking lot from Donnie's and he
is concerned about traffic and the location of the entrance. The City Engineer stated that he will
check and see if design variances were granted for this area of Tuxedo Blvd., but he believes it was
constructed .according to the required standards. The speed limit in this area on Tuxedo is 30 mph.
Ron Johnson of 4416 Dorchester Road stated that he has no objections to the proposal. This
property will eventually be developed, and it could be much worse. He feels this will be an excellent
use for the property. He agreed that Tuxedo Blvd. is already too dangerous and suggested more
police surveillance.
There being no further comments from the citizens present, Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
It was clarified that there are no existing wetlands on this property.
The driveway entrance was further discussed, and it was questioned if it is being proposed in the best
location for safe ingress and egress. Mueller suggested that the entrance be staked prior to the public
hearing by the City Council. The entrance location was clarified on the overhead.
The pond was discussed, and a concern was expressed about the pond becoming smelly and
scummy. The applicant noted that the soils yet need to be analyzed, but they hope to develop a bed
naturally, no blanket is proposed at this time. Details for the pond will need to be approved by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. It was suggested that
the covenants and restrictions for the association include a stipulation that no chemical treatment of
the pond be allowed without the proper approvals of governing agencies.
8
320
Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1994
Street designs were discussed again. Mueller expressed a concern about the need for the cul-de-sac
at Pelican Point Circle, because if the cul-de-sac is needed only to allow for emergency vehicle
access, they have access from the rear on the main road.
The City Planner confirmed that if the EAW raises issues that significantly changes the preliminary
plat, it will come back to the Planning Commission for review.
MOTION made be Ciapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of Pelican Point as a
Planned Development Area as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be heard by the City Council on June 14, 1994.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council minutes of May 9, 1994.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
9
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MAY 12, 1994
Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, David
Steinbring, Mary Goode, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James.
Commissioners Tom Casey, Janis Geffre, and Council Representative Ahrens were absent and
excused.
MINUTES
MOTION made by Byrnes seconded by Meyer to approve the Park and Open
Space Commission Minutes of April 14, 1994 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGER
The following discussion items were added to the agenda:
Meeting Regarding Skating Rink, and Avalon Park Activities.
WINTER DOCK STORAGE ! REMOVAl
Celebrate Summer, Review of
Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed a list indicating which areas should be allowed to
keep their docks intact during the winter months, and which areas should be required to have
the docks removed. Basically, the areas recommended to allow docks to remain are inlets.
If this list were followed to the letter, 87 docks would be allowed to be left in during the
winter, and 350 would be required to be removed.
This year he received about a half a dozen complaints about dock sections floating in the
water.
McCaffrey explained that there are many exceptions to be taken into consideration, such as:
- Some docks are constructed very well and are able to survive being left in for years,
and others that are not so durable break apart when left out during one winter.
Weather conditions and the way the ice breaks plays a big part. Some years one bay
may not break up the docks, and the next year they will.
- Some areas do not permit storage of dock sections on the shoreline due to topography.
Some areas, the shoreland is level, and the abutting neighbors would complain if there
were a number of dock sections piled up at the shoreline which obstruct their view of
the lake.
Darling suggested that the Dock Inspector put the rationale's in writing. It was also
questioned what the LMCD policy is for winter dock removal, and it was requested that this
information be supplied to the Park Commission. The Commission also suggested that some
type of policy be created, and that it be ready at the dock hearing.
Park & Open Space Commission May 12, 1994
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, informed the Commission that staff is not promoting a policy for
winter dock removal be implemented, and that this information being presented was the
request of the Park Commission. Fackler stressed that this could be a sensitive issue, and the
Commission should be concerned about how such a policy could affect both the dock site
holders and the abutting owners. He also noted a new policy could result in an ordinance
change, and he questioned how the City would enforce removal of the docks.
The Commission determined to continue discussion on this item at the June or July meeting
when Ahrens is present, and requested staff to provide them with a copy of the LMCD policy
and the Dock Inspector's rationale on determining what areas docks could remain during the
winter and what areas docks should be removed.
1995 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the department's 1995 proposed budget requests:
Parks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
INCREASE ELECTRIC ............................. 2,000
INCREASE GAS SERVICE .......................... 4,300
PORTABLE TOILET ............................... 2,700
FLOWERS FOR ADOPT A GREEN SPACE PLANTERS ......... 400
CELEBRATE SUMMER PROGRAM .................... 2,000
EQUIPMENT FOR ICE RINKS .............................
TWO (2) VOLLEYBALL COURTS (SWENSON & PHILBROOK) 7,335
NCA CLEAN-UP FUNDS (7 SITES @ $1500 EA.) ......... 10,500
PURCHASE BALBOA PROPERTY NEXT TO LOST LAKE . . . 157,000
PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE AT SWENSON PARK OR
HIGHLAND PARK ............................... 10,000
Commons
1. COMMONS/DOCK MILEAGE .......................... 200
UNEMPLOYMENT FOR MAINTENANCE .....................
STAIRWAYS .................................. 10,000
RIPRAP AVOCET SOUTH TO BLUEBIRD AND TOP DRESS
FURTHER DOWN CLASS 2 & 1 ...........................
RIPRAP 100 LINEAL FEET WITH TOP DRESSING @ 4849
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE (DOUG SMITH) .................. 2,500
RIPRAP ROANOKE POINT (In. ft. & cost yet to be determined) .....
RIPRAP 70 FEET AT ARBOR LANE .................... 1,750
RIPRAP 40 FEET AT VILLA LANE ..................... 1,000
Cemetery
1. WATER LINE EXTENSION TO SECTION 'A'. .............. $300
Goode requested that a budget request be made to develop the Lost Lake property into a park
with grass, walking trails, benches, trees, bushes, etc. as suggested in the Comprehensive
Plan. She understands that an agreement is being worked out with the City of Minnetrista for
public works materials storage, and if the materials are going to be moved, she would like to
see this area look nice until it can possibly be developed into something else. Goode added
2
Park & Open Space Commission
May 12, 1994
that she has already written the rationale to develop this area into a park, which was reviewed
at a previous meeting. Fackler stated that he will check with the City Manager on the
feasibility of this proposal, and this item will be brought back to the Commission for discussion
at their June meeting.
Volleyball Courts
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, noted that a new volleyball court requires approximately 37' x 77'
in area, and the immediate area surrounding this should be somewhat open due to the running
and diving involved in the sport (i.e. you don't want a tree right next to the court). Fackler
explained that there is no room at Swenson Park, and there is room and Philbrook, however,
it is not an ideal location as it would be too close to a tree, light, and power line. Byrnes
questioned if it would be feasible to remove a softball field to install a volleyball court. Fackler
explained that softball fields are in much greater demand that volleyball courts. It was noted
that Community Services had hoped to develop a volleyball league with the youth group. Lost
Lake was an area suggested for a volleyball court. Darling noted that the need for a court in
an area should be present, and that you should not fish for a place.
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, summarized discussions during a meeting regarding the
development of a skating rink between the Hockey Association, Community Services, the
School District, and himself. The following points were raised:
The Hockey Association wants the outdoor rink near the Pond Arena, preferably in the
location of the existing softball fields. The Pond arena provides warming facilities and
parking.
Intent is to develop permanent skating areas for two hockey rinks, and one open
skating area.
It was requested that the City provide the maintenance of rink. Fackler estimated the
need to be 2 full time maintenance employees for three months, would have to pay to
work during the night as this is the best time for flooding.
Fackler noted that the Park Commission is interested in an open public skating rink, not
hockey rinks.
Fackler noted that if it snows, the City's maintenance crew's first priority is plowing
the streets.
- Initial expenses would include lights and hockey boards.
Grading / ground work is needed to level area to be flooded.
SkatinR on Lake Minnetonka at Mound Bay Park
Schmidt requested that the Parks Director seriously look at the possibility of having a short-
term skating track on the lake in front of Mound Bay Park. She suggested that the rink be
available for skating during Christmas break and New Years Eve. Fackler noted that the ice
3
Park & Open Space Commission May 12, 1994
is not always safe at that time of year, and he suggested the end of February. The
Commission discussed the possibility of having a special event day, jointly with Community
Services, and provide hot chocolate and use the depot for a warming house. Fackler
commented that if he were to try having the skating track, he would like to try it for just one
weekend as it would be difficult to maintain. It was suggested that to pump water the Fire
Department's services could be considered. It was also suggested that the Lions winterfest
could be combined.
PARK DEDICATION FUND REVIEW
Staff noted that there is a balance of 24,007.54 in the Park Dedication Fund.
MEMO FROM ITY MANAGER RE: BOND REFERENDUM - ACQUISITION OF LAND F R
PARKS PURPOSES
No comments were made by the Commission relating to this issue.
REVIEW WORKSHOP MEETING
The Commission determined to schedule another workshop meeting to discuss Planting
Guidelines for Tuesday, May 24, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The Parks Director suggested that the Commission also discuss guidelines for allowing outlets
and pumps on the Commons.
Schmidt noted that the information provided in the packet from Casey should be reviewed at
the workshop meeting.
CELEBRATE SUMMER
Byrnes reviewed the upcoming events scheduled for the Celebrate Summer series at Mound
Bay Park:
5-26-94
June
July
August
All these events will be held on Thursday evenings.
concessions.
Guys and Dolls, and a violin performance
Around Mound Spaghetti Dinner
Barber Shop Quartet
Riverboat Ramblers
The Youth Center will be handling
PARKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Schmidt questioned Fackler if he has heard any response in relation to the Park Tour. She
requested that Fackler follow-up on the City Council's review of the Nature Conservation
Areas.
4
Park & Open Space Commission
May 12, 1994
Fackler reported that he is in the process of getting bids for the replacement of two stairways
located on the commons, one at Roanoke access, and one at Amhurst and Devon Lane. He
is proposing concrete stairs for the purpose of durability. He stressed the need to provide safe
access. He added that it will probably take three years to install all the stairways which need
to be replaced.
Fackler reported that the playground structure is almost completely installed, and that there
was a problem with the climber, the wrong color was received.
The fishing pier at Centerview Beach should be installed by June 6 or 7.
_DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT
Tom McCaffrey reported that the City Council approved the 1995 Dock forms, and that the LMCD
fees were reduced and the forms were amended accordingly. All dock sites are spoken for,
except for a few dock sites available in dedicated areas. A request was received from a resident
in the Lost Lake Subdivision to add another dock site at Lost Lake Park, and it appears it may be
possible to add one more site, and he will investigate further. A meeting was held at Waterside
Commons with the neighbors regarding the use of the area.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Darling to adjourn the Park and Open Space
Commission Meeting at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
5
'94-06-~4 ~5:50 I.,I~'fZ~T~ P~$TOR~L
Samaritan Center rot Counselln[
125 E. Wayzata P, Ivd. · Wayzata, MN 55391-1621 · (612) 473-2984
dune 14, 1994
To the Mayor and City Council of Mound-
As a Marriage and Family Therapist working mn MOund and in other
offices in the area, I'm well aware of the ne~j for a safe place for
women and children who live in families where there is violence.
Making it possible for these same women and children to live in a
shelter in thei_._~r own community is extremely important so that their
a)ready disrupted-l-Tves can continue with some normalcy. Attending
their own schools and churches, and having access to familiar
.surroundings, is crucial in helping them to make good choices.
The growing numbers of homeless children in our society make it
incumbent upon those of us who are in decision-making positions to do
all we can to change laws to benefit'those who have little or no
power.
! urge you to set aside the easy way out of doing nothing to stand
instead as a community who believes that its children are very
important.
Delia 8ujold ,,
Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist
Samaritan Center for Pastoral Counseling
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Public SafetyOfflceo Craig A. Anderson
7701 CountyRoad 110 West
Minnetrista, Minnesota 55364
612-446-1131
FAX 446.1623
Chief of Police
Director
Emergency Preparedness
Po I Ice/Fir e/A m b u la n ce
Dial 911
_ CRIME FUND (Donations)
P.O. Box 348. St. Boni, MN 55375
Memo
From:
Date:
Re:
City of Mound: 1. Council Members
2. Planning COmmission Members
Craig A. Anderson,s,,
May 3, 1994
COMMUNITY SHELTER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Violence in our society is creating a sense of fear so strong citizens are
beginning to withdraw from assisting those in need. They believe if they
help they will be placed in harms way. This thought process is eating
away at our society like a cancer. If we choose to allow this't~' curb our
judgment the' bully's of our society will one day be the decision makers.
Westonka Intervention has a dream. To provide a Safe p/ace for those
who fall victim to domestic violence. Victims of domestic abuse need
"time out" from the violence. They need a safe p/ace to think and a p/ace
where their children can relax and be safe. Westonka Intervention has
searched long and hard to locate property for a shelter. The property has
been identified. A shelter, thanks to Our Lady of the Lake, is also
available to move onto the property.
I know this w/Il not be an easy decision for you to make. Emotions may
run high. Your ab/I/ties to separate perception from the facts w/Il be
challenged. We ali know emotions may shield our ability to absorb the
facts of an issue and as a result cloud our judgment. I ask that you listen
to the facts. Inquire of Chief Harrell as to the potential impact to the
community, the type of incidents that may take p/ace, and how often they
may occur based on other shelter experiences. Thence, your decision
will be founded on facts and sound, reasonable information. With the
proper_ management, I am confident you will find the shelter to be an asset
to the community, a good neighbor and a safe haven for victims of
domestic violence.
SERVING WITH PRIDE, IN TEGRITY AND EXCELLENCE TO PRO VIDE QUALITY RESPONSIVE SERVICE.
- ,.,, J
Apnl 22, 1994
Mot~d Planning Commission
Mou~ Council Members
Mound, Minnesota
Dear
We are sending this letter in support of the old convent house to be placed across from PJ).Q.
We understand some concerns for safety but according to the facts many women and chldren
are not safe in their own home. We need to reach out to those in need for us to be a
concerned community. We need to go that extra rnle and be brave to help others.
One thi'ks of all the people who were hidden and saved during the Nazi era. If famlres in
co~ies had not taken that chance many more lives would have been lost. But as we know
from histon/people took a chance. We have abuse in our corrmJfity! We carnot deny itJ This
is a giant step to prevent abuse, a shelter in our OWN comrndnityl Wow! What an opfx)rturity
and to have such decr~:ated people wirng to work for the past ten years!·
Now those ded'~ated workers need ot~ support and we as a church group ask you to help
support them and allow a shelter to be placed on the designated spotl
Peace and Love,
WJ:.LC.A. of St. John's
· Lutheran Church
(Women of ~ Evanger~:al
Church of America)
ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACT ON PROGRAM, INC.
May 9~ 2994
Planning Commission and City Council
C~t¥ of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Planning Co~£ssion and City Council Members:
We understand that the Planning Commission and the Council will be
asked to i~ue a conditional UGe permit for %he conversion of a
convent at Our Lady of ~ake Catholic Church to.be used as a short
term shelter as a safe house for women and theft children who are
facing domestic abuse. We would Urge your support of such Project.
In the last five years our AgGno~, ACCAP. hac converted two
convents and one rectory for special needs P6pulation. AL1 three
conversions faced neighborhood opposition, Primarily around issues
o£ safety and property value.
In all three projects we have developed neighborhood advisory
c0at~tees to advise us of issues relating to the neighborhood.
Ail projects operated smoothly. There has
v?}~es and =he nez hbo ___ been no lo81 in re
............. g rhoods have bee ...... ? per~y
-~v.gu[ ~ne pro~ects. One of our most vociferous and vocal crtt{cs
has actually called us after the project was {n operation fo~ a
year and apologized to us and said he was wrong.
y~u hav~ any questions % would be happy to d~suuss our
xperlence$ Ln Anoka County over the telephone and in permon.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
P'OSt-lr' bra~cl fax lransmitlal memo
I~,'.--
AN EOIJAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
TOT;:&.
MlqY-Og-19cJ4 15:23 FROM CITY OF BLRINE
4720620 P. 01
City of Blaine
9150 Cenlral A~nue N.E.. Blaine. Minnesota 55434-3499
(619.) 784.6700
FAX (612) 784-3844
May 9, 1994
Mayor Skip .fohnson
City of Motmd
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Johnson:
I am writing this letter on behalf of the proposed battered women's shelter being considered in
your community. Thc City of Blaine has been host to a similar facility for the past thirteen years.
I want to assure you, and the record will clearly indicate, that the facility has been a very
important and very beneficial part of the community. Issues which are so often cited in
opposition to such a facility have not proven to be the case.
We have a very close working relationship bet, ween the facility administration and our City
police department. They work very. closely on issues of prevention and intervention. As
evidence of the positive relationship between the facility and the City over the course of the last
two years, Blaine has assisted our battered women's shelter in the development cfa new and
expanded facility. It is truly tragic that such shelters am necessary in our society. But it is
important to remember that they serve as a vital safety net for lmople in our own community who
often have no where else to turn.
Please feel firce to cite the example of Blaine in support of these kind of community-based
facilities. I would be happy to act as a reference or in any other supportive way that I can on
thci~ behalf.
Sincerely
Elwyn Tinklenberg
Mayor
CITY OF BLAINE
COPdqERSTONE
9730 Irving Avenue South
Bloomimjton, Minnesota $543
Planning Commission
City of Mound
May 4, 1994
Dear Commission Members,
I'm writing in support of Westonka Intervenfion's request for rezoning to allow the
organization to open a shelter for battered women' and their children.
There exists an overwhelming need for safe housing for vicfirrls and their children in
Hennepin County. Hundreds of women and children seek shelter only to be turned
away due to lack of space. Many of these women return home out of desperation
only to be assaulted again. For those who are able to find space, shelters offer more
than just safety, they provide a needed respite. Shelters do not pose a threat to the
community. Domestic violence is perpetrated in private. Shelters prevent violence.
Cornerstone serves Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and Richfield. We have been
providing safe housing for battered women and their children since 1983. Over the
years we have provided refuge to hundreds of families without incident. We urge the
commission to bring this matter to a positive resolution this evening.
Sincerely,
ecutive Director
Free
Plymouth, Minne.,,,ofa 5544'1
Business Telept'~one
(612) 559-9008
Crisis Telephone
(612) 559-4945 TDD
4-25-94
To whom it may concern,
I hope this information will be useful in helping you make your
decision regarding a battered womens shelter in Mound.
Home Free has been in existence since 1980. We are part of a
corporation consisting of' four other programs. In recent meetings
with people in the community we found that the neighbors had no
concerns with the shelter.
The shelter provides room and board for the women and children
and is licensed by Hennepin County. We have ten bedrooms and
house approximafley thirty women and children at one time. The
average length of stay for a family is eighteen dayL Families stay
anywhere from a couple of days to.a couple of months, depending on
their situation. We have a womens and a childrens program, during
their stay both women and children are expected to follow our house
policies. I have enclosed copies of these policies. Women are free to
come and go and children are supervised at all times either by their
mothers or by a childrens advocate.
The children are enrolled in our school district and are picked up at
our driveway by school buses. We do ongoing education with the
,ichools for both teachers and students. ~
have been employed at the shelter since it opened and we have '*--'~
ever had a violent episode with an abuser on our property. Ther~
has been a few times when a womens partner came to the door
looking for her but left as soon as he was told to do so. If a women is
afraid that her abuser is looking for her we notify the Plymouth
police and they patrol the area.
We have a security system with 'horns on the outside of the house
and that also goes through a monitoring service that notifys the
police. There are alarms on all doors and the first floor windows.
The system is turned on at night when everyone is in. We also have
alarm buttons throughtout the house in case of a breakin. We have
never had to use them.
A Shelter For Battered Women And Their Children
Free 3405 East Medicine Lake.. Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Buginess Telephone
(612) 559-900B
Crisis' Telephone
.(6121 559-4945 TDD
There are no regulations as to the number of cars permitted on the
property at any time. Daring a busy time there may be about fifteen
cars. The shelter has two cars of its own,
Orders for Protection are not violated while the woman is staying at
the shelter but before she comes to the shelter. That is why she
needs to be in a safe place.
There are approximatley twentyseven people on staff here. We
consist of a womens program, a childrens program, community
programs, and administrative staff. A degree is not a requirement of
employment at Home Free. Ali staff are required to' attend a number
of trainings throughout the year. The staff are not counselors but are
advocates. A large percentage of the sfaff are formerly battered
women and some are former residents of the shelter.
Home Free houses approximately 500 women and ,children each year.
We are turning away three quarters of women calling in need of
saftey because we are full.
I totally support a shelter in Mound. Please give the idea of a shelter
your careful consideration. If you have any further questions I can
be reached at 559-9008.
Sincerly,
Ma/~N4onteon
Program Director
A Shelter For Battered Women And Their Children
April 24, 1994
Alan Goodell-Holmes, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
4820 Excelsior Blvd.
Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55416
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am writing this at the request cf Jim and Kathryn Welbourn who
have asked me to forward my opinion concerning the establishment
cf a domestic abuse shelter in tkeir cc~unity.
As a psychologist who has practice~
~w~th many individuals who have ~Aor F°r ~9 ~e~rs, I have worked
· ~n ~nvolve~ in relationships
characterized by victimization an~perpetration. One of the
c~ie~ characteristics of such rela~io · ·
VlCt~m/perpetrator nat~ ~- - ns~lps is that the
resolved. Simpl,, h~us~=~~ n~=.~ne which is easil or '
the problem ~,~_ ~ng ~e victim in a shelt~ ~- __~qu~c~ly
_= .... ~ ~ one Des~ O~ situ=~ ..... --- ~=~ nou solve
-~, one person going to the
~ne&uer rinds a safe haven and ho e
suppor~ which allo ~ _ [ .P fully] some info ·
v~_' ..... w~ that person ~o ~- ~- -~ rmatlon or
_~/P~rp~=rator pattern. I~ ~- .~ u~ c~ange the
ronment from whi~ ~ ..... - y eturns to th~ des .....
While, at best, the domestic abuse shelter is viewed as being a
temporary haven, it is generally assumed that the person who has
been victimized will have no contact with his or her perpetrator
while housed within such a she]te~
- -- Unfo~unate!y, ~Sis is not
always the case. Perpetrators are generally both extremely
insecure and extremely tenacious. Their fear of being alone and
their need to control those they depend upon leads to great
ingenuity and to great potential for fu-~her violence.
Perpetrators often find the location of the various shelters in
the co~u~u~.ities and are able to locate their spouses or
significant others even when in ~he supposed safety of these
shelters. This risk is only heightened when the location of the
shelter is in a residential area and when it is easi!v viewed by
even a casual passer-by.
Given the risk inherent in what ! have outlined above, the
proposed location of the shelter in question is about as bad as
could be imagined. It is in a very public area, easily located
by perpetrators. It is also in a residential area bordering a
lake. The presence of the lake is bound to attract the residents
of the shelter, drawing poten~ia! contact between victim and
perpetrator away from the shelter itself and into the residential
community.
Given that those residing within such a shelter have already
experienced violence, the probability of further violence is
multiplied. To increase the potential that suCh violence will
occur in or around a shelter by placing that shelter in an easily
identified location and to increase the risk that such violence
will impact others by placing the shelter in a residential
community seems inappropriate and irresponsible. While it is
~bviously important that the availability of shelters be
Increased, it is equally important that community safety be
considered in their placement. It is my hope that the request
before the city will be denied and that a more appropriate
location will be found for the shelter under consideration.
Sincerely,
Alan Goodell-Holmes, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
June 14, 1994
Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members:
On behalf of the Parish Council of Our Lady of the Lake Church, I would like
to express our regret that our convent building w~s unable to be donated as a
shelter for abuse victims. Over a year has passed since we first offered the
building to Westonka Intervention. Unfortunately, our own time-line to build
a new parish activity center did not allow us to extend our offer any longer.
It is our sincere hope that Westonka Intervention can continue their good work.
They provide an important, necessary service to the conmunity and we appreicate
their efforts. We wish them every success in the future.
Sincerely,
Terri Bourgeois
President
Parish Pastoral Council
Our Lady of the Lake Church
West Shore/Lake Minnetonka Office
3701 Shoreline Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
612/476-0400
Fax 612-471-7044
May 19, 1994
Mr. Craig Goodrich:
Upon speaking with the Sellers of the property I have listed at
the corner of Shoreline Drive and Norwood Avenue in Mound,
they have authorized me to accept a purchase agreement for $50,000
cash for the property to be used as the site for your Intervention
Center. The buyers, at this price Would agree to accept the property
"AS IS" but subject to proper rezoning and Soil test at buyers
expense.
Thank you for your interest and good luck.
Respectfully,
Jon Scherven
Burnet Realty