Loading...
1994-08-23II I I ! Ii ·" lteamwo, rk .. P, -,, ~,, ~-:o;--,-,s fosterina a safe, attractive and flourishingI and coo eration, provioes at a reasonam~ lres ond to me nee. as P ___._J /community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9, 1994, REGULAR MEETING. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING1 TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION 0F SECTION 350:76 SUBD. 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. PUBLIC HEARING:_ TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE. PELICAN POINT FINAL APPROVAL: A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS WORKSHEET (EAW) APPROVAL B. PROPOSED RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PELICAN POINT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. CASE//94-54: WILLIAM AND DIANE MICHEL, 5865 GRANDVIEW BLVD., PART OF LOTS 85 AND 86, MOUND SHORES, PID#14-117-24 42 0107. REQUEST: VARIANCE - SCREEN PORCH CASE//84-55:_ BRADLEY CURTIS, 5967 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 10, PID 23-227-24 31 0011. R UF_~T: VARIANCE - DECK AND DETACHED GARAGE PG. 3225-3229 PG. 3230-3253 PG. 3254-3278 PG. 3279-3357 PG. 3358-3376 PG. 3377-3390 PG. 3391-3402 3222 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. ~CASE #94-56t SUSAN CULVER, 4701 SUFFOLK ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 14, WYCHWOOD, PID#19-117-23 32 0148. REQUEST: VARIANCE - DETACItED GARAGE ~ MICHAEL AND SUSAN HENNING, 5953 SUNSET ROAD, LOTS 22 & 23, MOUND SHORES, PID #14- 117-24 42 0058. REQUEST: VARIANCE - GARAGE ADDITION C E~ RANDALL MORAIRTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, AND SO. 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID #19-227-23 24 008. (THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD MONDAY, 8-22-94, PLANNING COMMISSION) REQUEST: VARIANCE- FRONT YARD SETBACK CASE____~4-61: MICHAEL M. KOHLER, 1744 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15, 16, & 17, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117- 24 24 0007. (THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD MONDAY, 8-22-94, PLANNING COMMISSION) REQUEST: VARIANCE - SETBACKS COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: DOCK LICENSE FEES FOR 1995. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: WINTER DOCK STORAGE/REMOVAL; REVIEW OF "NOTICE" - APPROVAL OF NOTICE. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC LANDS PROCEDURE MANUAL ADDING EXHIBIT "Q" - GUIDELINF~ FOR ALLOWING PLANTINGS ON COMMONS/PUBLIC LANDS. APPROVAL OF SALARY INCREASES FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. .DISCUSSION__ : CITYIS FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MOUND CITY DAYS. /~ 18. DISCUSSION_ __ : "CITIES WEEK". 19. -~--APP.'.LICATION-FO~RENEWAL OF NON-INTOXICATING ~'~L~--LICE~SE - MOUND LANES. PG. 3403-3414 PG. 3415-3433 PG. 3434-3444 PG. 3445-3459 PG. 3460-3471 PG. 3472-3485 PG. 3486-3495 PG. 3496-3497 PG. 3498-3501 PG. 3502-3506 3223 August 23, 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.10 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: DOCK LICENSE FEES FOR 1995. The City Manager explained that the POSC held a public hearing regarding the dock license fees for 1995. There was no one present at the public hearing. The POSC recommended that the dock license fees remain the same for 1995 as they were in 1994 except that the LMCD fees have been reduced. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Park & Open Space Commission recommendation that the Dock License fees for 1995 remain the same as in 1994, with the exception that the LMCD fees have been reduced. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: WINTER DOCK STORAGE/REMOVAL1 REVIEW OF "NOTICE" - APPROVAL OF NOTICE. The City Manager explained that this was discussed at the POSC meeting. The Park Director suggested that this notice could be utilized to enforce the existing ordinance, and if a problem was found to exist this winter when the Dock Inspector does his rounds, the violator can then be given a second notice and then a third, and if compliance is not accomplished, their dock license can be revoked. Councilmember Ahrens stated that her concern is with the docks left in during the winter that receive damage from the ice and wind. Some of these float out in the spring or sink to the bottom and can be hazardous to all persons using the lake and the environment. She stated the Dock Inspector has prepared a list of where docks should and should not be allowed to be stored in the winter. She stated she feels the city should regulate where docks should be removed because they are polluting the lake. The City Manager stated that the POSC agreed to work with the notice they have on page 3472 which would be sent out this year and then monitor the number of problems they have this winter. That was their recommendation. Rita Peterson, Halstead l_ane - representing several residents who live right across the street (level with) from Commons voiced concern about how they have to look through the docks and boat lifts that are stored in the Commons. The Council explained that according to the ordinance there is winter storage on most of the Commons. 414 August 23, 1994 Mike Dupay, 5420 Breezy Road, stated that someone has a roll out dock and boat lift in front of his house. Mike Kohler, 1744 Avocet Lane, stated that he feels that the Commons has been there a lot longer than some of the people who chose to live in that area and people should be allowed to store their docks and boat lifts on Commons. The Council discussed how times have changed on the Commons i.e. bigger boats, boat lifts, etc. The Council asked the POSC to look at the winter storage section (Section 437:10, Subd. 10, a.4.) of the ordinance at their meeting [n September and maybe have a hearing on this so that something can be done this winter. They also asked the Park Director and the Dock Inspector to see if the storage of dock, boat lifts, etc. can be done to the side of an area so that abutting properties do not have to look at it all winter. This may have to be done on a case by case basis. ~ 1.12 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS fi;ND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC LANDS PROCEDURE MANUAL ADDINC EXHIBIT "Q" - GUIDELINES FOR ALLOWING PLANTINGS ON. COMMONS/PUBLIC LANDS. The City Manager explained that the POSC has made some recommendations to amend the procedures manual to allow plantings on Commons or public lands. Basically the goal is to maintain and restore the natural look of the Commons by the use of more native vegetation. There is a listing of the types of species that would be acceptable. Refer to page 3486 and 3487 for the proposed resolution with the guidelines. The POSC is asking for consideration and approval. The Council asked about grass because there are areas that are like lawn. The Council questioned whether it is a goal to turn the Commons into a wild area or natural commons. They could understand the bluff areas being kept natural. The Council asked if these guidelines would be binding. The City Attorney stated that the guidelines all start with "shall not" which seems very mandating or directive. It is not law in the sense that we could prosecute anyone. The Council discussed changing the language to read "should or should not", to make it softer. This language was pointed out by City Planner Bob Day in his memo of August 3, 1994., but it was not reflected in the guidelines that are proposed. Councilmember Ahrens stated that the reason this has come about is that when the inventory was done, there were a variety of plantings found on the Commons. Therefore, a guideline was put together so that people would know what they could or could not plant on the Commons. 415 20. ~ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICIES AND SEPARATE RESOLUTION - NLC CONFERENCE - MINNEAPOLIS- DEC, 1-4, 1994. PG. 3507-2312 21. 22. 23. APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1994 SEALCOAT PROGRAM - ALLIED BLACKTOP - $25,810.15. PG. 3513-3514 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3515-3531 iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.' A. JULY 1994 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO Eo BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR PG. 3532-3533 INFORMATION ON NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE TO BE HELD DECEMBER 4, 1994, IN MINNEAPOLIS. EARLY REGISTRATION IS DUE IN SEPTEMBER 19, 1994. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED LET FRAN KNOW ASAP. LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM PAT MEISEL RE: HRA. PG. 3534 INFORMATION FROM REP. STEVE SMITH RE: YOUR QUESTIONS ON THE STATE LOTFERY PROCEEDS. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 1994. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 1994. REMINDER: NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING IS WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 199~4 RATHER THAN TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, ~994 DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION. PG. 3535-3558 PG. 3559-3571 PG. 3572-3576 3224 ! I I ! ,I,, mi, ,, ', August 9, 1994 Mound City Council Minutes MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 9, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested citizens: Jim Bedell. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the July 26, 1994, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 (~ASE //94-51: ,]AMES BEDELL AND STEVEN BEDELL, 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID //13-117-24 44 0052. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SEASONA~ SNACK SHOP. The City Manager presented the resolution of denial that was directed at the last meeting. Jensen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-109 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM JAMES BEDELL AND STEVEN BEDELL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, SKARP'S EAST LAWN ADDITION, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A SEASONAL SNACK SHOP The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens abstaining because she was not present at the last meeting. Motion carried. Mound City Council Minutes August 9, 1994 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.2 DISCUSSION: CITY OF MOUND/CITY OF MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE - SITE GRADING AND ACCESS ROAD _RECONSTRUCT/ON B1DS. The City Manager reported that 3 bids were received for the site grading and access road at the City of Mound/Minnetrista public works material storage site. They were all above the engineer's estimate. The City Engineer reviewed the three bids comparing them to the estimate and the feasibility report. He is recommending rejecting all the bids and readvertising this project. The earliest new bid date would be September 8 for consideration by the Council on September 14. He reported that this should still allow ample time to complete the site grading this fall, weather permitting. He is recommending that the access road reconstruction completion date be set for early next summer to allow more leeway in case of a wet fall and/or early winter. The next proposed bid would be in 2 separate sections, i.e. 1) material storage area, and 2)access road reconstruction, with different completion dates. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to reject all bids received for the Mound/Minnetrista public works material storage site grading and access road construction project and authorizing readvertising, because they were all well above the engineer's estimate. The vote was unanhnously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to set September 8, 1994 at 11:00 A.M. for the bid opening of the site grading and access road reconstruction, Mound/Minnetrista public works material storage site. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A STREET KNOWN AS HILLSIDE LANE - SEPTEMBER 14 1994. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to set September 14, 1994, for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of a street known as Hillside Lane. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MOUND WESTONKA A OCIATION - UASI PUBLIC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN. The City Manager explained the request. HOCKEY 2 Mound City Council Minutes August 9, 1994 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by jessen to approve a portable sign permit application for the Mound Westonka Hockey Association, to advertise hockey registration at the Harold Pond Sports Arena. Dates of use will be September 1-18, 1994. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 PAYMENT RE UEST gl & CHANGE ORDER gl WATER TOWER REPAINTING PROJECT - $115,947.50. The City Manager reported that the Engineer has recommended approval of the payment request and change order gl. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve payment request gl from Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. for the Evergreen Water Tower Painting, in the amount of $115,947.50. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 RESOL TION APPOINTING ELECTION UDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION_S. The City Clerk added the following names to the proposed resolution: Jo Longpre, Marie Jorland, and Andrea Ahrens. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-110 RESOLUTION ApPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS_ MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $99,431.47, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ON ITEM_ 1.8 A E g94-20: CORRECTION TO RESOLUTION g94-56 - SUBDIVISION FOR 5028 EDGEWATER DRIVE PID g13-117-24 42 0015. The City Clerk explained that it has been determined that there is no need to obtain an easement along the north side of the subject property (i.e. the lake side) as was in the original resolution Mound City Council Minutes August 9, 1994 #94-56. Thus, the need for the correction. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-111 RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 94-56 CORRECTING #1.E. REGARDING DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1994. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for July 1994. LMCD Mailings. De Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of July 14, 1994. Letter from Milt Goldstein, President, Hennepin County Library Board, re: meeting to discuss library issues. The Council asked that they be requested to attend the August or September COW Meeting. COW Meeting, Tuesday, August 16, 1994, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. The Council reviewed the Final Notice Letter to be sent to ail residents who do not comply with having the new meter reading system installed in their homes. They agreed with the format and content of the letter. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council went into Executive Session to discuss a couple of items of litigation at 8:15 P.M. The Council returned from Executive Session at 9:10 P.M. The City Attorney stated that the Executive Session concerned a report from the Legal Department to the City Council relating to the case of Flack vs. the City of Mound tentative decision rendered by the Judge to refer this matter to the Examiner of Titles. The City Attorney reported to the Council on the various ramifications. Il I I ! ,I II J, ,m~ I, Mound City Council Minutes August 9, 1994 The City attorney further stated that also discussed was an investment situation involving the City, which may or may not require some form of legal action. He stated that at this point there is no direction needed from the Council other than to go forward and continue to handle both items. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 12, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 12, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Ken Smith and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Ed Surko, Tracy Entzel, E. W. and Joan A. Surko. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES Councilmember Jessen stated that she would like to see the location of the NCA's listed in the Minutes. Also, Roberta Cook had accepted the invitation to be on the Suburban Alliance Board. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the Minutes of the June 28, 1994 Regular City Council meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:76 SUBD. 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. City Planner Mark Koegler updated Council on this item. He stated this would be a change to the Mound Zoning Ordinance and a 4/5 vote by the Council was needed to amend. He stated that the wording had been changed to include a weight, height and length restriction. Council discussed. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this item. There was no one. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Jessen to table this item and continue the Public Hearing on August 23, 1994 when a full Council is anticipated. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS REQUIRING THF COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. ! I I i ,I il, l, RECEIVED ~UG 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 350:760, Subd. 4 is amended to read as follows: Section 350:760. Parking. Subd. 4. Tr~ck Parking in~qesidential Areas, Off-street parking facilities accessory to a r~{denti~shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger~mobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, ¢o~ore'~n one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer not to exceed the manufactuyefCs gross vehiZ'4e..weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of ~nin~) feet nor length of)~six (26) feet shall be allowed. City Clerk Adopted by the City Council August 23, 1994 Publish. in the Offici. Newspa.r. The ~ker. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Cl'l'Y' OI= MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:760, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 May"wood Road. at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound Zoning Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The current ordinance states: Subd. 4. Truck Parkin.q in Residential Areas, No motor vehicle.m/e~-e~e-~ ..~shall b'e pa~'ked ~;' ~'~o-~e~-i~l"[~l~l-r-~i~"e~ii~l /' when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups j are not restricted by the terms of this provision. I/ne propo, sed Zoning Code modification would remove the above language and insert t~ following: J Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential..Ar~a~~ Off-street parkil~ accessory to a residenti~.liJe Shall be utilized solely for of licensed and oper~Ssenger autome~i Pie and recreational ve~ Additionally, ~ more. one (1) commercial tr~, bus, or trailer, m:~l:i~ ~ufacturer's gross ve~iweight of twelv! I:housand (1; pounds nor a height ~ ~.~ (9) feet nor i:'.~ngth of twenl (26) feet shall be allo~ to be parked outJlt~e. Al! persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will bi given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. / / ' Francene C. Clark, City Clerk ~ .j MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIl. - APRIL 12, 1994 MMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOS_.E~ 1.7 ~o. ....... .~:.CTION 350'760 SUBD 4. TRUCK PARKINg./ The City Planner stated that this item as well as the next two items are not formal recommendations from thc Planning Commission, but does represent their direction. This is an update because all three of these items will need a public hearing before adoption. The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of U'uck parking in residential areas at their March 14th meeting. The Commission expressed consensus that only one commercial vehicle should be allowed per lot, commercial vehicles housed in garages are acceptable (up to a certain size - ie. semi tractors), and that consideration should be riven to regulating trucks by height and length. The proposed ordinance amendment as prepared by the City Planner was as follows: Section 350:760, Subd. 4. Truck Parkin~ in Residential Areaz. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall-be utilized solely for me parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. ^d,4ition~lly. no more than one (1) truck and/or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousanO (12,000) pouncis nor a ~ight of ~fine (9) feet length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed, provided they are stored at all times within an enclosed garage. The following draft of a new ordinance provision is the Planning Commission's recommendation which seeks to accomplish the primary objectives: Section 350:760, Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) ~ truck, bus ~-.ff.,~tor wailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26') feet shall be allowed to be parked outside.r The Planning Commission did discuss a whole variety of parameters on sizes of vehicles, types of vehicles, etc. There was discussion at one time of allowing some of these types of vehicles to be housed within garages or buildings, but that was not part of the recommendation at this time. The Planning Commission is asking if the Council has specific comments on fltis as direction to them. Thc Council reviewed the examples of acceptable trucks and examples of those that would be excluded from residential areas that were in the packet. Thc Council asked why the Planning Commission deleted the enclosed in a garage verbiage. Mark Hanus, Planning Commissioner, state~l that the Planning Commission was split on that a,,cision. The concern on. the garage issue was that the City. would see a lot of variance on oversize garages to store larger vehicles. He stated there was really no consensus of the Planning Commission on whether 'stored in garages" should be left in the proposed amendment. Mr. Hanus reminded the Council of one provision in the zoning ordinance which does not allow a garage to be taller than the principal structure. Mayor lohnson commented that if we allow certain vehicles to be stored outside, that he hopes additional consideration is given to allowing garaging of vehicles that exceed some of the standards, because a 40 foot motor home is allowed and some of those are not as nice looking as some of thc trucks he has seen. He further stated that some people make their living driving trucks and do not have access to a commercial area to park these vehicles. The Planner stated that motor homes are more accessory to a residential use than a commercial vehicle. Thc City Attorney stated that another thing to keep in mind is that if we allow storage in a garage in a residential area, you are kind of allowing warehousing or commercial activities in a residential area. Councilmember Smith stated a lot of people would not like to have commercial vehicles parked in their neighborhoods and most cities in the metro area would not allow this. The Planner stated that this could be before the Planning Commission for a public hearing May 9th. Il i I J ,11, Jj, ,Ii ii ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4 OF TIlE CITY CODE RELATING TO TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 350:760, Subd. 4 is amended to read as follows: Section 350:760. Parking. Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas, Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickrup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed. Mayor ATFEST: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council August 23, 1994 Published in the Official Newspaper, The Laker, August 29, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:760, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The current ordinance states: Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. No motor vehicle ov~s~e-~-)-t~ ' - ' -[];me,uiul lic~n~eand ,-;c, ...... "-"-- ': ..... " ' ....... ~,.,"rC,o,,y,,,.~,,o,.,, tra~Ler- shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert the following: Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed. 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" June 27, 1994) MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 2. QRDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION: SECTION 350:760. SUBD. 4. TRUCK pARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, pUBLIC HEARINO, City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the history of the proposed ordinance change. The current ordinance states: Subd. 4. Trv~;k Parkin~ in Residential Areas. No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert the following: Subd. 4. Tru~;k Parkin¢i in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed to be parked outside. The City Planner further suggested that the proposed language be amended to delete the last four words, "to be parked outside'. His feeling is this will clarify that only one commercial vehicle may be parked or stored on each residential property. The Commission confirmed that this modification will make the ordinance less restrictive. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Gerold Esselman, 5870 Lynwood Blvd., spoke in opposition of the ordinance amendment. He believes the existing ordinance is adequate, and he is not in favor of having large, unappealing commercial vehicles parked adjacent to his property. He is not in favor of having diesel fueled commercial vehicles allowed to be parked in a residential area because they are noisy and require to be warmed up before they can be driven. He is also concerned about the safety of children when commercial vehicles are driven in residential zones. There being no further citizens wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Hanus commented that he would like to consider the possibility of using the Conditional Use Permit process to regulate commercial vehicles in a residential zone. Mueller commented that residents should be allowed to have one vehicle stored outside, and they should be allowed to store more vehicles inside a garage if they are able. MOTION made by Vose, seconded by Clapseddie, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment to City Code Section 350:760, with the deletion of 'to be parked outside'. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Voss, Clapseddie, Bird, and Jansen. Those opposed were: Weiland, Mueller. and Hanu$. Weiland commented that he is in favor of keeping the ordinance the way it was. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:760, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound Zoning Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The current ordinance states: Subd. 4. Truck Parkin.q in Residential Areas, No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. The proposed Zoning Code modification would remove the above language and insert the following: Subd. 4. Truck parking in Residential .Areas Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed to be parked outside. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk (published in "The Laker" 4-25-94) MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 12, 1994 1.7 9.ED_II~[AE~ AMENDS: SECTION The City Planner stated that this item as well as the next two items are not formal recommendations from the Planning Commission, but does represent their direction. This is an update because all three of these items will need a poblic heating before adoption. The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of truck parking in residential areas at their March 14th meeting. The Commission exp~ consensus that only one commercial vehicle should be allowed per lot, commercial vehicles housed in garages acceptable (up to a certain size - ie. semi tractors), and that consideration should be given to regulating trucks by height and length. The proposed ordinance amendment as prepared by the City Planner was as follows: Section 350:760, Subd. 4. Truck parkin~ in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall-be utilized solely for u~ parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and ~creafional vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) truck and/or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine {9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed, provided they are stored at all times within an enclosed garage. The following draft of a new ordinance provision is the Planning Commission's recommendation which seeks to accomplish the primary objectives: Section 350:760, Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities acx. essory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) fD__~_~C, L011 truck, bus m-..~'or trailer not to ex__ce~__ the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26') feet shall be allowed The Planning Commission did discuss a whole variety of parameter~ on sizes of vehicles, types of vehicles, etc. There was discussion at one time of allowing some of these types of vehicles to be housed within garages or buildings, but that was not part of the recommendation at this time. The Planning Commission is asking if the Council has specific comments on this as direction to them. The Council reviewed the examples of acceptable trucks and examples of those that would be excluded from residential areas that were in the packet. The Council asked why the Planning Commission deleted the enclosed in a garage verbiage. Mark Hanus, Planning Commissioner, states1 that the Planning Commission was split on that decision. The concern on the garage issue was that the City would see a lot of variance ca.~es on oversize garages to store larger vehicles. He stated there was really no consensus of the Planning Commission on whether 'stored in garages' should be left in the proposed amendment. Mr. Hanus reminded the Council of one provision in the zoning ordinance which does not allow a garage to he taller than the principal structure. Mayor Johnson commented that if we allow certain vehicles to be stored outside, that he bopes additional consideration is given to allowing garaging of vehicles that exceed some of the standards, because a 40 foot motor home is allowed and some of those are not as nice looking as ~ome of the trucks he has seen. He further stated that some people make their living driving tracks and do not have access to a commercial area to park these vehicles. The Planner stated that motor homes are more accessory to a residential use than a commercial vehicle. The City Attorney stated that another thing to keep in mind is that if we allow storage in a garage in a residential area, you are kind of allowing warehousing or commercial activities in a residential area. Councilmember Smith stated a lot of people would not like to have commercial vehicles parked in their neighborhoods and most cities in the metro area would not allow this. The Planner stated that this could be before the Planning Commission for a public heating on May 9th. z5~5 e~cK u~K~ u4. ~l'~/'l~r I i~oo0~ Izooo~ J ~ J ! ,~' JJ, I~J ~J 15 ooo-~: .41'~ l~Nc I.~3Tat, i5ooo'~ )5ooo .~ 5o84 BLVD. i ~ooo ~ 3/z./~,l- MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1994 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4, TRUCK PARKING IN RE$1OENTIAL AREA$~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that the City Council has determined there is a need to look at the current Code regarding truck parking in residential areas, and has referred this issue to the Planning Commission for further input and recommendation. Mound's current provision states, "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision." Samples of other cities ordinance were reviewed. The common trend seen in the various communities used for sampling, is that certain types of commercial vehicles are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities (including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from this provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits P/arming Co/nm/ss/on Minutes TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL February 28, varies from community to community. Weight terms were reviewed. Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use the term "capacity" to regulate truck weight. However, this is only the load capacity, not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use the same weight term as Mound. The basic definition of Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) remains as the total weight of the vehicle and the load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and rated capacity are not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term GVVV is used, the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to clarify whose rating system the GVW has been determined. The City Planner concluded, that Mound's current provisions restrict commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council would like to consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercial licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas. Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential areas if they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used as examples within the City Planner's report. One approach to consider would be to standardize Mound's weight limit to that of the States standard (GVW) and specify which standards would be used (state registration, manufacturers, or actual). This may help clarify and allow for better enforcement of weight restrictions in the future. However, standardizing the weight definition would mean modifying the current weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by determining which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause safety, value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas. Weiland stated that he is not in favor of requiring the vehicles be covered as this would create the construction of extra large garages which can be just as unsightly. Mueller's written comments were recognized by the Commission. Voss does not want to impact the private business person and is not in favor making the ordinance more stringent, however, he does not want to see large trucks such as semi trailers allowed that would be obtrusive in a neighborhood. He questioned how large trucks compare to the storage of campers or boats. Koegler stated, that generally, recreational vehicles are accessory to the residential use, and people who live in homes have boats and campers, but most people who live in homes don't have dump trucks. Johnson questioned what types of vehicles have been tagged. The Building Official commented that tool trucks and other service type vehicles have been tagged. Planning Commission Minutes TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL February 28, 1994 Hanus questioned if the City would consider allowing the storage of larger vehicles through a Conditional Use Permit process? Koegler suggested that the ordinance needs to further clarify what types of vehicles should be allowed to be stored in the residential district. It was suggested that the ordinance limit the storage of one vehicle per property. Koegler clarified for the Commission that a I ton vehicle, depending on the manufacturer or brand, could equal 12,000 to 15,000 pounds. He clarified, that if the manufacturers weight is used as the determining factor, it does not matter how much weight you are hauling. Koegler noted that Jim Larson, who is with the City Attorney's office, stated it would be preferrable to use the manufacture's GVVV as posted on the vehicle. Resident, Bob Smith, informed the Commission that he has a truck that looks like a bread truck, it is 22 feet long, and the truck is used for his private business. His truck is his store, he sells tools. He has a 10 foot high garage door, the garage is 32' x 32', and he still had to partially disassemble his truck to get it to fit inside. He believes the truck weighs about 15,000 pounds. Weiland stressed that the issue is not how much the vehicle weighs, but how big it is and how obtrusive it is to the neighborhood. It was also suggested that the type of vehicle and what it is used for be taken into consideration. Michael suggested the Commissioners think about what they would like to allow, then bring back the ideas back to the next meeting for further discussion. It was suggested that staff take a poll of the types of vehicles currently being parked within the City. There was discussion about publicizing the issue to get public input. This issue will be brought back to the Planning Commission at the March 14, 1944 meeting for discussion. The Commissioners should bring their ideas to the meeting. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mil! TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: February 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Truck Parking in Residential Areas During a December City Council meeting, staff was asked to look at Section 350:760, Subd. 4 of the City Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The intent in requesting the review was to compare Mound's standards to those commonly used in other municipalities and to determine if Mound is too strict or too lenient under the current provisions. After staff review and further discussion of this issue at the January 11, 1994 City Council meeting, Council determined that modifications to the existing Code should be further investigated and the issue should be referred to the Planning Commission for input and recommendation. Mound's current provision states "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision." This provision prohibits any commercially licensed vehicle from parking in any of Mound's residential areas. Zoning Ordinances contain provisions such as the one stated above as an attempt to segregate residential, commercial and industrial uses. Allowed uses, provisions, and restrictions applicable to any of these three general zoning classifications are intended to ensure that they can contain uses that are not impeded by undue conflicts. In most communities, parking in residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup trucks and recreational vehicles; while most types of trucks which are commonly associated with commercial and industrial uses are excluded from residential areas. Mound's provisions may contain this language in order to carry out the general zoning philosophy as stated above, as well as to protect residential properties from commercial/industrial trucks that could pose a safety problem, diminish the attractive appearance and decrease the value of residential neighborhoods. Also, because of Mound's smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many areas), any large vehicle such as a truck parked in a residential area has a high probability of impacting neighboring properties. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design '300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 83%3160 Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 2 To determine if Mound's standards are too strict, a random sampling of other communities restrictions were studied and are listed below. Prior Lake: Motor vehicles over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailers shall not be parked in a residential area except when loading, unloading or rendering a service. Such vehicles may be stored in residential areas if they are parked in garages. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. Falcon Heights: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles and/or one (1) truck not to exceed 7,000 pounds gross capacity for each dwelling unit. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants or customers of nearby business or manufacturing establishments. Golden Valley: It is unlawful to park or leave standing a truck having a capacity to haul more than one (1) ton or a gross vehicle weight of 7,000 pounds (except a recreational pickup camper or a pickup truck), a bus having a seating capacity of more than fourteen (14) passengers, commercial equipment (whether mounted, dismounted or towed), truck-tractor, truck-trailer, or tractor-trailer on any street in a district zoned for residential uses except while such vehicle is being actively loaded or unloaded to or from the premises immediately adjacent to the place where it is parked. Shakopee: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles, except that for each dwelling unit, one truck not in excess of 9,000 pounds rated capacity may be parked by the occupant within a structure. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open storage of commercial vehicles nor open air parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owner, tenant or customers of a business or manufacturing establishment. Bloomington: No commercial motor vehicle rated at more than one-ton capacity; no motor vehicle designed, used, maintained for the towing of other motor vehicles or equipment; and no commercial trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district except when loading or unloading or rendering a service. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be parked on or adjacent to a platted residential lot at any time except when loading or unloading or rendering a service. The word "platted" as used in this section shall include actual plats, registered land surveys, and auditor's subdivisions. Hopkins: Residential parking facilities may be used for the parking of automobiles and one truck not to exceed a 9,000 pound rated capacity. Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 3 Wayzata: Trucks of more that 12,000 GVW or greater than thirty (30) feet in length and contracting or excavating equipment may not be parked, stored, or otherwise continued on any property within the City for a period greater than twelve (12) hours unless being used in conjunction with a temporary service benefitting the residential or commercial premises, except that such trucks and equipment may be parked, stored and otherwise continued on property zoned C-3 if used regularly by the property owner in his business. Excelsior:. Permitted Accessory Uses - Within R-1 to R-4 districts, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Subd. 1. Private garage, parking space, carport for passenger cars and for trucks, not in excess of 7,000 pound licensed gross weight, utility trailers, recreational trailers, mobile and motor homes when owned or assigned to the occupant. St. Louis Pa~: Required off-street parking facilities in an "R" Use District may be utilized only for parking passenger automobiles, however one truck not exceeding 1.5-ton capacity may be parked by the occupant of each dwelling unit inside a building on the resident's property. No required parking facilities or public rights-of-way in any "R" Use District shall be used for open-air storage of commercial vehicles, customer's vehicles, or vehicles belonging to employees, owners, tenants or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. Shorewood: Off-street parking facilities incidental to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of currently licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one truck not to exceed gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no cirucumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. Maple Grove: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. The common trend seen in all of these communities is that certain types of commercial vehicles are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities (including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from this provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits varies from community to community. Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 4 Because the weight terms vary, a definition has been provided to determine the extent to which Mound compares to these other communities. Each of the terms used by the communities to describe weight restrictions have been given general definitions since the standards for these regulations are not specified and could have many meanings. Capacity - The carrying capacity of the vehicle, only the load, not the vehicle weight. Gross Capacity - The vehicle and load weight. Rated Capacity - Either registered or manufactured weight of the vehicle and the load weight. Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use the term "capacity" to regulate truck weight. However, according to the definition of capacity above, this is only the load capacity, not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use a total gross weight. However, comparisons can be made with the three communities that use the same weight term as Mound ("capacity"). Of these three communities, St. Louis Park allows trucks not over 1.5 ton capacity; while Prior Lake, Bloomington and Mound allow trucks not over 1- ton capacity. All three communities, except Mound, allow inside storage of certain trucks in residential areas. State classifications for truck weight indicate Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) as the current terminology used to determine truck weight. This is the maximum amount of weight of a vehicle including both the truck and its load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and rated capacity are not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term GVW is used, the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to clarify by whose rating system the GVW has been determined. Although these terms need to be clarified, the basic definition of GVW remains as the total weight of the vehicle and the load. GVW - Gross Vehicle Weight - The actual physical weight of the vehicle and load. GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating - The manufacturer's rating system which includes the total weight of the vehicle plus the load. Registered GVW - Registered Gross Vehicle Weight - The registered GVW of your vehicle plus the load, which is administered during the licensing of the vehicle. This weight includes the vehicle plus the load. Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 5 In conclusion, the City Council has determined there is a need to look at the current Code regarding truck parking in residential areas for several reasons. Mound's provisions currently restrict commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council would like to consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercially licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas. Can this be done without having a negative impact on safety, value and appearance within the residential areas? Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential areas if they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used as examples in this report. One approach to consider would be to standardize Mound's weight limit to that of the State's standards (GVW) and specify which standards would be used (state registration, manufacturers or actual). This may help clarify and allow for better enforcement of weight restrictions in the future. However, standardizing the weight definition would mean modifying the current weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by determining which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause safety, value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas. l · · · · · · · C: M~NUTE$ - MOUNi) CITY' COUNCIL - J.,~NUAR¥ 11, 1994 1.14 DISCUSSION: SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4 TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The City Planner reported that this is a discussion item requested by the Council and no action can be taken this evening. The Council asked Staff to look at Section 350:760, SUBD. 4 of the City Code and compare Mound's standard to those commonly used in other communities. The Planner explained that Zoning Ordinances are an attempt to segregate residential, commercial and industrial uses. Parking in most residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup trucks and recreational vehicles. Most types of trucks which arc commonly associated with commercial and industrial uses are excluded from residential areas. Section 350:760, Subd. 4, reads as follows: "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision.' The Planner speculated that this was put in the code because of Mound's smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many areas). Allowing commercial vehicles could, in some instances, cause a safety problem; an appearance issue; and could have a value impact on properties. He gave a random sampling of restrictions used in the following communities: Prior Lake, Falcon Heights, Shakopee, Hopkins, Wayzata, and Maple Grove. He stated that some of the restrictions vary, but virtually all of them prohibit commercially licensed vehicles in residential areas. He stated that the weight of those vehicles and some of the terms that they use in describing the load of the vehicles does vary. He stated that weight and loads need to be looked at closely so that you are comparing apples to apples. The Council discussed the fact that Mound's weight restriction limitation (1 ton) is on the low end of the communities sampled. They discussed disruption of residential areas with certain commercial vehicles; cottage industries; parking commercial vehicles in garages; the number of warning tickets issued for this violation, etc. The Council asked that this (Section 350:760, Subd. 4) be referred to the Planning Commission for them to look at it as it is and asking for their input on ways to allow certain people who use such vehicles to park or store them, with clarification on those terms, in residential areas. Also the Council would like to have input from neighbors who would be affected by the change in the ordinance. The Mayor commented that one sentence in the report states, "The weight of allowed vehicles varies from one ton to 12,000 pounds." He stated that really isn't true, because the weight of a one ton pickup truck certainly exceeds 2,000 pounds, but it has to do with load capacity. Ali the sample ordinances use different terminologies ie. rated capacity, gross vehicle weight, etc. This needs to be clarified and understood. All the comparisons with other city's ordinances need to be apples to apples. The Council also suggested that the Planning Commission keep in mind how large motor homes have gotten. The Mayor pointed out that some of the commercial vehicles look better than some motor homes that are parked next to homes. The Council is looking for a way to allow some commercially licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas, which is currently prohibited by our ordinance. Is there a way to do this without having a negative impact on safety, value and appearances within residential areas? The City Manager stated that apparently the people who did get warnings have moved their vehicles elsewhere. The Planner stated this item could be on a Planning Commission Agenda within the next 30 days. The Council asked that this item be back to the Council by thc second meeting in April. Tim Miller, 3149 Inverness Road stated he would be willing to contact some other owners of commercial vehicles and give input to the Planning Commission. The Council thought this was a good idea. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications The City of Mound's Shoreland Management Ordinance has not yet been approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This issue was highlighted during the preliminary review of the Pelican Point proposal and discussions that ensued regarding EAW vs. EIS thresholds resulting from the lack of an approved ordinance. During the past couple of months, staff has been working with representatives of the DNR to address questions and issues that have been raised pertaining to the ordinance. As a result, the City Council is being asked to consider further modifications to the Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200) which was previously adopted by the City of Mound and has been enforced since its publication. When the term DNR is used herein, it refers to DNR staff. The Planning Commission has reviewed the amended items and their recommendations are included herein. The DNR's comments on Mound's ordinance are contained in a memorandum from Steve Prestin to Ed Fick dated May 3, 1993. The City of Mound received a copy of this memorandum on May 9, 1994. The following comments relate directly to the items addressed in the May 3rd memorandum. Issue gl - The first issue raised by the DNR pertains to differences in the classification of multiple dwelling units and allowing public buildings and parks as permitted rather than conditional uses in the shoreland area. After reviewing these issues with Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist, it was agreed that the current Mound ordinance is acceptable. No further modifications are necessary. Issue #2 - The DNR requested that shoreland areas be delineated on Mound's zoning map. Shoreland delineations are on the map, however, they are difficult to clearly see on the reduced size copies that are in the Zoning Code. Mound will send the DNR a larger scale map which clarifies this issue. No further action on this item is necessary. Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design 730O Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax:(612) 835-3160 Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 16, 1994 Page 2 Issue #3 - A question was raised pertaining to the application of impervious cover restrictions in commercial and industrial areas prior to the City completing and adopting a stormwater management plan. The City has been processing commercial and/or industrial requests that exceed 30% hardcover as variances. A recent example is the new addition to Our Lady of the Lake Church. Since the City has and will continue in the interim to process any commercial and industrial requests that exceed 30% as variances, it was agreed that the current language is acceptable and that no further modifications are necessary. Issue #4 - Comments were offered pertaining to water-oriented and detached accessory buildings. After reviewing Mound's current ordinance language (that is more restrictive than the State Rules regarding water-oriented accessory structures) and identifying that accessory structures under 120 square feet of floor area are required to observe a 50 foot lakeshore setback, it was agreed that no further modifications of this section would be required. Issue #5 - A comment was offered that Mound does not have commercial planned unit development standards that cover items such as motels and motor hotels. Mound has planned development districts for both residential uses and industrial uses but no such standards that apply to commercial uses. Commercial uses are adequately accommodated within the standard zoning classifications. The State Rules' emphasis on motels and motor hotels relates more to resort developments than it does to commercial development in urban areas. It was agreed that Mound's current ordinance language adequately controls commercial uses and that no further modification would be required. Minor Deficiencies #1 - Items were identified that were not defined. Upon closer review, it was determined that all required definitions are part of Mound's ordinance with the exception of "sewer system". Since all of Mound has sanitary sewer service available, it was determined that this term did not need to be part of the Shoreland Ordinance definitions. Therefore, no further modifications are required. Minor Deficiencies #2 - (Ordinance Modif'u:ation Required) - Mound's adopted Shoreland Ordinance requires that structures observe a 10 foot setback from the top of bluffs. State Rules require a 30 foot setback. After reviewing this issue with the DNR, it was agreed that 10 feet would be allowable in existing areas and 30 feet would be required in new construction areas. Correspondingly, the following modification of the Shoreland Ordinance is suggested: Modify Section 350:1225. Zoning - Shoreland Management as follows: Under Subd. 3 (A) 2, remove the last line reading "Top of Bluff .......... 10 feet" and substitute the following: Top of Bluff: Existing lots of record or lots created through Minor Subdivisions (3 lots or less) consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 1 of the City Code ........................................... JO feet 555 Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 16, 1994 Page 3 Major Subdivisions consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 2 of the City Code ............ 30feet In addition to the ordinance change regarding the setback from the top of bluff, this modification will also need to be included as part of an amended flexibility request to the DNR. This request has been submitted to the DNR who has distributed the information to the other communities around Lake Minnetonka for review and comment (see attached copies). Minor Deficiencies #3 - Mound's Shoreland Ordinance requires a 20 foot minimum setback from all roads. State Rules call for a 50 foot setback from county, state, and federal highways. Since Mound has a number of existing areas along county roads that require a 20 foot setback, the DNR agreed that a 20 foot minimum setback is appropriate. This item was also included in the amended flexibility request that is currently being reviewed by the lake area communities. Minor Deficiencies g4 - A comment was offered that Mound's ordinance contains conflicting provisions regarding a minimum 50 foot setback requirement from the OHWL. The consultant reviewing the ordinance for the DNR incorrectly interpreted that Section 350:440, Subd. 6 applies to lakeshore setbacks. As stated in Subd. 6, this provision only applies to front yard setbacks, not lakeshore. No further ordinance modifications are necessary. .Minor Deficiencies #5 - (Ordinance Modification Required) - State Rules require either doubling of the structUre setback from the OHWL or adequate screening for non-water-oriented / public, semi-public, commercial or industrial uses. This provision will need to be added to the Mound Shoreland Ordinance. Accordingly, Section 350:1220, Subd. 2 needs to be modified toJ read as follows: (Additions are shown in italic text) Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland area, land use descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350:640 and 350:670. Public, semi-public, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal OHWL setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer leaf-on conditions. Minor Deficiencies #6 - A suggestion was offered that the City include language that guides the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Although this provision may be beneficial community-wide, the DNR agrees that it does not have to be stated within the Shoreland Ordinance. At some future date, Mound may want to consider addressing this issue both within and outside of the shoreland zone. No further modifications are necessary. l.Conunents/Suggestions - (Ordinance Modification Required) - Suggestions were offered pertaining to the modification of certain definitions to reference current terms and State Statute numbers. Accordingly, the following modifications are suggested: Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 16, 1994 Page 4 iSection 350:310 Definition__s should be modified as follows: Subd. 96. Ordinary High Water Mark - The title "Ordinary High Water Mark" is changed to "Ordinary High Water Level" and the word level is substituted throughout the definition for the word mark. Subd. 106. Public Waters - The first line of the existing definition should be replaced by the following: Waters defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G. 005, Subdivision 15, as amended. Subd. 147. Wetland - After the first sentence of the existing definition, add the following: The delineation of wetlands shall be in compliance with the United States Fish ~ and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. The Planning Commission has also suggested that a definition of "semi-public" uses be added to the current ordinance since that term is used in the provision that stipulates setback requirements (Minor Deficiencies Item #5). Therefore, Section 350:310 will need to be modified to include the following: Sub& l18B. Semi-Public Use - The principal use of land or buildings involving the assembly or congregation of the general public in facilities that are owned either privately or by institutions. Such uses include churches, fraternal organizations, museums, etc. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE (Proposed Ordinance Modification) In addition to the items referenced above, Mound staff has been reviewing the issue of impervious coverage (commonly called hardcover) with DNR staff. Of concern is the number of variances that are processed annually pertaining to hardcover. In order to reduce the number of variances required, the DNR has assembled guidelines that they have developed internally for their review of variance requests. Furthermore, the DNR has met with a number of Lake Minnetonka communities who have similar concerns. Their internal procedures and meetings with the communities have resulted in the establishment of guidelines for shoreland administration. As a result, DNR staff feels that there is sufficient justification for increasing the allowable amount of hardcover for existing lots of record in the City of Mound. Correspondingly, the City Council is being asked to review and obtain public comment on the following amendment: Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1 - Retain the first sentence in the existing paragraph in item 1 and add the following: os-7 Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 16, 1994 Page 5 On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted up to a maximum of 40 percent providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable: Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction of downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. o Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. o Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. 4. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. In conjunction with the modification identified above, the Planning Commission also recommends that deck areas not be included in calculating the amount of impervious cover on a lot. At the present time, decks are counted as 50% hardcover. Based on their experiences to date, DNR staff indicated that they would support removing decks as part of hardcover calculations. In order to accomplish the removal of decks from the hardcover calculations in the ordinance, S.e, ction 350:1225 Subd. 6. (B) 1 would need to be mod?ed as shown above and the statement Open decks shall be counted as 50% impervious cover would need to be removed from the definition of impervious cover which is found in the ordinance under Section 350:310, Subd. 65. This statement should be replaced with "Open decks shall not be counted in impervious cover lations." MMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance modifications that are noted in the following sections of this Memorandum: Minor Deficiencies #2, page 2 Minor Deficiencies #5, page 3 Comments/Suggestions, pages 3 and 4 Impervious Coverage, pages 4 and 5 J, J J J ,I, il, ,I J, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO SHORELAND MANAGEMENT The City of Mound does ordain: Section 350:310 Definitions of the Mound Code of Ordinances are modified to read as follows: Subd. 96. Ordinary High Water Level - A level delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water level is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominately terrestrial in areas where the ordinary high water level is not evident, setbacks shall be measured from the stream bank of the following water bodies that have permanent flow or open water: the main channel, adjoining side channels, backwaters and sloughs. The ordinary high water level for the lakes located in he City of Mound are as follows: Lake Minnetonka = 929.4, Langdon Lake = 932.1, and Dutch Lake = 939.2. Subd. 106. Public Waters - Waters defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, Subdivision 15, as amended. Lakes, ponds or towage of less than 10 acres shall not be considered public waters. Subd. 147. Wetland - Land which is annually subjected to periodic or continual inundation by water and commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh. The delineation of wetlands shall be in compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. Subd. 118B. Semi-Public Use - The principal use of land or buildings involving the assembly or congregation of the general public in facilities that are owned either privately or by institutions. Such uses include churches, fraternal organi- zations, museums, etc. Furthermore, Section 350:1220, Subd. 2 is modified to read as follows: Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland area, land use descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350.640 and 350.670. Public, semi-public, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal OHWL setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer leaf-on conditions. Furthermore, Section 350:1225. Zoning - Shoreland Management is amended as follows: Subd. 3 (A) 2, remove the last line reading "Top of Bluff ........ 10 feet" and substitute the following: Top of Bluff: Existing lots of record or lots created through Minor Subdivisions (3 lots or less) consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 1 of the City Code ....... 10 feet. Major Subdivisions consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 2 of the City Code .... 30 feet. Furthermore, Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1 is modified to read as follows: Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted up to a maximum of 40 percent providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable. Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. o Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. J, J J ! ,Ii, Ill, ,I, ATIZST: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in The Laker PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE SECTION 350:1200 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 23, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. to consider modifications to the Shoreland Management Ordinance, City Code Section 350:1200. The proposed modifications will include, but are not limited to: Definition modifications. Modification of bluff setbacks. Non-water oriented structure setbacks. Modification of hardcover restrictions to increase the amount of allowable impervious surface on residential lots. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk (To be published in "The Laker' August 8, 1994) MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1994 CASE #94-57; AMENDMENT TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 350:1200. PUBLIC HEARING.. City Plant'er, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The City of Mound does not currently have a Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) that has been approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). City staff and the DNR has been working together to address questions and issues that have been raised pertaining to the ordinance. As a result, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider further modifications to the SMO (City Code Section 350:1200)which was previously adopted by the City of Mound and has been enforced since its publication. The DNR's comments on Mound's ordinance are contained in a memorandum from Steve Prestin to Ed Fick dated May 3, 1993. Staff recommended the following ordinance modifications: Section 350:1225. Zoning - Shoreland M~nagement, Subd. 3. Placement, Design, and Height of Structures, A. Placement of Structures on Lots. "Tcp ....................................... Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 .Top of Bluff: Existing lots of record or lots created through Minor Subdivisions ($ lots or less) consistent with Section $$0.'20, Subd. I of the City Code ......... 10 feet Ma/or Subdivisions consistent with Section 330:20, Sub(f_ 2 of the City Code ................... .~0 feet Section 350:1220 Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland arba, land use descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350:640and 350:670. Public, semi- public, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontaoe, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be setback double the normal ONWl $etback or be substantially screened from view from the water b¥ vegetation or toz~ograz)hv, assuming summer leaf-on conditions Section 350:310 Definitions. Subd. 96. Ordinary High Water Mcrk Level. Subd 106 Public Waters ~,:,,,, ~ ~ ,~-~ o..~,,~:..:~:,,,, I '~ end ~ 5. Waters defined in Minnesota Statute. Section 103G. 005, Subdivision 15. Lakes, ponds or flowage of less than 10 acres shall not be considered public waters. Subd. 147. Wetland. Land which is annually subjected to periodic or continual inundation by water and commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh. The delineation of wetland shall be in compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. Shoreland Mana.qement - Stormwater Management. 8. Specific Standards: Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. Open patterned decks and stairways shall be counted as 50% 2 III ! I ! ,I, ill, ,', & Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 impervious cover providing that they are installed over a permeable surface. Those constructed over an impermeable surface or are impermeable themselves shall be counted as 100% impervious cover. On existin(~ lots of record in residential areas, the__ maximum amount of impervious coverage shall not exceed 4O Dercent providin-o that the following technioues are utilized as applicable.'. Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter stri~)s throuoh the use of crowns on driveways, direction of downspouts on ~Tutters collectinti water from roof areas, etc,_ Divl~in(7 or sel~aratin.ci impervious areas into small areas through the use of grass or veqetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated._ ~y grass or sand allow/n.ti infiltration. (]se gradino and construction techn/tiues which ~ncoura~e rapid infiltration such as the installation sand or tiravel "sumP" areas tO collect an.d. _oercola te storm wa ter. Install berms to tem~)orari/y detain stormwater thereby/ncreasin~ soil absorption,. Mueller referred to the proposed modification in Section 350:1220,Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions, and questioned if a definition is needed for "semi-public". Koegler offered to draft a definition prior to the City Council public hearing if the Commission finds it is needed. It was also noted that there is a typo in this section, "leaf-of" should read "leaf-on". Hanus commented that this section is confusing to him. He questioned, what are "water-oriented needs" ? Mueller referred to the modification of the definition for "Public Waters" which refers to a definition in a Minnesota Statute, and questioned if the statute should be sited. Koegler noted that the statute definition is too cumbersome, but if the concern is that the Statute could change or be amended, he could add language to the definition "or as amended." 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 The verbiage used in the proposed modification for Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. was discussed. The Planning Commission wanted it made clear that the maximum coverage allowed is 30%, however, 40% may be allowed if the listed techniques are utilized. It was also questioned how staff will enforce that the techniques are used. The Building Official proposed that the ordinance include a statement requiring that a plan must be provided showing the techniques to be used. Sutherland also noted that he liked language suggested by Clapsaddle that would begin this section with, "Impervious coverage shall be limited tO 30 percent on existing lots of record, impervious surface may be permitted up to a maximum of 40 percent providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable:..." Koegler stated that he can clarify the language in the proposed section. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to the Shot,land Management Ordinance, Section 350:1225of the City Code, as recommended by staff, and including the following: 1. A definition for "Semi Public" be added. Within the definition for "Public Waters", add "as amended" at the end. e A typo within the staff report is to be corrected within "Land Use District Descriptions: "leaf-ofn". The Building Official and the City Planner requested that the Planning Commission also consider an amendment to the Impervious Coverage regulations relating to decks. Koegler noted that the DNR has agreed to not count porus decks as hardcover, and staff is in favor of making this change. Weiland amended his motion to also include the following to the proposed ordinance amendments: Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. shall indicate that porus decks do not count as impervious surface. The amendment was seconded by Clapsaddle. MOTION carried unanimously. 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Hanus noted that he voted in favor of the amendment, however, he is still concerned about the ambiguity of the changes proposed within "Land Use District Descriptions" and feels that a definition may be needed for "water-oriented needs". These proposed ordinance amendments will be reviewed by the City Council on August 23, 1994. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound Planning Commission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner August 3, 1994 Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications The City of Mound does not currently have a Shoreland Management Ordinance that has been approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This issue was highlighted during the preliminary review of the Pelican Point proposal and discussions that ensued regarding EAW vs. EIS thresholds resulting from the lack of an approved ordinance. During the past few weeks, staff has been working with representatives of the DNR to address questions and issues that have been raised pertaining to the ordinance. As a result, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider further modifications to the Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200) which was previously adopted by the City of Mound and has been enforced since its publication. When the term DNR is used herein, it refers to DNR staff. The DNR's comments on Mound's ordinance are contained in a memorandum from Steve Prestin to Ed Fick dated May 3, 1993. The City of Mound received a copy of this memorandum on May 9, 1994. The following comments relate directly to the items addressed in the May 3rd memorandum. Issue #1 - The first issue raised by the DNR pertains to differences in the classification of multiple dwelling units and allowing public buildings and parks as permitted rather than conditional uses in the shoreland area. After reviewing these issues with Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist, it was agreed that the current Mound ordinance is acceptable. No further modifications are necessary. Issue #2 - The DNR requested that shoreland areas be delineated on Mound's zoning map. Shoreland delineations are on the map, however, they are difficult to clearly see on the reduced size copies that are in the Zoning Code. Mound will send the DNR a larger scale map which clarifies this issue. No further action on this item is necessary. Issue #3 - A question was raised pertaining to the application of impervious cover restrictions in commercial and industrial areas prior to the City completing and adopting a stormwater Land Use/Environmental ' Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 83%9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 3, 1994 Page 2 management plan. The City has been processing commercial and/or industrial requests that exceed 30% hardcover as variances. A recent example is the new addition to Our Lady of the Lake Church. Since the City has and will continue in the interim to process any commercial and industrial requests that exceed 30% as variances, it was agreed that the current language is acceptable and that no further modifications are necessary. Issue//4 - Comments were offered pertaining to water-oriented and detached accessory buildings. After reviewing Mound's current ordinance language (that is more restrictive than the State Rules regarding water-oriented accessory structures) and identifying that accessory structures under 120 square feet of floor area are required to observe a 50 foot lakeshore setback, it was agreed that no further modifications of this section would be required. Issue //5 A comment was offered that Mound does not have commercial planned unit development standards that cover items such as motels and motor hotels. Mound has planned development districts for both residential uses and industrial uses but no such standards that apply to commercial uses. Commercial uses are adequately accommodated within the standard zoning classifications. The State Rules' emphasis on motels and motor hotels relates more to resort developments than it does to commercial development in urban areas. It was agreed that Mound's current ordinance language adequately controls commercial uses and that no further modification would be required. Minor Deficiencies//1 - Items were identified that were not defined. Upon closer review, it was determined that all required definitions are part of Mound's ordinance with the exception of "sewer system". Since all of Mound has sanitary sewer service available, it was determined that this term did not need to be part of the Shoreland Ordinance definitions. Therefore, no further modifications are required. Minor Deficiencies //2 - (Ordinance Modification Required) - Mound's adopted Shoreland Ordinance requires that structures observe a 10 foot setback from the top of bluffs. State Rules require a 30 foot setback. After reviewing this issue with the DNR, it was agreed that 10 feet would be allowable in existing areas and 30 feet would be required in new construction areas. Correspondingly, the following modification of the Shoreland Ordinance is suggested: Modify Section 350:1225. Zoning - Shoreland Management as follows: Under Subd. 3 (A) 2, remove the last line reading "Top of Bluff. ......... 10 feet" and substitute the following: Top of Bluff: Existing lots of record or lots created through Minor Subdivisions (3 lots or less) consistent with Section 330:20, Subd 1 of the City Code ........................................... lO feet Major Subdivisions consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 2 of the City Code ............ 30feet Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 3, 1994 Page 3 In addition to the ordinance change regarding the setback from the top of bluff, this modification will also need to be included as part of an amended flexibility request to the DNR. This request has been submitted to the DNR who has distributed the information to the other communities around Lake Minnetonka for review and comment (see attached copies). Minor Deficiencies/t3 - Mound's Shoreland Ordinance requires a 20 foot minimum setback from all roads. State Rules call for a 50 foot setback from county, state, and federal highways. Since Mound has a number of existing areas along county roads that require a 20 foot setback, the DNR agreed that a 20 foot minimum setback is appropriate. This item was also included in the amended flexibility request that is currently being reviewed by the lake area communities. Minor Deficiencies ~ - A comment was offered that Mound's ordinance contains conflicting provisions regarding a minimum 50 foot setback requirement from the OHWL. The consultant reviewing the ordinance for the DNR incorrectly interpreted that Section 350:440, Subd. 6 applies to lakeshore setbacks. As stated in Subd. 6, this provision only applies to front yard setbacks, not lakeshore. No further ordinance modifications are necessary. Minor Deficiencies #5 - (Ordinance Modification Required) - State Rules require either a doubling of the structure setback from the OHWL or adequate screening for non-water-oriented public, semi-public, commercial or industrial uses. This provision will need to be added to the Mound Shoreland Ordinance. Accordingly, Section 350:1220, Subd. 2 needs to be modified to read as follows: (Additions are shown in italic text) Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland area, land use descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350:640 and 350:670. Public, semi-public, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal OI-1WL setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer leaf-of conditions. Minor Deficiencies #6 - A suggestion was offered that the City include language that guides the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Although this provision may be beneficial community-wide, the DNR agrees that it does not have to be stated within the Shoreland Ordinance. At some future date, Mound may want to consider addressing this issue both within and outside of the shoreland zone. No further modifications are necessary. Comments/Suggestions - (Ordinance Modification Required) - Suggestions were offered pertaining to the modification of certain definitions to reference current terms and State Statute numbers. Accordingly, the following modifications are suggested: Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 3, 1994 Page 4 Section 350:310 Definitions should be modified as follows: Subd. 96. Ordinary High Water Mark - The title "Ordinary High Water Mark" is changed to "Ordinary High Water Level" and the word level is substituted throughout the definition for the word marie Subd. 106. Public Waters - The first line of the existing definition should be replaced by the following: Waters defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G. 005, Subdivision 15. Subd. 147. Wetland - After the first sentence of the existing definition, add the following: The delineation of wetlands shall be in compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE (Proposed Ordinance Modification) In addition to the items referenced above, Mound staff has been reviewing the issue of impervious coverage (commonly called hardcover) with DNR staff. Of concern is the number of variances that are processed annually pertaining to hardcover. In order to reduce the number of variances required, the DNR has assembled guidelines that they have developed internally for their review of variance requests. Furthermore, the DNR has met with a number of Lake Minnetonka communities who have similar concerns. Their internal procedures and meetings with the communities have resulted in the establishment of guidelines for shoreland administration. As a result, DNR staff feels that there is sufficient justification for increasing the allowable amount of hardcover for existing lots of record in the City of Mound. Correspondingly, the Planning Commission is being asked to review and obtain public comment on the following amendment: Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1 - Retain the existing paragraph in item 1 and add the following: On existing lots of record in residential areas, the maximum amount of impervious coverage shall not exceed 40 percent providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable: Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction of downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. o Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. Shoreland Management Ordinance Modifications August 3, 1994 Page 5 Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. 4. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance be modified as noted in the following sections of this Memorandum: Minor Deficiencies #2, page 2 Minor Deficiencies #5, page 3 Comments/Suggestions, pages 3 and 4 Impervious Coverage, pages 4 and 5 This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the City Council on August 23, 1994. ffi n I ! ,I, Id~ i, g Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [Urn July 22, 1994 Ms. Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Dear Ceil: As you know, the City of Mound will hold public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings in August to consider final modifications of the Shoreland Management Ordinance in order to obtain DNR approval. The modifications that are being proposed consist principally of definition changes, adding language requiting either screening or expanded setbacks for non-water-oriented commercial structures, and possible modification of impervious cover limitations consistent with the DNR's "Guidelines for Ordinance Administration Problems When Applying Shoreland Management Rules to Substandard Lots of Record." In addition to the changes highlighted above, the City will need to expand its flexibility request to accommodate two items. They include the following: Request'.. Mound proposes to require a 10 foot setback for structures from the top of bluff in existing developed areas. In new development situations, the ordinance will require a 30 foot setback. Rationale: The City of Mound is virtually fully developed. Requiring a 30 foot top of bluff setback would create a massive amount non-conforming properties and would place an uridue burden on owners of existing homes. In the vacant areas that do remain within the City, requiring a 30 foot setback is reasonable and can be accommodated during site planning. Request: Mound proposes to require a minimum 20 foot setback from the right-of- way line of local streets or all federal, state or county highways. State Standards suggest a 50 foot setback. Rationale: Mound is bisected by county roads that pass through fully developed areas. Some of the residential zoning along these routes (R-lA, R-2 and R-3) requires a 20 foot front yard setback. Mound's largest front yard setback in any residential zone is 30 feet. The B-1 zone which covers the central business district does not require a Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard 'Suite 525 · Minneapolis, btinnesota 55439 · t612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (6I 2) 835-3160 Ms. Ceil Strauss July 22, 1994 Page 2 front yard setback since the building placement at the right-of-way line is consistent with the traditional development pattern of a downtown area. Application of a 50 foot setback requirement would render virtually all of the existing properties along county roads non-conforming. If you have any questions or need additional information on either of these flexibility request items, please contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Mark Koegler, RLA Mound Consulting City Planner RMK:dbm cc: Mr. Jon Sutherland, Mound Building Official PHONE NO. DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO 7'7:2-'7910 July 27, 1994 The Honorable Scott Carlson Mayor of Minnetrista 7701 County Road 110 W Minnetrista, MN 55364-9552 Dear Mayor Carlson: REVIEW AND COM~4ENT ON CITY OF MOUND'S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA'S SHORELAND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS As required by the statewide shoreland management standards, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the city of Mound are hereby notifying your city of Mound's request for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below and in Mark Koegler's July 22, 1994 letter (copy enclosed). In accordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. Please note that an earlier flexibility request for Mound (dated September 22, 1992) was circulated for comment from the neighboring communities through the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Technical Review Committee that met in 1992 and 1993 to coordinate the adoption of Shoreland Management Regulations in the 14 Lake Minnetonka communities. During more detailed review of the City of Mound's Shoreland Management regulations, two items were found that should have been included in the original flexibility request. The city and the DNR are asking that you provide your review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within 10 days of the date of this letter. If no response is received prior to then, we will assume that your city has no concerns with the neighboring city's proposal. 'n The city of Mound is requestl g flexibility from the following statewide standards: e in structure setback from bluffs. Mound proposes a 1. Decreas .... ~ ~ the tOD of a bluff in existing minimum 10 £oo~ ~~ ~-_ ~-~ .... ~ ~0 feet~ New elo ed areas (versus state m~n~m.u~ ~- ~' -~ ~-ck of dev P ..... ~ ~.,e a minimum top o~ DlutI se=Da development areas wouxu ~.=* 30 feet. The Honorable Scott Carlson July 27, 1994 Page (2) Decrease in minimum setback from right-of-way line of federal, state or county highways. Mound proposes a minimum 20 foot setback (versus state minimum of 50 feet). As stated earlier, please have appropriate staff review the proposed flexibility request and, if necessary, provide your comments to me at the address listed above within 10 days. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact either Mark . Ko.gl.r, Mound Consulting City Planner at ~35-9960, or me at 772- 7910. Sincerely, :- ~. Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist Enclosure -~.:. ~ -. CCS/cs ¢: Michael Leek, City Planner Mark Koegler, Mound Consulting City Planner~ Ed Fick, Shot.land Hydrologist MEMORANDUM May 3, 1993 TO: Ed Fick DNR Regional Shoreland Hydrologist FROM: Steve Prestin t~h Consultant to e LMCD ', RE: MOUND LAND USE CONTROL REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DNR SHORELAND STANDARDS This review utilized the following documents: City ?~_Si_~Co_~ (Draft 83 - 1/29/93), Se~_3...$.Q. - t~a~ Subdivision Regulations., and the City's Shoreland Management Flexibility Request (11/22/92 memo from Mark Koegler to LMCD Technical Review Committee). Since Mound is nearly all developed (some quite old), it is important to weigh the results of my review presented below against the realities of the existing land use situation. The City's Flexibility Request describes these factors well, so rather than repeat them here, I refer you to that document. The results of my review are divided into three categories: Issues, Minor Deficiencies, and Comments / Suggestions. Please refer to the attached Checklist for additional details on these or other aspects of the City's controls. ISSUES 1. Tho City's existing land use districts and the permitted and conditional use frameworks within them are not completely compatible with the set-up in the DNR standards. This situation is mentioned in the Flexibility Request, but specific inconsistencies are not identified. I noticed the following: - In the R-3 residential zone, 3-6 unit multiple dwelling unit structures are a permitted use, while DNR standards treat those with 5 or more units as PUD's and require a conditional use. - Public buildings and public park and recreation uses are allowed in all of the districts as permitted uses, while DNR standards .call for them to be conditional uses in most cases. 2. The City's controls contain a statement indicating Shoreland areas are identified on the Zoning Map, but they are not shown on the map included with the Flexibility Request. In view of the Waterville precedent, I suggest you verify inclusion of these boundaries. An alternative would be to delete the statement since, as the Flexibility Request indicates, the new Shoreland controls apply to the entire City - not just within a Shoreland overlay district. 3. Neither the Flexibility Request nor the controls I reviewed contain a firm committment by the City to develop and implement its own City-wide stormwater management plan in exchange for higher impervious limits. There is reference to an approved stormwater plan for up to 75% impervious being allowed on commercial or industrial properties, but that seems to imply site-specific plans for l-i~-i~d areas. 4. The City's Flexibility Request indicates the. only water- oriented accessory structure or facility it will allow is a~ on- grade deck, but 350:1225, Sub 3, B, 2, b also allows lock boxes. Also, 350:435, Sub 5, D and Sub 7 conflict with that provision by requiring detached accessory buildings, and sheds and buildings of less than 120 sq.ft, to meet a 50 ft. setback. 5. The City has not included standards for Commercial Planned Unit Developments, but "Motels" and "Motor Hotels" (tYpes of Commercial PUD's in the DNR standards) are allowed as conditional uses in B-I and B-2 districts. MINOR DEFICIENCIES 1. Several terms are not defined (see Checklist). 2. The City's 10 foot structure setback from the top of the bluff does not meet the DNR standard and was not included in its Flexibility Request. 3. The 20 foot structure setback from all types of highways and streets does not meet the DNR standard for county, state, and federal highways (50 ft.) and was not included in the Flexibility Request. 4. The City's Flexibility Request indicates all structures, including those to be located within an established setback line, must meet a 50 foot setback from the OI~'L, but 350:440, Sub 6 allows them at the established setback (but no closer .than 20 ft.). 5. A provision requiring either a doubling of the structure setback from the OHWL or adequate vegetation or earth berm screening for non-water-oriented public, semi-public, commercial, and industrial uses is absent. 6. A statement requiring fertilizers and pesticides to be used in ways that minimize their runoff into shore impact zones and public waters by use of earth berms and/or vegetation filter strips is missing. COMMENTS / SUGGESTIONS 1. Tho City could upgrade its definition of Ordinary High Water "Mark" to "Level" to match DNR regulations and state statutes. 2. The statute reference in the definition of "Public Waters" could be upgraded to the current M.S. Section 103G.005, Subdivision 15. 3. The definition of "Wetland" could be upgraded by referencing U.S.F.~.S. Circular 39. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 350:310; SECTION 350:1220; AND SECTION 350:1225 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO SHORELAND MANAGEMENT The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 350:310, Definitions of the Mound City Code of Ordinances are amended to read as follows: Subd. 96. Ordinary. High Water Level (OHWL). A level delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water level is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. In areas where the ordinary high water level is not evident, setbac 'ks shall be measured from the stream bank of the following water bodies that have permanent flow or open water: the main channel, adjoining side channels, backwaters and sloughs. The ordinary high water level for the lakes located in the City of Mound are as follows: Lake Minnetonka = 929.4, Langdon Lake = 932.1, and Dutch Lake = 939.2. Subd. 106. Public Water~;. Subdivision 15, as amended. considered public waters. Waters defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, Lakes, ponds or flowage of less than 10 acres shall not be Subd. 147. Wetland. Land which is annually subjected to periodic or continual inundation by water and commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh. The delineation of wetlands shall be in compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. Section 350:310 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended by adding Subd. l18B, which shall read as follows: Subd. l18B. Semi-Public Use. The principal use of land or buildings involving the assembly or congregation of the general public in facilities that are owned either privately or by institutions. Such uses include churches, fraternal organizations, museums, etc. Section 350:1220, Subd. 2 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. ~trict Descriptions. Within the shoreland area, land use descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350:640 and 350:670. Public, semi-public, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal OHWL setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer Imf-on conditions. Section 350:1225, Subd. 3 (A) 2. of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: ~Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From Setback Unplatted Cemetery .......................... 50 feet Right-of-way line on federal, state or county highway, or local street ................................ 20 feet Top of Bluff: Existing lots of record or lots created through Minor Subdivisions (3 lots or less) consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 1 of the City Code ................... 10 feet Major Subdivisions consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 2 of the City Code ......... 30 feet Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1 is amended to read as follows: Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable. Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing infiltration. Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. Mayor ATFF_..ST: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council August 23, 1994 Published in the Official Newspaper, The Laker, August 29, 1994 Ho/sington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound City Council FROM: Bruce Chamberlain, City Planning Consultant DATE: August 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval and review of EAW comments for Pelican Point Multi- family Residential Development. 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 OTHER RELATED REPORTS: City Engineer's report prepared under separate cover. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development is a proposed 40 unit twinhome development on the 13.7 acre site known as Pelican Point. Pelican Point lies on the shore of Lake Minnetonka and includes an island a short distance from shore but unattached to the mainland. The development will make a street connection to Tuxedo Blvd. in a single location. A loop street known as Pelican Point Circle and cul de sac known as Pelican Point Court will serve the interior of the development and will be dedicated to the City. The development will include a trail system leading to a water oriented accessory structure on the beach of the site. Also proposed at the beach is a 40 slip marina with a single pier connecting to the mainland. ISSUES: Several issues regarding development of Pelican Point need to be addressed as part of the final plat approval. In addition to the items listed below, the City Engineer has prepared a report under separate cover that addresses other items. Land Use / Environmental ' Planning /Design 7300 bfetro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, blinnesota 55439 ' (612) 83%9960 ' Fax: (612) 83%3160 Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 2 Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Because the marina proposed by the Developer exceeds the 20,000 square foot usage area threshold, preparation of an EAW was required for this project. Acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), the City of Mound prepared and approved an EAW and submitted it to the MN Environmental Quality Board for distribution and comment on July 18, 1994. The 30 day comment period ended on August 17, 1994. The following comments were received prior to the closing of the comment period for consideration by the RGU. Enclosed as Exhibit A are the full comments as submitted. Staff responses are indicated immediately after the comment in italics. Metropolitan Council: Item 8 on page 8 of the EAW fails to list the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit as a required permit. Permit has been submitted and approved Council staff recommends that the Developer continue an aggressive search to locate any wells on the site. Developer indicates he will do so. If any are found MN State Statute requires that they be properly abandoned according to state guidelines. The importance of constructing the detention pond to NURP standards is stressed. The detention pond will be constructed according to NURP standards. The Metropolitan Council concurs with the EAW statement that a nutrient budget is not warranted for this project. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: The location of the future ponding area may be classified a wetland. The DNR recommends that the Developer have a qualified wetland delineator make a determination in this regard. See COMMENTS section. The DNR agrees with Developer plans to stabilize the drainage ditch at the north end of the site and the City of Mound's ordinance protection of bluff areas. Comments go further to recommend the establishment of native plant species on the banks of the ditch. If the City Council chooses, a condition can be placed on the final plat to this effect. Careful implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is stressed. Adherence to MPCA Best Management Practices can be required as a condition of final plat approval. Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 3 Protection of Outlot C needs to be clarified. See COMMENTS section. The DNR recommends that an urban forester or arborist be retained to inventory, assess and supervise tree protection and goes on to say that: 1. The site should be evaluated for hazard trees prior to building. 2. Tree protection zones should be identified and protected. 3. Transplanting existing trees on the site to new locations may not be a good practice because it could harm adjacent trees to remain in place and the transplanted trees would be highly stressed and at high risk of disease or death. Nursery grown trees are a better choice for relandscaping. See COMMENTS section. The project does not require the completion of an EIS. Minnesota Historical Society (verbal comments only): The Archeological survey indicates the presence of a possible burial mound. The Developer should submit a plan to the Historical Society outlining procedures insuring no disturbance to the mound. See COMMENTS section. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of this project. The project does not require the completion of an EIS. A General Stormwater Permit will be required for construction. Permit has been added to the City Engineer's list of necessary permits. Erosion control structures should be regularly inspected and maintained. The City Engineer will regularly inspect. Mr. John Edewaard: The possible burial mound on the site should be protected by a permanent easement. See COMMENTS section. A formal biological inventory should be conducted on the site to insure against the presence of rare species, plant communities or ecological resources. See COMMENTS section. Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 4 A mandatory EIS should be ordered. See COMMENTS section. Mr. Thomas E. Casey The site map provided in the EAW is unreadable. Respondent could have requested a new copy from the RGU. The EAW fails to compare the environmental effects of this development as a PDA with a similar traditionally zoned development. Comparing these two types of developments is not a customary practice nor can it be done without considerable study. Granting this development a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of a PDA was done to allow more flexibility in its design and minimize environmental impacts. A conservation easement should be established on the site to preserve vegetation. See COMMENTS section. The EAW should describe the specific percentage of site runoff which will be captured by the detention pond and the environmental effects of uncaptured runoff. The Developer has supplied detailed site runoff data to the City Engineer, which the Council can review if they desire. As stated in 18. b. on page 12 of the EAW, nutrient concentrations which enter the lake from the site are expected to decrease as a result of the project. The EAW is woefully inadequate in describing the fish and wildlife resources that may be seen on the site. Impacts offish and wildlife resources have been described in 11. a. on page 9 of the EA W to the extent known by the City of Mound. If the City Council desires further study before the final plat is approved, it can make that request of the Developer. A biological survey should be conducted of the site to determine the presence of rare or endangered plant or animal species. See COMMENTS section. The EAW does not mention any efforts to avoid adverse impacts on upland animals and birds. There are numerous examples of habitat preservation practices throughout the EA W. The EAW's comment that there are no rare or endangered species on the site is unsubstantiated. See COMMENTS section. The marina may be in an area which may require dredging for boat use. The EAW fails to discuss this possibility. The Developer indicates that J J · J J, ii, lJ · Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 5 the need for dredging is not anticipated The EAW fails to quantify or qualify water degradation due to site runoff. Further study is necessary. See Q. 18 on page 12 of the EAW. Herbicide and pesticide use should be prohibited within 50 feet of the bluff. See COMMENTS section. More specificity is necessary regarding compliance with the shoreland management ordinance. The project meets shoreland ordinance requirements. The EAW inadequately describes the impact of added boat traffic on the environmental integrity of the lake. See Q. 15 on page 11 of the EAW. If the City Council desires further study before the final plat is approved, a request can be made of the Developer. The proposed erosion control plan may not conform to Watershed District standards because granting of the permit is conditional to completion of the EAW process. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District received the EA W for review prior to issuing a permit for the development (no comments were presented to the RGU). As a procedural measure, the permit will not be granted until the EA W process is complete. A nutrient budget analysis should be completed for the project. The Environmental Quality Board indicated prior to the EA W being completed about the need for a nutrient budget. They indicated that the project is much too small to warrant the analysis. The development is not compatible with Mound's Park and Recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Park & Rec. section is a component of the City's Comprehensive plan which guides Pelican Point as residential. A conservation easement should be established for the island to prevent any future alteration. See COMMENTS section. Mound already has too high a population density and no further development should be allowed. Purchase of the property by the City is the only response to this comment. The City should postpone the decision on the EAW until further information can be gathered. See COMMENTS section. 3 g3 Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 6 A mandatory EIS should be ordered. See COMMENTS section. The above comments can be incorporated into the approval of the Pelican Point development as conditions of the final plat approval or by requiring the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to final plat approval. Park Dedication In accordance with the Mound Subdivision Ordinance the Mound Park and Open Space Commission recommended at their June 9, 1994 meeting to accept a cash dedication in lieu of land in the amount of $124,000 due prior to filing of the final plat. Preliminary Plat Approval Preliminary plat approval was granted with thirty conditions by the City Council on June 28, 1994 (Resolution 94-78). Preliminary plat approval includes a conditional use permit to designate the site as a Planned Development Area (PDA) with variances. COMMENTS: Based on the information provided by the Developer and comments received through the EAW, there are several discussion items to be reviewed by the City Council prior to approval of the final plat. Use of the island in Outlot C: At the May 23, 1994 Mound Planning Commission meeting the Developer was asked what will happen to the island. The response was that the island will remain natural. Section 9.5 of the Declaration of Covenants submitted by the Developer states that "... the Association shall have the right to improve the island which is part of Outlot C for picnic purposes for the benefit of the Members and to trim and remove such vegetation as may be desirable in connection with access to and maintenance of such picnic facilities and areas." These two statements are conflicting. Because the Developer indicated early in the process that the island would not be disturbed, the issue was not addressed in the Conditional Use Permit granted as part of the preliminary plat approval. If the City Council finds picnicking to be a low impact use without significant departure from the preliminary plat, it can allow this change as part of the final plat approval by simply approving the covenant as it is stated. If any structures are proposed on the island, a modification to the Conditional Use Permit would be required. If the City wishes to go to greater lengths to preserve the island in its natural state, as recommended by Mr. Casey, The City Council could require the establishment of a conservation easement on the island. Tree and vegetation preservation: Comments received through by the DNR indicate some potential hazards to relocating trees on the site and outlines procedures for insuring that the minimum amount of trees are lost from the site. Mr. Casey goes on to say that a conservation easement should be placed on the site to insure protection and non-disruption of vegetation in the future. If the City Council finds these comments to be significant to the impacts on the environment and quality of the development, additional conditions can be placed on the approval of the final plat. Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 7 Protection of the possible burial mound: Upon discovering that a burial mound may exist on the site, the Developer altered the location of the marina pier (as reflected in the final plat). Minnesota State Statute strictly protects the disruption of cemeteries. The MN Historical Society's request for a plan outlining procedures insuring nondisturbance of the mound is currently being submitted by the Developer. The City of Mound, Developer and Historical Society should continue to work together on this matter. The formation of an easement to protect the mound as suggested by Mr. Edewaard would be a duplication of MN Statute. Protection of bluff areas in Outlot C: Bluff areas are protected from disturbances such as grading, clear-cut tree removal, construction, etc. by the Mound shoreland management ordinance. To insure that homeowners in the Pelican Point development are aware of these restrictions, language should be included in the Declaration of Covenants along with a site map indicating restrictions and locations of bluff areas on the site. If the City Council wishes to further restrict use within the bluff areas, it can be specified as a condition of the final plat. Potential existence of a wetland on the site: Comments from the DNR indicate the possibility that a wetland exists in the area of the proposed detention pond. The Developer has indicated that a professional wetland delineator will investigate the site to determine the presence of a wetland as soon as possible. Need for a biological inventory to determine the presence of rare or endangered species: Mr. Kurt Rusterholtz, a Forest Ecologist with the DNR, investigated the site at the City of Mound and Developer's request. Mr. Rusterholtz went to the site with the intent of conducting an inventory but due to the high degree of human disturbance and low level of ecological integrity on the site, determined that a biological inventory is not warranted. Mr. Rusterholtz also indicated that the site provides habitat for "some songbird species" but the existence of any rare plant species is "rather unlikely". See Exhibit C of the EAW for further explanation. Threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement: If the City does not have an approved Shoreland Management Ordinance in place, the project does meet the threshold of an EIS. The Environmental Quality Board and the DNR agree that preparation of an ElS for a 40 unit project is excessive. As a result, the DNR has expedited the process of final review and approval of Mound's shoreland ordinance. The Mound Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 1994 and approved ordinance changes suggested by the DNR. The City Council will hold a public hearing for City approval of the shoreland ordinance on August 23, 1994. Upon approval of the shoreland management ordinance by the DNR, the project will not meet the threshold for an EIS. Need for additional study: If the City Council finds that, based on comments to the EAW, further study of the project impacts is needed, it can table action on the EAW and final plat for Pelican Point until specified information is supplied by the Developer. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that based on comments to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, further study of project impacts is not warranted and an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for this project. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the EAW with any conditions the City Council deems appropriate. If the City Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 8 Council chooses to add conditions to the final plat based on comments to the EAW, the following list of sample conditions could be used to choose from. If the City Council concurs with this finding, the following motion is suggested: In regard to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Pelican Point Multi- family Residential Development, the City Council hereby finds that an EIS is not needed and that no further study is required to make a determination. Based on public comments received, the City Council may want to consider adding the following conditions to the approval of the final plat. (Choose from a-f below or other conditions.) The City Council further directs Staff to prepare a resolution to this effect for adoption at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. ao Revegetation of the storm drainage ditch at the north end of the site shall be accomplished using primarily native species conducive to growth in this location. Instructions to this effect shall be included in the construction documents submitted to the City Engineer. bo Construction and maintenance of the site shall adhere to MPCA Best Management Practices. Construction documents submitted to the City Engineer shall reflect said BMPs. The Developer shall modify Section 9.5 of the Declaration of Covenants to eliminate the provision allowing improvements to the island to accommodate picnicking. The Developer shall prepare and submit to the City Attorney a conservation easement which establishes the island in Outlot C as permanently protected from any alteration or improvement. The Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, along with construction documents a tree protection plan prepared by an urban forester or arborist. In addition, an urban forester or arborist shall supervise construction to insure the proper protection of vegetation. The Developer shall prepare and submit to the City Attorney a conservation easement which establishes bluff areas as defined by the shoreland management ordinance as permanently protected from any alteration or improvement except the removal of dead or diseased vegetation. Staff further recommends approval of the final plat for the Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development subject to the conditions below and those found in the City Engineer's report dated August 18, 1994 and any additional conditions the City Council deems appropriate. If the Council concurs with this recommendation, a suggested resolution is enclosed. 1. The Developer shall secure all applicable permits as defined by the City Engineer from ill, J · J I, ii, ,i, Pelican Point Planning Report August 18, 1994 Page 9 all entities with jurisdiction over this project. 2. Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as applicable. Park dedication fees shall be collected in the amount of $124,000 prior to filing of the final plat. No construction activity shall occur on the site and the final plat shall not be filed until a determination has been made in regard to the existence of a wetland on the property. If a wetland is found, construction shall not occur and the final plat shall not be filed until a course of action has been agreed upon by the DNR and the City of Mound as to mitigation or project modification. o No construction activity shall occur on the site and the final plat shall not be filed until the City of Mound has received notice from the DNR indicating that the shoreland management ordinance has been approved. Tree management practices shall be followed consistent with the Tree Management narrative submitted as part of the Developer's narrative plus any additional requirements placed in these conditions. No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without specific modification of the Conditional Use Permit. o Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract furnished by the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items covered by said contract shall be completed within a specified period of time of the City releasing the final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of 125% of public improvements or $380,000. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the Fire Chief and Building Official. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUgUSt 18, 1994 CASE NO: 94-28 PETITIONER: Boyer Building Corporation FINAL PLAT: Pelican Point LOCATION: Tuxedo Boulevard ASSESSMENT RECORDS: N/A YES NO 1. x Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. 2. x Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. 4. x Area assessments: 5. x Other additional assessments estimated: LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. x Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. 7. x Ail standard utility easements construction are provided - required for The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lots were these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final construction plans and the following changes are necessary: Provide utility and drainage easement of sufficient size to include ravine on - 1 - 10. 11. N/A YES NO X X X X Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot C used as storm sewer outlet to lake. Easement for watermain between Lots 19 and 21 is not adequate, must be a minimum of 10' on each side. Easement for watermain and sanitary sewer on Outlot B at East Port Road is inadequate. Complies with ponding requirements - The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lines below the established lO0-year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. Ail existing unnecessary easements and rights-of- way have been vacated - It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not aDDlY. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. Ail necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: X X X DNR Hennepin County MPCA/MWCC Sewer Extension - Received MPCA/General Construction Storm Water Permit State Health Department - Received Minnehaha Creek Watershed District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Other The Developer must comply with the conditions within any permit. ~/A YES NO 12. x Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - 13. x The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - 14. x The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and 15. Ail existing street rights-of-way are required width - Variance granted with preliminary approval. Additional right-of-way will be required on UTILITIES AND STREETS 16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. 17. X Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements - 18. x The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street system (public and private). See special conditions required. Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. - 3 - YES NO 19. x 20. X 21. x The cutoff date for petitions is October 1 of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: The construction plans conform to the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: City's City's It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's public utility Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: 22. x Have minimum basement elevations been established - Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots. All lots within the plat must meet minimum basement elevation of 933.0. 23. x Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and Erosion Control Plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: Location of silt fence shall be reviewed at time of installation and any adjustments or additions shall be made as directed by the City Engineer. SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED: 24. Lot and block numbers must be shown on all utility, street and grading plans. 25. A few sanitary sewer and water services are located within proposed driveways. Except for curb boxes, a limited number of services will be allowed in driveways if an alternate location is unavailable. Lots 7 and 20, Block i and Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must have the curb boxes moved from the proposed driveway. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. The hydrant shown on the center of Lot 22, Block i shall be relocated to the lot line between Lots 22 and 23, Block 1. 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. Ingress and egress lanes at the project shall be 16 feet (back to back) and B618 curb and gutter shall be installed as approved with the Preliminary Plat. Provide details for proposed retaining walls. All such walls shall not be constructed within the street right-of-way and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners~ Association. Proposed storm sewer from the existing catchbasins in Tuxedo Boulevard must be located within a utility easement or street right-of-way. Provide calculations to demonstrate adequate pipe size. Owner's Engineer shall provide construction observation sufficient to certify compliance with plans and specifications. No construction work shall be done between 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. nor on Sundays or legal holidays, without the approval of the City of Mound. The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be installed underground. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be necessary to furnish an Engineerts Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said certification and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed work will be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept the completed public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council. The following items shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be covered by an escrow guarantee (surety bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credit), as specified: Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Street Construction ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 77,000 $ 71,000 $ 53,000 $103,000 8304,000 Amount of escrow guarantee: Estimated total ($304,000) x 125% = $380,000 Submitted By: ~ohn Cameron, ~ity Engineer Metropolitan Council Advocating regional economic, societal and environmental issues and solutions August 3, 1994 Mark Koegler City Planner City of Mound 5341 Ma)wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Metropolitan Council District 1 Dear Mr. Koegler: Metropolitan Council (Council) staff conducted a review of this environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) to determine how adequately and accurately it addresses regional concerns. The review identified several concerns. The following comments address specific items in the EAW. Item 8 - Permits and/lpprovals Required On page 8, the EAW lists the type of permit/approval needed for the proposed project. The EAW is not complete because the applicant failed to list a permit that is required for this project. A Metropolitan Council/Wastewater Services Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit is needed along with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit. The Wastewater Services section of the Council requires this permit before any hookup up to the Metropolitan Sewer system is allowed. Item 13a. - Water Use On page 10, the EAW states that there are no public documents indicating the presence of any wells on the site but there is still a possibility that one may exist. Council staff recommends that the proposer continue an aggressive search to locate any wells on the site. If a well is located, the well should be abandoned in accordance to Minnesota state law. Item 18a. - Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff The Council has concerns regarding: 1. The fact that the city of Mound has yet to adopt and implement the Council's interim strategy for nonpoint source pollution. This strategy was to be adopted and implemented by January 1, 1993. The city should officially adopt the Council's Interim Strategy as soon as poss~le. Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 612 291-6359 An Equal Opportunity Employer Fax 291-6550 TDD 291-0904 J J J i ,I, II1, ,11~ I, 2. On page 12, the EAW states that a sedimentation/detention basin will be built according to Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards to lessen the impact of site runoff. The EAW is not complete because it does not contain any specific information as to the design of the pond to determine if the pond design meets NURP criteria. The Council's interim strategy requires the use of NURP or similar criteria for all wet detention ponds. Item I8b. - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff On page 12, the EAW states that there will be two general routes of stormwater runoff from this d~elopment to Lake Minnetonka. The EAW also states that a nutrient budget is not needed for this project. The Council is concerned with the stormwater runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka is a priority lake as designated by the Metropolitan Council and as such is listed in the EAW guidelines as one of the lakes which requires a nutrient budget analysis. However, due to the scale of the project, it is not necessary for the proposer to complete a nutrient budget analysis for Lake Minnetonka at this time. If you have any questions about these comments, feel free to contact Judy Sventek, Water Management Technical Services, at 291-6323. Office of Local Assistance CB:js DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES August 15, 1994 Mark Koegler, City Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155'40.~ 10 RE: Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Koegler: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Site inspection by DNR staff, coupled with information provided in Items 11a and Figure 3, indicates that the designated pond area near Lots 3 & 4 may be considered as wetland. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment does not contain any wetlanddelineations. We recommend that the project proposer have wetland delineation to avoid any possible wetland violations due to possible filling during construction of the stormwater pond. We encourage efforts detailed in Item 12 to stabilize the existing gully on the north edge of the property to control soil erosion into Lake Minnetonka. Native species should be planted where possible on ih,- steep slopes of this gully as one method to contain soil erosion, improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and improve site aesthetics. Furthermore, we recommend that existing vegetation be retained on the steep slopes of the bluff overlooking the lake for aesthetics, to control surface runoff from roofs and lawns, and to reduce the loss of highly erodible soils noted in Item 16. All applicable best management practices (BMPs) should be carefully implemented to ensure protection of Lake Mirmetonka's water quality. Item 6 indicates that there will be roughly a 30-foot structural setback from the bluff's edge. However, it is unclear how Outlot C will be protectedand this issue requires clarification. The site is mainly forested prior to development. Although the site does not rank highly from a rare natural commumty perspective, the present forest cover provides habitat, water quality, and amenity values. We recommena that you retain the services of an urban forester or arborist to inventory, assess, and supervise the tree pro. tection efforts necessary. We offer the following recommendations to further protect this valuable site teature: The site should be evaluated for hazard trees prior to building. Old trees which meet specific hazard criteria are much harder to remove after construction is completed. Tree protection zones should be identified and fences erected to prevent entry into them. Parking, material storage, and displaced soil storage should not be allowed in protection zones. Transplanted woodland trees are l?oor landscaping materials. These trees do not have the proper root systems for transplanting, anatree spades do not capture enough of the root system for efficient nutrient uptake. Nursery grown trees are root-pruned to develop a dense system of fine roots that can be contained in the bare soil ball when transplanted. The long periodof transplanting stress also makes wild trees more prone to attack by secondary insects and diseases. 30~q(I1~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mark Koegler August 15, 1994 Page 2 Tree spading wild trees could also damage the root systems of the remaining trees. Heavy equipment compacts the soil causing stress to those trees. Trees do not have exclusive root zones so there will be a large number of roots severed from the trees that are to remain. Implementation of these measures will significantly, improve the chances that much of the site's current forest habitat, water quality, and amenity values vall remain post-development. However, even with the maximum level of tree protection in place, the remaining trees will be su.biect to a vastly different environment. Wind speed, air temperature, and sunlight will increase, which will stress these residuals. We have attached a brochure that provides information on how to incorporate energy conservation into the landscaping plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. This project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in our opinion. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules~art 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of dec~ding this action. Please contact Don Buckhout of my staff, at (612) 296-8212, if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Natural Resources Environmental Review Section Office of Planning C: Kathleen Wallace Steve Colvin John Fax Jon Nelson Sharon Pfeifer, FWEAB Lynn M. Lewis, USFWS Gregg Downing, EQB John Blumentritt, Boyer Building Corporation #950010-01 ER 14.PELICAN.DOC Minnesota Pollution Control Agency August 17, 1994 Mr. Mark Koegler, City Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 NI0 1 8 8-18-94 Faxed To: Bruce Chamberlain John Cameron cc: Ed Shukle KE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development Dear Mr. Koegler: Thank you for the opportunity to review this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Based on the information contained in the EAW, the Environmental Analysis Office believes that significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of the project if the pollution control measures described in the EAW are followed. Therefore, the preparation on an Environmental Impact Statement does not appear necessary for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency related issues. We do, however, have several comments relating to storm water management. First, we would like to clarify that the project will be required to obtain a General Storm Water Permit for the construction activities which will disturb more than five acres. We assume that this is what is meant by the term, "Storm water Discharge", used on page 8. Also, the project proposer should be reminded that all erosion control structures should be regularly inspected and maintained as needed. Flow over steep slopes should be avoided. If you have any questions on our comments, please do not hesitate to contact Gretchen Sabel of my staff at 612/297-1766. Sincerely, Paul Hoff, Director Environmental Analysis Office Administrative Services Division PH:cl 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (voice); (612) 282-5332 (TTY) Regional Offices: Duluth · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Marshall · Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. J J J J, 61~-835-31G0 HOISINGTON KOEGLER ~1, 726 P02 RUG 24 '94 07:32 Pelican Point (Motion approved by City Council) "Regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Pelican Point multi-family residential development, the City Council finds that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted and that no further study is required to make said determination. Information generated from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be considered as part of the review of the final plat for Pelican Point, Therefore, the City Council directs staff to prepare a corresponding resolution for consideration at the next meeting," Shoreland Ordinance (The following needs to be added to the Shoreland Ordinance ,dmendment that was distributed as Item ~4 at the City Council meeting) Section 350:310, Subd. 65 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances is amended to read as follows: Subd. 65, !mpervi0gs Cover. Any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture. Impervious cover shall include but not be limited to all driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios, and swimming pools. Open decks (IA" minimum opening between boards) shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. J,! August 17, 1994 faxed to Bruce C. 8-17-94 Mr. Mark Koegler Mound Planner 5341Maywood Road Mound, PiN 55364-1687 RE: Pelican Point Development EAW Comments Dear Mr. Koegler: Thank you for the opportunity to make comments relative to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Pelican Point Development. My primary concern is the result of the Phase II survey conducted by Christina Harrison for Boyer Building Corporation. Ms. Harrison made the following recommendation in her report to the State Historic Preservation office regarding the possible found burial mound: ~The mound-like feature down by the shore is more _~mbiguous in nature. Although- it is situated on a terrace that appears lower than most mound locations, it does have 'the right shape'. It should, therefore, either be protected from the proposed development or be investigated by someone authorized by the State Archaeologist and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council to authenticate mound locations, as prescribed by the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act. Only if it is proven not to be a mound should it be incorporated into future development plans for Pelican Point." In a letter to John Boyer dated June 3, 1994, Ms. Harrison indicates this mound group is in an area proposed for Mr. Mark Koegler page 2 development and should be authenticated or investigated by some one licensed by the State Archaeologist and the Indian Affairs Council. Subsequently the Builder changed the area of shoreline impact to another location further away from the possible burial site. I do not believe that the Mound City Council is capable of adequately protecting this section of the property, in the event that the site is authenticated as a Native American burial site. No public agency within the State of Minnesota will challenge the rights of individual property owners, therefore it is the responsibility of the Mound City Council to effectively protect this important facet of Mound history. I call upon the Mound City Council and staff to place a permanent easement upon this section of the property to avoid any future disturbance within this area of the site and to use care in directing this development as outlined in section 330:00 of the Mound City Code, and to consider the position of neighboring property owners and the public welfare both ecologically and economically while crafting recommenda ti ons . Additionally, item 11 of the EAW questionnaire indicates there are no state listed endangered, threatened, or special concern species, rare plant communities, sensitive ecological resources on or near the site. This is an unsubstantiated claim since Mr. Kurt Rusterholz walked through the site of the proposed development Pelican Point only one time during one season. Mr. Rusterholz indicates in his iet~er ~o Mr. Bruce Chamberlain dated June 13, 1994, that he conducted a ~Ligsk assessment and did not conduct a formal biological inventory. In order to have a complete Environmental Assessment Worksheet a formal inventory should be conducted enabling the city to answer affirmatively that there are no state listed endangered, threatened, or special concern species, rare plant communities, sensitive ecological resources on or near the site. Finally, pursuant to Minnesota rules 4410.4400, Subp. 14b., an EIS is required(as indicated below). 4410.4400 MANDATORY EIS CATEGORIES. llll, ~ II J ,J, il, ,J, J Mr. Mark Koegler page 3 Subpart 1. Threshold test. Am EIS must be prepared for projects that meet or exceed the threshold of any of subparts to 24. Multiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when comparing the project or projects to the thresholds of this part. Minnesota rules 4410.4400, Subp. 14b ~For construction of a permanent or potentially permanent residential development of 40 or more unattached units or of 60 or more attached units, if the local governmental unit has not adopted approved water-related land use management district ordinances or plans, as applicable, and either the project involves riparian frontage or ten or more acres of the development are within a water-related land use management district, the local government unit shall be the RGU. However, this item only applies to shoreland areas, floodplains, and state wild and scenic rivers land use districts if the local governmental unit has received official notice from the Department of Natural Resources that it must adopt applicable land use management district ordinances within a specific period. Therefore, no determination should be made regarding this EAW and a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement should be ordered. I ask that these comments be included in subsequent communication between City Planner and City Council, and that they not be paraphrased or condensed into a package of recommendations. Thank you. John Edewaard August 17, 1993 Mark Koegler City Planner city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ~CEIVED i', i- ,..,,','. u FA. XED TO BRUCE C, 8-].7-94 CC: ED SHUKLE RE: Comments to Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development; and Request for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Dear Mr. Koegler, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development Project. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.1600, I submit the following comments and recommendations concerning said EAW: a. the "accuracy" and "completeness" of the EAW; b. potential environmental impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced; c. the need for project modifications; and d. the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project. Please note: the numbering of my comments corresponds to the question number in the EAW. Oe Attach copies of ... a site plan showing all significant and natural features. The map on page 21 is virtually unreadable, making it possible to determine (by the map) what the impact of the development will be on the natural features of the site. 6. Give a complete description of the project ... EAW Guidelines (published by the Environmental Quality Board in June, 1990) states on page 10, "This is the single most important item in the EAW, and care should be taken to ensure that it is completed thoroughly and accuratel¥.'~ (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the EAW Guidelines, the EAW's answer to -1- this question is vague and unsubstantiated, as noted below. Page 7, paragraph 2 of the EAW states, "The creation of a PDR can have beneficial impacts on tree loss, grading, and other environmental factors." The EAW fails to compare the environmental effects of this particular PDR with a non-PDR development of the same density. of the EAW states, ,,The.development .~. Page 7, paragraph ~. by retention of the existing vegetation will be buffered . (overstory ~rees and underbrush.) It is proposed that the vegetation in the bluff area r~i~n intact." The EAW fails to describe how the City of Mound and the developer will insure the compliance of future homeowners to these statements. The only legal mechanism that exists to enforce compliance is by requiring the developer to execute and record a Conservation Easement on the property ~s a condition of final plat approval. Note: the Shoreland Management Ordinance will not be adequate since it may allow cutting to provide a view from the dwelling unit. Page 7, paragraph 4 of the EAW states, "The on-site stormwater management plan proposed capturing the majority of the site drainage into an on-site stormwater NURP pond ..." This is an incomplete answer. The EAW should describe the specific percentaqe of captured drainage and the environmental effects of the uncaptured drainage. 10. Cover Types. The numbers cited in the EAW for wooded/forest, brush/grassland, and lawn landscaping cover types "after development" are entirely speculative. The City of Mound cannot insure the accuracy of these numbers without a properly drafted Conservation Easement recorded on the final plat. 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. EAW Guidelines states on page 12, "Nearly all undeveloped land has some wildlife habitat value." The answer in the EAW is woefully inadequate. The EAW fails to mention an~ fish or wildlife resources other than examples of common mammals "that may be seen." No mention is made nor has there been a formal survey of birds, reptiles, amphibians, or -2- invertebrates. Moreover, no formal on-site search was made for evidence of animals listed on the Checklist of Endanqered and Threatened Animal and Plant Species ~f Minnesota, published by the DNR. The EAW Guidelines reminds the RGU that "... it is the responsibility of the RGU to determine the nature and significance of any project-related impacts." Obviously, a description of the fish and wildlife resources on or near the site cannot be accomplished unless the RGU undertakes a formal on- site survey. Finally, the EAW fails to supply any evidence at all about how the natural resources will be affected by the development. The simple statement that "... wildlife habitat will be impacted by the development and there will be displacement of plants and animal species" is tautological and grossly insufficient! (Quantifiable data is necessary to adequately answer this question.) a. (continued) Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. No mention is made at all of any effort to avoid adverse impacts to upland animals and birds. Are there any state-listed, threatened, or special concern species; rare plant communities;... other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? The "no" answer to this question in the EAW is based upon insufficient information. The only source cited is a one time "quick assessment" not a "formal biological inventory" made by Kurt Rusterholz. Mr. Rusterholz limited his survey to plants only. He failed to describe seeing even the common animal species alleged to be on the site (i.e. "White Tail Deer, raccoon, squirrel, and rabbit") and never looked for birds. If he had looked for birds, it would have been a distinctly high probability that he would have seen at least one and recorded it. Had Mr. Rusterholz been to the site in late April through early May, he would have had the opportunity to inventory other flora such as the woodland flowers known as the "Spring ephemerals." These plants will grow their flower before the forest canopy reaches full-leaf conditions. If Mr. -3- ! ! i e,, II1, ,! I Rusterholz was able to inventory the site in the early Fall, he would have been able to inventory late flowering plants along with the glorious array of mushrooms seen during this season. In other words, a "quick assessment" is just a snap- shot of a complex forest ecosystem, a wholly inadequate safeguard against the destruction of sensitive or rare natural resources. It is important to add that Hennepin County has never been surveye~ by the DNR County Biological Survey. Furthermore, the Natural Heritage Information System should not be the only source of data pertaining the flora and fauna. EAW Guidelines (p. 13) states, ,'Ecologically sensitive resources not in the DNR database should also be identified and described in the EAW." (Emphasis added.) In other words a professional on-site survey should be undertaken. Again, without a formal on-site survey, the answer to question ll(b) is inaccurate and incomplete. (continued) Describe measures to be taken to avoid adverse impacts. The EAW fails to specify what impacts even exist because an formal on-site survey has not been undertaken. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration ... of any surface water? ... The 40 proposed docks may be in a location that would require dredging. The EAW should state whether dredging would be necessary and, if so, state the volume of dredged material and the area affected. EAW Guideline~ (p. 13) states, ,,Hydrologic modifications include all actions which alter the existing water regime." (Emphasis added.) Added runoff from development will increase sedimentation and deposition of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc. into the lake. The EAW fails to quantify the amount of water degradation. Obviously, further study is necessary. 12. (continued) ... identify proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides should be -4- prohibited within at least a 50 foot buffer zone from the bluff. This prohibition can be included in a Conservation Easement in favor of the City and included in the Covenants of the Homeowners' Association. 14. ... Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district ...? If so, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. The EAW answers that the proposed project is "generally compatible with the Shoreland Management Ordinance." More specificity is necessary to adequately answer the question, including aspects that are not compatible with the proposed ordinance. 15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? If yes, indicate the district and discuss the compatible of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. The EAW answers this question by stating, "... [it is] unlikely that it will create localized or lake-wide overcrowding or boat conflicts." There is no factual foundation contained in the EAW to support this conclusion. EAW Guidelines, (p. 15) require "an estimate of the current and projected watercraft use, including the number of acres of water surface per watercraft. In assessing impacts on fish and wildlife resources, consider the presence of colonial waterbird nesting colonies; nests of bald eagles, osprey, or loons; important waterfowl feeding or brooding areas; and other resources sensitive to disturbance." The EAW contains only the conclusion that the project "... could have impacts ... on wildlife habitat." No information is supplied regarding the presence of or the impact upon any avian fauna. 17. Erosion and Sedimentation .... Describe any steep slopes ... and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. The EAW states, "The erosion control plan conforms to City and Watershed District Standards." This is not true because the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District granted a permit, conditioned upon the completion of the EAW process. One of the goals of the EAW process is to inform permit authorities of potential environmental impacts. When these -5- impacts are identified, the permit authority may either modify the permit to add conditions or deny the permit. Until the EAW process is~completed, it is premature to conclude that the standards hav~ being satisfied. 18. Water Quality - surface water Runoff. ae Compare the quantity and quality of the site runoff before and after the project. Describe the methods used to manage and treat the runoff. The EAW Guidelines (p. 15) state that even with minor pollutant additions, there should be a qualitative description of the "... extent of the increase ..." and "... a general identification of the types of pollutants involved." be The EAW gives no explanation of the impact of the project on the quality of water runoff from the project, except for sediment and ,,floatables." No mention is made of the impact of lawn fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on the wetland, even though EAW Guidelines (page 15) requires that these impacts be described. ... Estimate the impact of runoff on the quality of receiving waters. EAW Guidelines (page 16) states, "It is now the policy of the EQB staff that where stormwater discharges may degrade certain high value/high priority lakes, a numerical nutrient budget analysis should be performed to adequately characterize the extent of the potential impact. The lakes for which this analysis is considered necessary are identified in the appendix, part E." It is important to note that Lake Minnetonka is included in the appendix as a "priority lake" for which this nutrient budget analysis is required. Unfortunately, such a nutrient budget analysis has not yet been undertaken for this project, even when additional pollutants may be discharged into the lake from lawn fertilizers and chemicals. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: de scenic views and vistas? If :.: yes . describe any measures to be taken to minimize ;~ avoid adverse impacts. -6- The EAW's answer to this question lacks credibility. On page 13, the EAW states, "Views from Lake Minnetonka will be preserved by ... preservation of a large portion of existing natural vegetation." However, page 7 of the EAW states, "... vegetation in the bluff area will remain intact." These answers are contradictory! 27. Will the project create a4verse visual impacts? (Examples include glare from intense lights ...) Incredibly, the EAW states no! Without conservation easements, the property owners could install floodlights on their houses or marina area and the City of Mound could install street lights, all of which can have an adverse effect on boaters and property owners across the lake. As to daytime visual impacts, the shoreland management ordinance would have no effect on the property owner's right to cut vegetation to gain a view of the lake. This would have an adverse impact upon boaters and other lakeshore owners. Again, only a conservation easements could prevent this from happening. (In addition, see comment to 26 d. above.) 28. Compatibility with plans. Contrary to the conclusion of the EAW, the Pelican Point development is not compatible with the Park and Recreation Section of Mound's Comprehensive Plan, which states in part, "Natural park-like areas" are the number 1 priority for recreational facilities (p.$2); "... more natural open space areas are needed" (p.83); and "Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature areas and open space" (p.85). Therefore, the City of Mound should acquire Pelican Point to preserve as a nature area. 30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? Although the EAW states no, it has been stated that the island will be preserved in a natural state. (See LMCD Water Structures Committee, July 9, 1994, page 2.) To prevent the possibility of development of the island, a Conservation Easement should be conveyed -7- 111, ! I ! I II1, !1, ,I, to the City of Mound and a provision included in the Declaration of Covenants. 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to Z8, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. The issue of community density has not been addressed at all in this EAW. The current density of Mound is 5.1 people/acre. Of the 45 cities in Hennepin County, only 11 cities are more dense than Mound. Mound is almost two times more dense than the average density of Hennepin County cities (2.9 people/acre.) Of the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities, Mound is #3 with only Spring Park (6.8) and Excelsior (5.9) being more dense. Compared to other counties, Mound looks even worse. Of the 17 cities in Anoka County, only 3 cities are more dense than Mound (Columbia Heights, Hilltop, and Spring Lake Park.) Of the 12 cities in Carver County, Mound is more dense than any of them (City of Hamburg is the closest with 4.2). Of the 23 cities in Dakota County, only 2 cities are more dense (South St. Paul and West St. Paul). Of the 18 cities in Ramsey County, only 5 cities are more dense than Mound (Lauderdale, New Brighton, North St. Paul, St. Anthony, and St. Paul). Mound is about 2 times more dense than any of the 7 cities in Scott County (New Prague is the most dense with 2.6 people per acre). Of the 24 cities in Washington County, only 3 cities are more dense than Mound (Landfall City, White Bear Lake, and Willernie). (See enclosed statistics prepared by the Metropolitan Council, 5/06/94.) Certainly, the impacts of density have cumulative effects on traffic, safety, loss of habitat and open space, and the physical and psychological well-being of our community, to name a few aspects. These effects should be documented in the EAW. In other words, our community has wholly failed to answer the question, How dense should Mound be? 32. S-mmary of Issues: As I have elaborated above, the EAW is inaccurate and incomplete. Without legally enforceable Conservation Easements, the projected environmental impacts of the project are only speculative. To insure the accuracy of the EAW, the city Attorney should be directed to draft a Conservation -8- Easement (incorporating the provisions outlined above) to be recorded as a condition of final plat approval. A professional on-site survey of the flora and fauna should be undertaken to describe the natural resources that could be affected by the project. CONCLUSIONS Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4410.1700 subpart 2a, the City of Mound should postpone the decision in this matter to allow time to obtain the pertinent information outlined above. After this information is gathered and the EAW is completed in its final form, the City of Mound should allow additional time for the public to comment on the need for further project modifications and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the event that additional information cannot be obtained within the legal time limit, the City of Mound should order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and "... include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information." (See Minn. Rule 4410.1700 Subp. 2a. A.) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS REQUIRED Notwithstanding the forgoing comments, the law requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota Rule 4410.4400 Subp. 14 B. requires an Environmental Impact Statement for 40 or more unattached units if the LGU "... has not adopted approved water-related ordinances ..." (Emphasis added.) This rule "... only applies to shoreland areas ... if the (LGU) has received official notice from the (DNR) that it must adopt applicable (shoreland management ordinances) within a specific time period." The City of Mound has not yet adopted a shoreland ordinance approved by the DNR. Furthermore, the DNR has given notice to the City of Mound that the city must approve of the shoreland management ordinance "within a specific time period" of February 5, 1992. Several extensions have been granted since that time, the last one being May, 1994. Regardless whether any extensions have been granted, the Rule mandates an EIS if a specific time period has been given for adoption of the ordinance. Whether the time period has expired or has been extended into the future is irrelevant. -9- Therefore, I request that the City of Mound immediately agree that an EIS is indeed mandatory for the Pelican Point development project and commence with the scoping process pursuant to Rule 4410.2100 at the earliest possible date. Please advise me of Mound's decision in this regard at your earliest convenience. Finally, I would appreciate the courtesy of including the entire text of my comments in the City Council packet for their review. Thank you. Respe~fully submitted, Thomas E. Cas~ey~ 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 472-1099 TEC:rf cc:file Enclosures P.S. - Please send me a copy of any other comments to the EAW at your earliest convenience. Thank you! -10- :~ '"C "? '"~m 0 C: 0 0 0 C O- n ~ < z m 0 0 J, ,~ · J 'J it, ,J ,& n ............... 0 n '~ 0 0 '5%t7 o itu, I ts i l, Iii, i, 0 c~ ,0 ~ .~ .~ ? .° ? .~ .° .° .° .~ .° .o ? .o .o .~ ? .o .o .o ? o o o o ~ o o o ~ o o o 0 J, J J J J, ii, ,i, I~ Environmental ment Worksheet (EA NOTE TO PREPARERS This work.sheet is to be completed by the Responsible C, overnmental Unit ~GU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worlcsheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance Nth this work.sheet contact the Mirmesota Environmental Quality Board ~QB) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQ~ environmental review pro,'am) or con.suit "EAW Guidelines," a booklet available fiorn the EQB. NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the ECU (see item 3) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the irfformation, potential Impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an ElS. If the F_AW has been prepared for the scopin$ of an ElS (see Item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the Information and suggest issues for investigation in the ElS. 1. ProlectTl~. Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development 2. Pmpo~r Boyer Building Corporation 3. RGU City of Mound, Minnesota Conwctperson $ohn Blumentritt Contact permn Hark Koegler Address [8253A Minnetonka Blvd. and ~de City Rlanner Wayzata, MN 5339[ Address 5341Maywood Road Phone (612) 475-2097 Mound, MN 55364 Phone (612) 472-0600 4. Reason for EAW Prepara~n I-I ElS scoping I~ mandatory EAW O citizen petition r'l RGU discretion If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 44].0-4300 5. Project Loca~n N ~4~t4- S ~4~t4-Section 19 Township 117N Range County Hennepin City/'rss? I-I Proposer volunteered SUBP. 25 23W Mound a. a county map showins the general location of the project; Figure 1, Pages 15-17 b. copy(les) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1'.24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries;Figure 2, Page 18 ¢. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. Figures 3-9, Pages 19-25 Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. See Page 7 Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in E._QB Monitor notice: See Page 8 %'2. t e PmJ.ct I~a~nltude Data 13.7 Na inland Total Project Area(acres) 0.7 Water, 0.8 Island Number of Residential Units Unattached 0 Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (g'mss floor Total 0 square feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office Retail Warehouse Light Industrial Other Commerdal (specify) Building Height(s) 25 ~ or Length (miles) Attached /40 space) Manufacturing Other Industrial Institutional Agricultural 8, Permits and Approvals Requlr~ List all known local, state, and ~[eral permits, approvals, and funding required: Unit of Government Type of Application Status See Page 8 Land Uu Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential envin:)nmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. See Page 9 10. Cover Typu Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): Be/ore After Before After Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 0 0 Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 1 Wooded/Forest ~ ' 7.5 Landscaping Brush/Grassland 3_ ~ 1 _ 1 Impervious Surface 0 Cropland 0 0 Other (describe) f'l 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resoru-ces on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. See Page 9 be Are there a. ny state-listed endangered, threatened, or special-concern species; rare plant commurdties; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? 1-1 Yes lK"l No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate ff a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. J, J · J I, ii, ,~, a, 12. Physlcal lmpact~ on Water Resourcel Will the project involve the physic,ti or hydrologic alteration (dredging, ffili, ng, ~tream diversion, outfall structure, dikLn~, irnlvoundmenO of nny surface water Oa. ke, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? ~] 'Yes [] No If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volurne~ of dredged or fill material; area affected; leng~,h of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. See Page 10 13. Water Use a. wiu the project involve the installation or abandorunent of any wells? CI Yes [~ No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (ff known). The previous residence gathered potable water directly from Lake Hinnetonka. SEE PAGE 10 b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? IXI Yes CI No If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purl~se of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels. See Page 10 Will the project require connection to a public water supply? K1 Ye~ [] No If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. See Page 10 14. Water.relatl~l Land Usa Management Olstrlctl Does any part of the project site involve a shoreh, nd zoning dJs~ct, a delLneated 100-year flood pla~n, or a state or ~deraJ]y desibmated wild or scenic riv~ land use district? [] Ye~ I'1 No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restricfons of the district. See Page 10 15. Water Surface Usa Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ][] Yes 0 No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potenthl overcrowding or conflicts w~th other users or fish and wildlife resources. See Page,l~' II 16. Soils Approximate depth (irt feet) to: Ground water: minimum ~ 'averageunknowo Bedrock: minimumover 16 ' average unknown Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need no_.__[ be attached.) See Page 11 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 3 ; cubic yardsl0 ~000 ,. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. · Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. See Page 11 18. Water Ou.llty. Surf~e,e Water Runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality otr site runoff betrore and after the project. treat rurtoE. See Page Describe methods to be used to manage and/or b. Identify the mute(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a ~ consult ~EA W Cuiddints" about whether a nutrL, nt budget analysis is he,Id.) See Page 12 19. Water Ouall~ · Wast~wat~ra. a. Describe sources, quantities, and composittozt (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. Pelican Point development will generate normal domestic sewage. The estimated average flow is 14,954 gallons per day. b. Describe any waste treaLment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treabnent, or If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (Including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the cl-~lity of the receiving waters. (I/the discharg~ may affect a Id~ consult "EA W Culddin~s' about whether a nutrL, nt budget analysis is nt~l~.) N/A C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. See Page 12 20. Ground Wamr--Po~nUa~ for Contamination a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: over 16~hinimum;unknown average. b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also idenfff7 them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. No known hazards are present. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. Common residential materials will likely be used and disposal of such materials are subject to applicable guidelines and laws. 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Waste; Storage Tanl~ a. Describe the ty~es, amounts, ~ compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate If there will be a source separation plan; llst type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. See Page 12 Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground ta~ks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). NONe Tratflc Parking spaces added 160 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) N/A Estimated total Aver~a~e Daily Traffic (ADO senerated' 2/40 ' ' Esth'nated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: .. P. ~4.. For each affected road Wdicate the AErr and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary. 67% inbound (14.7 trips), 33% outbound (7.3 trips) There will be no appreciable impact on traffic congestion. 23. Vehlcl~elated air emlsslon~ Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the project involves 500 or mor~ parking spaces, consult "EA W Guidelines" about whethtr a detailed air quality analysis is ~_~d~.) The project will not cause any significant decrease in air quality. 24. Stattona~ source alt emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? ['q Yes R'I No If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? ICl Yes [] No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vidnity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. See Page 13 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architedural resources? Itl Yes [] No b. prime or unique farmlands? I-! Yes ~ No ¢. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? [] Yes IXl No d. scenic views and vistas? ~] Yes [-I No e. other unique resources? CI Yes iXI No If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. ~be any measures to be tak,en to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. See Page 27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Exarr~les include: glare from int~ns~ lights; lights ~isible, in wild~rnzss areas; and larg~ rds~lz plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) [] Yes [~ No If yes, explain. OompattbiliV/with plans Is the project s~bject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use. water, or nesour~ management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal agency? [] Yes [] No If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) wQl be resolved. If no, explain. See Page 13 29. Impact on In/rasb'ucture and Public S~rvlc~s Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other ln&astructure, or public services be required to serve the project? I~ Ye~ r'l No If ),es, describe the new or additional Infrastructure/services needed. (Any in/rastructure that is a "connect~l actionu with respect to the projed must be ass~ss~l in this EA W; s~ 'EA W Guidelin~s' /or details.) See Page :~' I~ 30. Related 0evel0pments; Cumulative Impacts a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? C] Yes J0 No If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? I-I Yes rR No If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review. C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlets? r"l Yes [] No If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project. d. If a,b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. 31. O~er Potenl~al Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items I to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None 32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES (This sect/on need not be completed i~ the EA W is b~'ng done/or EI$ sco~'ng; instead, address tek'rant issues in th, draft $col~ing D~ision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any' alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered ~or these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. See Page la CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (all 3 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of tho EAW for publication of notice in tho EOB-Monitor) A. I hereby c '~'~//t~/e [nfoh~rnation contained in'~ts,,document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature ,///_ B. [ hereby certi~ha~he project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other~rojects, project sta~ges, or project cotr~q.ent~, ot]~r ]~a.n those described in ~s document, which are related to the project as connected actions or "phased act~,' as d/~fin, c~ respectively, at Minn. R't~, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subv. 60. C. I hereby ce~t coj~/~ o~q/~e completed~AW a-~h~in8 sent to all points on the official ERS EAW distribution list. Signature/,,~,_~ QUESTION SUPPLEM~ENT Pelican Point is located in Mound, Minnesota on an easterly facing shore of Lake Minnetonka. Access to the site is from Tuxedo Boulevard, a short distance south of County Highway 125. The property consists of two land areas separated by water. The mainland portion of the site consists of 13.7 acres of heavily wooded and rolling land with a pronounced bluff area close to the shoreline. The second land area is a 0.8 acre island a short distance off of shore on Lake Minnetonka. The mainland has 1387 lineal feet of lake shore. The island has 1471 feet of lake shore. The property falls within Mound's Shoreland Management District. The site is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-l) with a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. The land use proposal described in this document is consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan which identifies low density residential as the preferred land use. Twinhomes are an acceptable land use in the R-I Zoning District through the creation of a Planned Development Area. The development proposal calls for constructing 20 twin home buildings (40 units), one water accessory building and a 40 stall boat mooring structure. The developer is proposing the creation of a Planned Development Area (PDA) to allow more flexibility in the development pattern. The creation of a PDA can have beneficial impacts on tree loss, grading and other environmental factors. All development is proposed to occur on and attached to the mainland. The island will remain undisturbed. A single loop street called Pelican Point Circle will wind through the site and access Tuxedo Boulevard at a single location. The water oriented accessory building will be located a minimum of 50 feet from shore in the beach area of the site and have storage facilities for each housing unit. The boat mooring facility is proposed to be a single structure connected to the mainland with a pier. The developer is proposing a trail to connect the mooring structure with the housing units. The trail does not pass through any designated bluff areas. The proposal calls for 30% hard cover including buildings, streets, driveways, etc. The remainder will be reserved for stormwater ponding and open space. The north, west and south sides of the development will be buffered from the adjoining multi-family and single family residential neighborhood by retention of the existing vegetation (overstory trees and underbrush). In addition, the homes will be placed to generally maintain a 30 foot setback (with some variance exceptions) from the bluff line facing Lake Minnetonka. It is proposed that the vegetation in the bluff area remain intact. Site clearing will be limited to selective removal of existing trees only to accommodate construction of the homes and road. Preliminary computations indicate that 25-30% of the internal overstory trees will be lost due to construction. To counteract the loss of trees, many existing young understory trees which would otherwise be removed will be relocated within the development. The on-site stormwater management plan proposes capturing the majority of the site drainage into an on-site stormwater NURP pond which will provide for water quality and rate control. It is proposed that the pond discharge into Lake Minnetonka through an existing drainage channel which will be stabilized and modified to control erosion and dissipate the energy of water flow before in reaches the lake. The grading plan indicates that the majority of grading needed on the site will be done to accommodate the stormwater pond and loop street. Buildings will be placed in order to minimize their impacts on existing grades. Preliminary computations indicate there will be 10,000 cubic yards of common excavation. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development 7 The development is projected to have a late 1994 construction start with an approximate three year completion time. The developer is proposing to construct the NURP pond and implement erosion control measures prior to other activities. Street construction will then be undertaken to provide access and fire protection prior to housing construction. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in the EOB Monitor notice: Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential Development is a proposed 40 unit twinhome development on a 13.7 acre site with significant features including dense mature trees, bluffs and frontage on Lake Minnetonka. The project includes an off-shore, 40 slip boat mooring structure and a water oriented accessory building on the beach. Unit of Government: .Type of Permit / Approval: Status: Federal: Army Corps of Eng. Nationwide Permit To be filed State: Minnesota PeA Sanitary Sewer Extensions Stormwater Discharge To be filed To be filed MN Dept. of Health Water Main Extension Dewatering for Utilities To be fred To be filed (if needed) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Boat Dockage Water Appropriation Permit To be fried Pending Municipal: City of Mound Watershed: Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. Septic Field Removal Rezoning to PDA Site Plan Permit Planned Development Area/ Conditional Use permit Developer's Agreement Plan Review of Construction Plan and Specifications Preliminary and Final Plat Construction of R.O.W. Building Permit Stormwater Management Permit To be filed Pending Pending Pending To be fried Pending To be fried To be filed Applied for (,pending) Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Boat Dockage To be filed Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development 8 J J J J I, ii, ,", & Information obtained from personal interviews and a review of historical aerial photos confirm that past development on the site included a single family residence since at least 1937. Records from the City of Mound indicate that the house was burned by the fire department in 1978. Aerial photos indicate that the main residence was in the central portion of the site at the end of a long, tree-lined driveway. A guest house was located north of the main house. A walkway, gazebo and stairway led from the main house to the shore where a boat dock was generally present from 1960 to the early 1970's. Past land use on the site included one single family residence and I to 3 accessory buildings. The last remaining structure on the site was demolished in 1981. The collapsed structure still exists and will be removed when the property is developed. Based upon available information, this site was always single family residential and there is no knowledge of any adverse environmental effects on the property due to past land uses. A phase I environmental audit is attached as Exhibit A. Adjacent to the property is an existing condominium complex to the north, twin homes to the west and single family homes to the south. The preservation of vegetation around the perimeter of the property and a great deal of interior trees will provide a significant buffer for the surrounding residential properties. The project poses no adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding properties. ll.a. The mainland site is currently inhabited by common animal species such as White Tail Deer, raccoon, squirrel and rabbit. The existing wildlife habitat will be impacted by site development and there will be displacement of plant and animal species. It is anticipated that after construction is complete and the site re-stabilizes, a somewhat different habitat and wildlife mix will repopulate. The Natural Heritage Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has conducted an on-site inspection and finds the site to have low significance as a natural area and believes it unlikely that the site contains rare plant species. See Exhibit C. The shoreline of the site contains aquatic vegetation which is likely used by fish for spawning. The proposed 40 slip boat mooring structure will be roughly 60 feet away from shore. The only place where the mooring structure will directly contact shore is where the single pier meets land. Increased boat traffic from the mooring facility could have negative impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat by re-suspending bottom sediment, eroding the shoreline, increasing nutrient levels and reducing sunlight infiltration. The mooring structure could have negative impacts by disrupting the lake bottom with support pilings and through the use of wood preservatives harmful to aquatic life. Erosion control measures (silt fence, diversionary diking) as noted on Figure 6, will be installed to control the amount of undesirable silty material and other suspended solids from Lake Minnetonka. Once the site is developed, the on-site stormwater system (which includes construction of a skimmer/sedimentation basin) is designed to insure water quality of the on-site stormwater before it discharges into Lake Minnetonka. It is anticipated that, due to the sedimentation basin, runoff water quality will be improved with completion of the proposed development. All grading/erosion control plans will be approved by the City and Watershed District prior to beginning grading operations. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development 12. There is an existing drainage ditch on and adjacent to the site which channels much of the site runoff into Lake Minnetonka. As part of the project, a sedimentation pond will be constructed in an upland portion of the site. The pond will have an outflow structure and skimmer device to control the flow and quality of runoff. Runoff quantities after development will not exceed current levels. The drainage ditch will be modified and stabilized to control erosion and dissipate the energy of water flow before in reaches the lake. Minor grading of the ditch will be needed to accommodate the installation of a stormwater pipe connection from the pond. All grading operations will utilize erosion control measures as shown on Figure 6 and all disturbed areas will be revegetated at the conclusion of the grading process. 13.a. No public documents indicate there are wells on the site nor were any found through the environmental audit of the site but there is still a possibility that one exists. A search for wells on the site will continue and if one is found it will be properly abandoned according to Minnesota state law. 13.b. Dewatering may be needed in order to construct the sanitary sewer and watermain. It is not anticipated that a well point will be needed because of the variability of the ground water depth. A low volume trench pump capable of pumping 800 gallons per minute should have enough capacity. The dewatering permit will be obtained prior to beginning any utility construction. The water will be discharged into the sedimentation basin to be treated prior to entering Lake Minnetonka. The low amount of dewatering needed is expected to have a negligible effect on ground water levels. 13.c. The City of Mound's municipal water system will serve the development. It is estimated that the project will use 14,954 gallons of water per day. The DNR water appropriation permit number is at this time unknown. The source of water is seven municipal wells that access the Prairie Du Chien/Jordan Aquifer. The unique well number of the seven municipal wells are: a. 206993 b. 206928 c. 206994 d. 208866 e. 232167 L 112215 g. 240756 14. Pelican Point is within the City of Mound's Shoreland Management District (Mound City Code Section 350.1200). Mound's Shoreland Management Ordinance is currently pending approval by the Minnesota DNR. Approval of Mound's ordinance by the DNR will occur prior to approval of the final plat. The proposed project is generally compatible with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development 10 J J J i ,J, ii, ,"', ,"- 15. The project is proposed to have 40 boat slips adjacent to the site on Lake Minnetonka. There are currently no boat slips associated with the site. The total area consumed by the boat mooring facility will be approximately 0.7 acres of water surface including boat maneuvering space. Lake Minnetonka is a vast lake with a great deal of recreational boat use. The Pelican Point project will increase boat usage on this segment of the lake but due to the residential nature, it is unlikely that it will create localized or lake-wide overcrowding or boat conflicts. As mentioned in question 11, increased boat traffic from the mooring facility could have negative impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat. The mooring structure itself could have negative impacts by disrupting the lake bottom with pilings and through the use of wood preservatives harmful to aquatic life. 16. The majority of the site consists of Erin Loam (EnB, EnC& EnE) with slopes ranging from 2 to 24 percent. This gently undulating soil occupies forested areas on hillsides and knolls. Slopes are 75 to 125 feet long. In many places the slope is in several directions. The soils are generally dark colored in the surface layer with clay loam subsoils. Most areas are underlain by calcareous loamy till. Drainage ranges from poor to very poor. The primary management concern related to residential development is control of erosion. These soils erode rapidly if not protected, and machinery is hard to operate on the steep slopes. This soil is suited to uses that keep it covered with plants. The soils along the lake are Sandy Lake Beaches (Lc) and Fill Land (Fd). Lc soils consists of poorly drained, gravelly and sandy materials around the shoreline of lakes and sloughs. The soil was deposited through wave action. The native vegetation consists of reeds, sedges, and willows. Fd soil is a miscellaneous land type that consists of soil material that has been used to fill depressions. This land type is usually loamy but sometimes clayey. The underlying material is mainly very poorly drained. Soils along Tuxedo Boulevard are Cut and Fill land (Cu). This miscellaneous land type consists of mixed soils which are disturbed for construction. Soil borings were completed on the property to a depth of 16 feet in October, 1977. No groundwater was found and no bedrock was discovered in the borings. Boring logs are not included in this document but are available upon request. See Figure 9 for Hennepin County Soil Survey. 17. There are steep slopes with highly erodible soils existing on the site. The proposed preliminary plat identifies areas with greater than 30% slope designated by the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance (Mound City Code, section 350:1225) as bluff areas. The vegetation in bluff areas will remain undisturbed by ordinance. In steep slope areas (12 to 30%), the developer proposes to plant a native grass understory and leave it in a natural growth fashion to discourage erosion. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development 11 Erosion and stormwater runoff will be controlled during construction by silt fences, earth diversion dikes and sediment ponds. Areas disturbed during construction will be seeded, sodded or paved during the restoration phase of construction. The erosion control plan conforms to City and Watershed District Standards. See Figure 5 for sedimentation and erosion control details. 18.a. A hydraulic analysis of the surface and stormwater runoff for the proposed site and surrounding area has been completed. The "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota" published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service was used as a reference material for the analysis. Stormwater runoff calculations are based on a 100 year-24 hour rainfall event. The present site runoff for the 100 year storm event is approximately 1.63 acre feet. After completion of the proposed development, the site runoff will increase to approximately 2.22 acre-feet. Existing runoff calculations include a limited amount of stormwater runoff which enters the site from a stormsewer line in Tuxedo Boulevard. After development, Tuxedo Boulevard runoff will flow to the proposed detention basin. To lessen the impact of site runoff, a sedimentation/detention basin built to NURP standards will be constructed at the north central portion of the site. A flow control device at the pond will limit the rate of flow into the drainage channel which in turn discharges into Lake Minnetonka to a maximum discharge of 5 cubic feet per second. This discharge rate conforms to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards. The detention basin will also act as a sediment control basin and skimmer. The proposed detention basin has been designed and sized to accommodate the additional site runoff created by the proposed development. As the stormwater passes through the sedimentation basin the sediments will filter out of the water and the skimming device will prevent floatables from moving downstream. 18.b. There will be two general routes of stormwater runoff from this development to Lake Minnetonka. 1) Overland flow of surface runoff from roofs and green areas which slope naturally toward the lake. 2) An engineered system for all other runoff which includes the following elements: green space and hard surface runoff flows to curb and gutter/storm sewer; storm sewer flows to sedimentation basin; sedimentation basin flows into drainage channel; channel flows to Lake Minnetonka. The nutrient concentration levels which reach the lake in runoff are expected to decrease as a result of the NURP standard detention basin. A nutrient budget is not needed for this project. 19.c. All wastewater and sewage anticipated to be generated from this development are scheduled to be added to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment System through a proposed 8" sanitary sewer connection to the existing pipe located in the Tuxedo Road right-of-way. The public system has adequate capacity to handle increases due to the development. 21.a. The construction and use of the project will generate mixed municipal solid waste. Demolition waste and construction debris will be properly disposed of in a demolition and debris landfill. Use of the site will generate grass clippings and other gardening/tuff maintenance wastes which may be amenable to composting. The balance of the waste profile is expected to be largely made up of paper, ]Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development corrugated cardboard, and plastics with some glass and metals. Source separation will occur on an individual lot basis and will meet and/or exceed the City and UBC standard requirements. It is assured that maximum recycling alternatives will be employed by the waste hauler which services this development. It is anticipated that only a fraction of the solid waste generated by this development will be land filled. Sewage from the project will flow into the Metropolitan sewage treatment system. 25. During construction, airborne fugitive dust will temporarily increase. All available mitigation measures will be employed to reduce the dust emissions from the construction activities. The mitigating measures will include selective grading and staged construction, timely job site clean-up, haul road maintenance, watering of soils undergoing grading or earth moving operations during periods of high winds (determination to be made on-site by general contractor). To minimize construction noise, equipment will be properly exhausted and construction activities will be subject to the City's construction timing limitations for hours of operation and noise ordinances. No additional measures are being proposed to minimize construction noise because the project is not expected to produce unusual amounts of noise. The predicted noise level is expected to be less than the state construction noise maximum standard of 65 dBA. 26.a. Archaeological Research Services, an independent consulting firm has conducted a cultural resource investigation of the property. A small habitation site has been identified but due to extensive disturbance, ARS does not believe the site warrants further investigation. Near the shoreline, a mound-like feature has been identified as a potential Native American burial site. The developer has indicated that the location of the pier and trail shown on the plan will be moved to the south to insure that the mound is not disturbed. The Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance requires that any disturbance be a minimum 50 feet from an unplatted cemetery. The State Historical Society is in the process of reviewing the archeological study. Their formal response will be incorporated into this EAW as Exhibit B if it is submitted prior to final publishing. 26.d. Scenic views and vistas from the site to Lake Minnetonka will be preserved through careful placement of the residential buildings and internal public road. Views from Lake Minnetonka to the site will be preserved by maintaining building setbacks from the bluff line and preservation of a large portion of existing natural vegetation. 28. The proposed low density residential land use conforms to the City of Mound's Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan designation. The property also lies within the Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Management District. The development must also conform with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's plans for stormwater management. This has been accomplished through the proposed design of the stormwater system with the detention/sedimentation basing which also conforms to NURP standards and properly treats the stormwater runoff before it is discharged into the existing on-site wetland. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development 13 3'333 29. The development will require on-site public utility improvements. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be 8" PVC and the watermain is proposed to be 8" D.I.P. Natural gas, electric, phone and cable services will be provided by the appropriate local utility companies. 32. Potential environmental impacts of Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development are: · shoreline degradation on Lake Minnetonka; · disturbance and/or destruction of aquatic vegetation and wildlife habitat; · stormwater runoff impacts; · disturbance and destruction of upland vegetation and wildlife habitat; · erosion. This report identifies several techniques the developer is proposing as well as regulations placed by governmental agencies which reduce or eliminate many of the potential impacts associated with the development. The strongest potential for impact to the environment may be the effects of boat traffic close to the Pelican Point shoreline. Even though lake-wide boat traffic will increase very little due to the development, there will be more disturbance to the shoreline which is currently relatively undisturbed. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Pelican 'Point Multi-family Residential Development 14 J ! J ! ,J, II1, ,,J, ~, i .) , -~SITE LOOATION ~AP : (6~2) g33-~72 ~ASSOC~T~S LTO~ fox: (612) 933-1t53 , 0 ,! Poi SCALE 1:24000 . o ' U.S.G.S. MAP MOUND QUADRANGLE MINNETONK,~ FIGURE 2 6/6/94 ~':~ 5 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 - 22 / Z FIC~IRE 8 ~~'~-'.~ :~,,~.~ .',:~:,~,~ ~ _ _. -. ~~ '..~=-.... ..........~. '-C~. · '~,' , ~k~~ - .. ~ ~.. ~ , ..~ , . . .., t_::.,~ ~ ,:' . ~ .~ .~, ,., ..~.... · n ~ - ,;5~.-. ~... . . .~..~ ~ ~ :---~,~,:,-, HENNEPINCO~Y FIGURE 9 ~ ~ ~ -o~..,,. ~. CONS~VA~ON ~ ~ ~ ~:,~ SOIL SURVEY ~ ~q ~ : :~::: ~::_~:: 6/6/94 EXHIBIT A PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Prepared For: PELICAN POINT ADDITION 2820 Tuxedo Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Prepared By: ENSR Cons:~lting and Engineering .4500 Park Glen Road Suite 210 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (612) 924-0117 FAX: (612) 924-0317 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 922 Main Street Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 (612) 933-0972 FAX: (612) 933-1153 June22,1994 CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................ 1-1 2.0 PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY ...................... 2-1 3.0 HISTORICAL REVIE'VV ............................. 3-1 4.0 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ......................... 4-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS, OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 6-1 6.1 Conclusions ............................... 6-1 6.2 Observations .............................. 6-1 6.3 Recommendations ............................ 6-1 6.4 Limitations ............................... 6-1 7.0 APPENDICES ................................. 7-1 I Information Sources ........................... 7-1 II Location Map .............................. 7-1 III Site Map ................................ 7-1 IV Title History ............................... 7-1 V MPCA File Review ............................ 7-1 VI Site Photographs ............................. 7-1 VIII Aerial Photographs ............................ 7-1 s4'7 ! 1 I I ] On June 2, 1994, ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR) conducted a Phase I environmen site assessment of the proposed Pelican Point Addition located at 2820 Tuxedo Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota. This assessment was conducted at the request of the property owners and RLK Associates, Ltd. (RLK) the site engineer for a proposed redevelopment project. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The information presented in this report is based on available literature and information from various agencies and personnel. The conclusions presented herein are the result of our professional interpretation of information from others and readily available information. Therefore, if new information is disclosed or an alteration of informal verbal information occurs, it could result in a redirection of the conclusions presented in this report. The soils and/or ground water within this property have not been chemically analyzed and their quality has not been evaluated. Neither ENSR nor RLK "certify" or guarantee that any property is free of environmental impairment. The subject property consists of approximately 13 acres of land plus a small island (% acre) located on Island Park along the western shore of Spring Park Bay on Lake Minnetonka. T' historic use of property, adjacent properties, and most of the land on Island Park and aroul,_ Lake Minnetonka, has been primarily for recreational and residential purposes. The subject property was a single, residential property since prior to 1937. In August 1978, the buildings on the site were demolished. The site is currently vacant and the native vegetation is generally overgrown. As a relatively large undeveloped property in an area that generally has a high density of development along the shoreline, the subject property appears to be utilized frequently by fishermen, walkers, bicycle riders, or other trespassers. No fences, signs, or other controls were observed at the site perimeter. Specific findings of this assessment include: · A single 20- to 30-gallon drum along the shoreline that appears to be approximately half full of rainwater (most of the top is open) and debris Piping and electrical conduit at the shoreline adjacent to the former residence suggest the water supply was derived from Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, no water wells are expected to be present on the site (none are recorded with the Minnesota Geological Survey) S731.011/RI.K 1 - 1 .~. 1994194~135w~ The energy source for home heating was undetermined, and the vegetation prevented a thorough search for signs of an underground storage tank for fuel oil. If a tank was used, it is not known if it was removed since the house was demolished Relatively minor accumulations of trash are present at the site, primarily old furniture, wood, screens, etc. are present near an open concrete cellar in the central portion of the site. Demolition rubble and most of the old roof is present at the location of the former guest house ih the northeast corner of the property No on-site indications of actual pollution or environmental impairment were observed or reported during this assessment. No significant off-site problems that could affect the subject property were discovered -'; 5731.011//:~LK I I 1 I I I I 2.0 PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Phase I environmental site assessments for real estate transactions are conducted to evaluate if a property may present an existing or future liability for the various parties involved in the real estate transaction. These liabilities are in the form of past, present, or potential future environmental contamination to the lands or buildings on-site. Assessments are designed to identify areas of potential hazardous substances released to air, soil, surface water, or ground water. These areas include, but are not limited to: the presence of underground storage tanks, potential polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) containing electrical equipment, or improper storage and handling of ha'zardous materials, asbestos-containing materials, and off-site as well as on-site contamination sources. The methodology for this Phase I assessment was four-fold and conducted according to standard industry guidelines. The first step involved a thorough historical review of the subject site. This included a review of information to assess prior use and ownership and/or leasing of the site. The second portion of the Phase I was a review of properties surrounding the site. Special attention was paid to such items as nearby gasoline station: and other facilities with underground storage tanks, landfills, hazardous waste generators, etc. Files from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency were reviewed to locate any current or potential environmental remediation sites in the immediate area. Third, information Pertaining to any current activities on the site was evaluated. This included interviews with property management personnel and other personnel from a variety of sources, Finally, a site inspection was conducted. This inspection was designed to visually identify sources of contamination emanating form the site and signs of contamination migrating onto the site from surrounding properties. All known potential contamination sources were noted. The site inspection was limited to visual inspection only. Conclusions and recommendations are based on this approach and on the information gathered. A comprehensive environmental evaluation of the site would require subsurface sampling and analysis, which has not been performed. S731.011/~1( 2-1 3.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW Information obtained from personal interviews and a review of historical aerial photographs confirm that the subject property was used for residential purposes since prior to 1937. Aerial photographs indicate the main residence at the end of a long, tree-line drive with a circular turnaround in front Of the house. The house was on the bluff over-looking Lake Minnetonka in the central portion of the site. A guest house was located north of the main house. A walkway, gazebo, and stairs led from the main house to the shore where a boat dock was generally present in aerial photographs beginning in 1960. The only other changes apparent on the aerial photographs from 1937 to 1971 were various gardens and plantings around the property. Property files at the City of Mound include a certificate of burning date August 11, 1978. The city's fire department conducted the burning of the house. The house was not connected to City of Mound water or sewer, according to file records. No structures of any kind, and no apparent use has been made, on the small island adjacent to Pelican Point. A boating channel has always separated the island from the mainland. A review of state and federal incident lists reveals that the subject property is not known to be the site of any spills or releases of hazardous substances, There are no Superfund sites or reports of illegal dumping indicated in the state and federal agency reports for the subject property, 5731-011~.JC 3-1 J~. I gg4t~J4135w~ I 4.0 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject site is bordered by single family residences to the south, apartments to the north and west, and Lake Minnetonka to the east. A gasoline service station and a vacant restaurant are present across Tuxedo Boulevard from the northwest corner of the site. These properties were all vacant, recreational, or residential prior to their current use. The service station has two underground storage tanks for gasoline, however no known leaks or spills are associated with that operation according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) files (Appendix V). No monitoring wells are present at the service station. ..~ The MPCA file review indicates one state Superfund site within a mile of the subject site. the former Tonka Toys Main Plant is located approximately one-half mile north of Pelican Point. According to MPCA records, after the Tonka Main Plan closed in 1983, Tonka Corporation conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and completed clean up of the site in accordance with a MPCA-approved plan. Long-term monitoring of ground water is the only current activity at the former Tonka Main Plant. The configuration of Lake Minnetonka, with many natural bay and channels separating land masses, interrupts the regional surficial ground water flow pattern. In fact, Lake Minnetonka recharges aquifers that are pumped several miles away in Minneapolis. However, on a local scale, the shallow ground water flows toward Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, no continuous pathway exists for ground water to migrate from properties, other than those on Island Park, to the subject site. Specifically, there should be no concern for negative ground water impacts at the subject site from businesses located north of the site in Orono, Minnesota, such as the Tonka Main Plant. The MPCA file review did not identify any leaks or spills from underground storage tanks, generators of hazardous waste, manufacturing locations, or other sources that have any POtential to impact the subject property based on distance from the subject property and the estimated ground water flow direction (Appendix V). 4-1 III, J i I, Bi, ,J, '"' I t t 5.0 SITE INSPECTION The site inspection and walk-through took place on June 2, 1994, and site photographs (Appendis VI). The visual survey included most of the perimeter of the site, including the shoreline, and all of the foot trails that traverse the property. Dense vegetation prevented travel and/or observation of the ground condition in some areas. The trees, shrubs, flowers, and other vegetation appear to have grown unchecked for at least ten years over much of the site, except along various pathways that are well worn by trespassers. Large portions of the bluff area in the"eastern portion of the site are covered with poison ivy. Many large mature trees are present throughout the site. The former homestead was overgrown and no traces of foundations or rubble form the house were observed. The roof, floor joists, foundation, and chimney from the guest house were present at the time of the inspection. Also various old furniture, wood, springs, screens, glass, pallets, and other trash were present in the general vicinity of a concrete room built into the ground west of the main residence. Approximately six inches of water were present on the floor of this structure, which discourages entry. Immediately east of the former main residence, a concrete pathway led to the top of the bluff, where a concrete pad was located. The remains of wooden stairs led to the shoreline where another concrete pad was located. Two-inch diameter galvanized water pipe and electrical conduit were present at the lower concrete pad. This appeared to be a former pump house for supplying water from the lake. Along the shoreline in the central portion of the site, the remains of a campfire were observed with a circle of large stones. Adjacent to this fireplace was a 20- to 30-gallon drum standing upright on one end. The top was torn open, allowing precipitation to collect within the drum. It appeared that the drum was approximately half full of debris and water. No odors or oily sheen were noted. No other significant trash or waste materials were noted on site. Surface drainage features at the site include a Iow-lying area to the north where a city storm sewer discharges to the site. Water from this area is conveyed to the lake by a steep-sided gully that trends along the northern site boundary. No stains or discolored soils were observed anywhere on site during the inspection. 5'/31.01 I/~J( 5- 1 J~ Igg4/g4135wg 6.0 CONCLUSIONS, OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions Based on o~r inspection and r.eview of historical records, ENSR has determined that there are no activities requiring environmental compliance currently practiced at this property, and no violations of environmental regulations, nor government listings for environmental problems were discovered for this property. 6.2 Observations It is unlikely that the presence of an underground storage tank can be confirmed at this site unless it is encountered during redevelopment activities. Furthermore, given the current condition of the property (overgrown with vegetation), the best manner for location any such tank would be to search for it during excavation of the proposed roadway or other structures. The 20- to 30-gallon drum appears to be the result of unrestricted access to the site, with no control over the accumulation of this type of material at the site. 6.3 Recommendat/ons The site development plan should include a contingency Plan for search for the underground storage tank in the immediate vicinity of the main residence and removing the tank in accordance with state law, if one is found. The 20- to 30-gallon drum should be tested and properly disposed in accordance with applicable laws. Improved institutional controls should be considered to restrict access to trespassers prior to, and during, site redevelopment. 6.4 Limitations This letter report describes the results of ENSR's operational audit to assess the relative risks posed by management practice, regulatory compliance, and other potential liability issues associated with the subiect operations. In the conduct of this investigation, ENSR has at'tempted to independently assess the risks within the limits of the established scope of work as described in our proposal dated May 27, lg94. However, verification of potentially 5731.011/RU( 6-1 J,! I" I" important facts is not always possible. As with any evaluation, there is a certain degree of dependence upon oral information provided by facility or site representatives which is not readily verifiable through visual inspection or supported by any available written documentation. ENSR shall not be held responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed by facility or site representatives at the time this investigation was performed. This report and all field data ar{d notes were gathered and/or prepared by ENSR in accordance with the agreed-upon scope of work and generally accepted engineering and scientific practice in effect at the time of ENSR's investigation of the site. The statements, conclusions, and opinions contained in this report are only intended to give approximations of the potential risks identified during this audit. "~ This report, including all supporting field data (collectively referred to hereinafter as "information"), was prepared or collected by ENSR for the benefit of its client, RLK Associates, LTd. and Boyer Building Corporation. ENSR's client may release the information to third parties, who may use and rely upon the information at their discretion. However, any use or reliance upon the information by a party other than specifically named above shall be solely at the risk of such third party and without legal recourse against ENSR, its parent or its subsidiaries and affiliates, or their respective employees, officers or directors, regardless of whether the action in which recovery of damages is sought is based upon contract, tort (including the sole, concurrent or other negligence and strict liability of ENSR), statute, or otherwise. This information shall not be used or relied upon by a party that does not agree to be bound by the above statement. 1 I O, EXHIBIT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYE'I-rE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155-40__ 07 DNR INFORMATION Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Kogler Corporation June 13, 1994 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: Last Friday I had an opportunity to walk through the site of the proposed Pelican Point development in the City of Mound. Although I did not conduct of formal biological inventory of the site, I was able to do quick assessment of the significance of the site as a natural area. The most striking feature of this 13-acre site is the canopy of large sugar maples (Acer saccharum). Many of these trees are at least 150 years old. This canopy, however, is broken in many places by gaps and large openings resulting from the management of the site as an estate for many years. There are a number of native plant species on the site that are characteristic of Big Woods Maple-Basswood Forests. However, I was unable to find even 1/2 acre of high-quality maple-basswood forest. Overall, the site is a series of small patches of disturbed maple-basswood forest in a matrix of highly disturbed vegetation that is a mixture of weedy, cultivated, and native species. Evidence of past human disturbance is present nearly throughout in the form of roads, trails, planting of exotic species (three species of conifers, lilacs, day lilies), old building ruins, exotic weeds (especially buckthorn), areas with little if any ground layer vegetation, and a heavily-disturbed,low-lying area at the north end. The low-lying area at the north end of the site was heavily disturbed and is now dominated by relatively young, early successional species such as cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) and silver maples (Acer sacchari~;um). In some places, the native forest subcanopy has been replaced by buckthorn (Rhamni$ cathartica), an aggressive, alien shrub. on a scale from A to D for natural area quality, I would rank the site as a "D". The site has lost its "ecological integrity,', primarily because of pervasive influence of past human disturbance. The Natural Heritage Program would not recommend this site for conservation action based on it natural area qualities; it is simply too disturbed (and too small). The site, however, does have considerable aesthetic appeal, provides some habitat for some songbird species (e.g. great crested flycatcher, eastern wood pewee), and supports a variety native plant species. '~ ;~'~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Although I did not conduct an extensive biological inventory, I believe that it is rather unlikely that the site contains any rare plant species. Big Woods Maple-Basswood Forests generally have few rare plant species. I did observe some interesting species such as leatherwood (Dirca palustris) and several butternut trees (Juglans cinerea). Populations of butternut are currently being decimated by butternut canker, and there is considerable concern about the future of the species. Any healthy butternuts should be protected. Kurt Rusterh~z/ Forest Ecologi~t Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program cc. John Blumentritt, Boyer Building Corp. Appsndlx. ~aple-basswood forest plan% species observed. Acer saccharum Quercus rubra Tilia americana Juglans cinerea Carya cordiformis Fraxinus.p~n~ylvanica Prunus v~rg~n~ana SambUc~$ pubens Dirca palustris Ribes (2 spp.) vitis sp. Smilacina racemosa Uvularia grandiflora Actaea rubra Trillium sp. Smilax sp. Prunus virginiana Dentaria laciniata Thalictrum Sangulnaria candensis Asarum canadensis Solidago flexicaulis Galium (2 spp. Caulophyllum thalictoides Arisaema trifolia RanUnculus abortivus RESOLUTION #94-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PELICAN POINT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the final plat of Pelican Point has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statues and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 23, 1994 and June 14, 1994, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330.00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the preliminary plat of Pelican Point Subdivision located on property described as: A tract of land comprising Lots 35, 36, 37 and 38, "Phelps Island Park, First Division"; those parts of the abandoned street and alley in "Phelps Island Park, First Division" designated on said plat as Private Street and Private Alley; and a part of Government Lot 5, Section 19, Township 117, Range 23; all described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Private Alley with the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly line of Lot 38, "Phelps Island Park, First Division"; thence Northwesterly along the extension of said Southwesterly line 200.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 200.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the Northwesterly extension of the Northeasterly line of Lot 35, "Phelps Island Park, First Division", distant 266.80 feet Southeasterly from the intersection of the Northwesterly extension of said Northeasterly line with the Southeasterly line of Tuxedo Boulevard dedicated in the plat of Avalon as Tuxedo Road; thence Northwesterly along said extension 266.80 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Tuxedo Boulevard; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said Tuxedo Boulevard to its intersection with a line which is parallel with and 20.00 feet Northeasterly from the Northwesterly extension of the Northeasterly line of said Lot 35, thence Southeasterly along said parallel line 286.80 feet; thence Southwesterly, parallel with the Westerly line of said Private Alley, 20.00 feet to the Northwesterly extension of the Northeasterly line of said Lot 35; thence Southeasterly along said extension and along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 35 and its Southeasterly extension to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly along said shore line to its intersection with the Southeasterly extension of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 38; thence Northwesterly along said extension and along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 38 and its Northwesterly extension to the point of beginning. A tract of land comprising Lots 19 through 34 inclusive, "Phelps Island Park, First Division"; those parts of abandoned alleys and streets, "Phelps Island Park, First Division:, designated on said plat as Private Alley and Private Streets; and a part of Government Lot 5, Section 19, Township 117, Range 23; all described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly comer of Lot 34, "Phelps Island Park, First Division"; thence Southeasterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 34 and its extension to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northeasterly along said shore line to the Westerly line of Lot 73, "Phelps Island Park, First Division"; thence Northerly and Northeasterly along the Westerly and Northwesterly lines of said Lot 73 to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northwesterly and Northerly along said shore line to its intersection with the Southeasterly extension of the center line of the Private Street adjoining the Northeasterly line of Lot 19 "Phelps Island Park, First Division"; thence Northwesterly along said extension and along said center line and its Northwesterly extension to the Westerly line of said Private Alley; thence Southwesterly along said Westerly line to its intersection with the Northwesterly extension of the Northeasterly line of said Lot 19; thence Northwesterly along said extension to the Southeasterly line of Tuxedo Boulevard dedicated in the plat of Avalon as Tuxedo Road; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Tuxedo Boulevard to its intersection with a line which is parallel with and 20.00 feet Northeasterly from the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 34; thence Southeasterly along said parallel line 286.80 feet; thence Southwesterly, parallel with the Westerly line of said Private Alley, 20.00 feet to the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 34; thence Southeasterly along said extension to the point of beginning. Lot 73, "Phelps Island Park, First Division." Subject to the proprietary and sovereign rights of the State of Minnesota in all that portion of the land lying below the natural ordinary high watermark thereof; not intending, however, to deprive the fee owners of the usual riparian rights that attach to the land riparian to navigable public body of water incident to the ownership thereof. WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: A. Final Plat approval is hereby granted for Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Subdivision as requested by Boyer Building Corporation subject to compliance with all of the conditions found in the City Engineer's report dated August 18, 1994 set forth and incorporated herein as part of the document, all of the conditions of preliminary plat approval (Resolutions 94- 78) set forth and incorporated herein as part of the document, the following additional conditions and any conditions added to this list as a result of findings of the EAW: 1. The Developer shall secure all applicable permits as defined by the City Engineer from all entities with jurisdiction over this project. 2. Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD as applicable. o Park dedication fees shall be collected in the amount of $124,000 prior to filing of the final plat. No construction activity shall occur on the site and the final plat shall not be filed until a determination has been made in regard to the existence of a wetland on the property. If a wetland is found, construction shall not occur and the final plat shall not be filed until a course of action has been agreed upon by the DNR and the City of Mound as to mitigation or project modification. No construction activity shall occur on the site and the final plat shall not be filed until the City of Mound has received notice from the DNR indicating that the shoreland management ordinance has been approved. Tree management practices shall be followed consistent with the Tree Management narrative submitted as part of the Developer's narrative plus any additional requirements placed in these conditions. No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without specific modification of the Conditional Use Permit. o Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract furnished by the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items covered by said contract shall be completed within a specified period of time of the City releasing the final plat. As pan of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of 125% of public improvements or $380,000.. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the Fire Chief and Building Official. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. i 0 Z i I,,LI 152 June 28, 1994 RESOLUTION #94-78 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH VARIANCES AS NOTED FOR PELICAN POINT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, applicant has submitted an application for a major subdivision called Pelican Point, pursuant to Section 330 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish Pelican Point as a Planned Development Area, together with a request for street and cul de sac right-of-way variances and other variances as noted in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat, the planned development area and the variances, taking into consideration the requirements of the city, giving particular attention to the arrangement, location and width of streets and their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal and drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable development plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met; and WHEREAS, the applicant will be participating in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and should the EAW identify significant environmental issues, such issues shall be addressed by the developer in a modified preliminary plat to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to final plat application; and WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations; and WHEREAS, the proposed project as conditioned will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted; and 152 June 28, 1994 WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are being provided; and WHEREAS, the use is reasonably related to the overall needs of the city and to the existing land use; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is covered with mature trees and mature vegetation which when coupled with the unusual shape and topography requires some variation from the literal interpretation of the street design requirements of the zoning code to allow the applicant to preserve the natural trees and vegetation to the maximum extent practicable; and WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to facilitate the preservation of vegetation and minimize topographic alterations; and WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota; Ae Preliminary Plat approval, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Development Area, street and cul de sac fight-of-way variances, and applicable variances for a water oriented accessory structure, lot size, lot width, lot line setbacks, street frontage and building setbacks as shown on the Preliminary Plat dated May 10, 1994, and as listed in Attachment A are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following conditions: Because of exce~ing the threshold for an EAW resulting from the proposed boat mooring structure (marina) and in order to satisfy local environmental concerns, the applicant shall prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), consistent with the requirements found in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program, 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. The EAW shall include a biological inventory of the site as well as a Phase I archaeological reconnaissance survey of the property. If the EAW 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. 153 June 28, 1994 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. e 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. e 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. 10. 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. 11. 12. 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. 154 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. June 28, 1994 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. All interior 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 buildings. 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 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. 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. All utilities 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, Block 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 fight-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. An additional fire hydrant shall be added at the proposed cul-de-sac. 155 J, I I i ,! il, ,i, ,- lune 28, 1994 23. 24. 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 wide (back to back) public street accommodating parking on one side. A 10 foot variance from the fight-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. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 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. The proposed cul-de-sac that is identified on the Preliminary Plat as a 'Shared Private Drivewa? shall be platted and constructed as a 24 foot wide (back to back) public street with fight-of-way width 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 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. 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. No structures shall be built or placed upon the island (Outlot C) without specific modification of the Conditional Use Permit. The approval of the planned development area and preliminary plat are subject to all other applicable city codes and ordinances. All bylaws and covenants and other association documents are to be reviewed by the City Attorney. B. See Attachment B for a description of the property. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, and Johnson. 156 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Smith was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk June 28, 1994 157 City of Mound Pelican Point Variances /Al I/AL,,rlIVlr'Pl I LOCATION ITEM PROPOSED VARIANCE CONDITION Block ! Lot 1 Front setback 10' 20' Lot 2 Street frontage 57.13' 2.87' Front setback 24' 6' Lot width 55' 5' Lot 3 Street frontage 53.47' 6.33' Front setback 21' 5' Lot width 55' 9' Lot 4 Street frontage 52.56' 7.44' Front setback 20' 10' Lot width 53' 7' Lot 5 Front setback 25' 5' Lot area 9,043 sf 957 sf Lot 6 Lot width 45' 15' Street frontage 48.69' 11.31' Front setback 22' 8' Lot 7 Street frontage 56.30' 3.7' Lot width 53' 7' Lot area 9,854 sf 146 sf Lot 8 Street frontage 59.29' .71' Front setback 26' 4' Lot width 55' 5' ~ Lot area 7,708 sf 2,292 sf LOt 9 Lot area 6,645 sf 3,355 sf Street frontage 54.39' 5.61' Front setback 20' 10' Cut width 54' 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 Block 2 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' ~ I I i ,I il, ,t - 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' Lot 8 Front setback 26' 4' - Bluff setback 25' 5'~ - LOt area 6,964 sf 3,036 sf 42.7' 17.3' Street frontage - Lot width 53' 7' Lot 9 LOt area 6,594 sf 3,406 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' 50' 10' Lot width - ~ 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' 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 si 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 st Lot 20 Street frontage 39.92' 20.08' CUENTS \ MOUND\94-.~G \ VARJ ANC E. PRO LOCATION Lot 21 Lot 22 LOt 23 LOt 24 Lot 25 Lot 26 ITEM Street frontage Lot width Street frontage Lot area Lot width Lot area Front setback Lot area Front setback Lot area Lot width Front setback Street frontage Lot area Lot width PROPOSED CONDITION 37.91' 51' 52.44' 7,231 sf 53' 9,163 sf 25' 9,524 sf 20' 6,475 sf 54' 53.25' 5,183 sf 53' VARIANCE 22.09' 9' 7.56' 2,769 sf 1 837 sf 5' 476 sf 10' 3,525 sf 14' 6.75' 4,817 sf ff 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 CUEN'I~X MOUND\94.~ \ V ARIANC E PRO Page 61~-835-]160 HOISINGTO~ KOEGLER B~] F~ ILL 05 '94 09:4] ATTACHMENT B Phelps Island Park, 1st Division Lot 73 That part lying Southeasterly of Channel. 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 ~d Lot 19, thence southerly along westerly llne 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 paraJlel 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 ofs~id Lot 19 extended thence southeasterly 299.1 feet to the point of beginning. Unplarted 19 117 23. Commencing at the point of intersec~ion of the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 35 Phelps Island Park First Division with the northwesterly line of private altey adjacent to said lot, thence southwesterly along said alley line to tF, e 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 Iuxedo Road, thence northwesterly 266.80 feet along said road line thence southeasterly 286.8 feet parallel with said northwesterly ex'tension of said northeasterly line of said Lot 35 thence southwesterly 20 feet parallel with said road line thence southeasterly to the point ofbeglnning. Ii, J J i ,J, Ill, ,J, · Aoplicatlon for 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound~ ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600~ Fax= 472-0620 D ist ribut ion: city pla ner Public Works City Engineer Sketch Plan Review: 'Preliminary Plat: "Final Plat: 'Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? &"SC. KO~ ZR)O- $150.00 $150.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 VARIANCE REQUIRED? Other .................................... ...................... in,o .tio , Please tFpe or print 2820 Tuxedo Boulevard Address of Subject Property. Boyer Building Corporation Day Phone (612) 475-2097 Owner's Name 18283A Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391 Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~dress Same _ ..,ne of Surveyor: Egan Field & Nowak, Inc. Name of Engineer: PLK Associates, LTD. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Len~th.v- See attached narrative Addition Zoning District P. 1 Use of Property: PROPOSED PLAT NAME: Pelican Point PID No. Vacant Day Phone Day Phone(612) 546-6~37 Day Phone(612) 933-0972 Block Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? 00 yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the explanatio g' en wh this is not ~ case. ~gna / ~fgnature of Owner subject property, or an Date Date Application for CONDITIONAL USE PEI~dHIT / PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA City of Hound 5341 Heywood Road, Hound, HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Copy to CLty Planner, 4-~--~-~:~ ZonLng Sheet C~pleted, Copy to City ~ngtneef[1 Copy to Public Works: Other: Please type or print the ~ollowing lofo~ation~ Address of Subject Pro~rty, 2820 Tuxedo Boulevard ~ner's ~e Boyer Building Corporation Day Phone (612) 4?5-209? ~ner'm lddress i8283A Minnetonka Blvd, ~ephaven, MN 55391 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Same Name of Surveyors Egan Field & Nowak, Inc. LEG~ DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, Lot Addition Zoning District R-1 Day Phone Day Phone (612) 546-6837 Block PID No. existing Use of Property, Vacant Name of Proposed Uae aa Listed in the Zoning Ordinance, Description of Proposed Uae, 20 Building/40 unit Twinhome Development EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE, List Impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Lengthy - See attached narrative If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development EStimated Development Cost of the ProJect~ $ . R~SIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ONLY, Number of Structuree~ 20 Number of Dwelling Unite Per Structure, 2 Lot Area Per D~elling Unit, 6000(Avg) sq. ft. Total Lot Area, 16 acres Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (x) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(e) of application, action taken, resolution number(a) and provide copies of resolutions. Property Owner's Signature Date DNR/REAL ESTATE ID:612-297-3517 AUG 23'94 16:30 No,Oi4 P.O1 EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNII INFORMATION August 23, 1994 Curtis Pearson City Attorney 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN Dear Mr. Pearson: 500 LAFAYEI-I'E ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155-40.~ )ost.lr' brand tax transmittal memo 7671 f, of I-e,, ) .~' The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ob3ects to the inclusion of the following described property in the proposed Pelican Point Plat: Island hFh-~lps Island Park, ]st Division Lot 73 That part lying Southeasterly of Channel This tsland vas transferred to the State of Hinnesota under the Minneso[a Public Lands Improvement Act of 1990, Survey of islands Tracts 37, 38, 39, qO, 4[, 4Z and 43 dated Apr(1 13, 1972 and listed in the transfer as follows: CoUnty Control Number 007, Section 19, Township 117 North, Range Z3 VeSt, Henneptn County It is the Intention of the the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Real Estate Management, to record the transfer at the Office of the Hennepln County Recorder tn the near future and to work with the private party that also claims title to this island to resolve the ownership issue. Attached as evidence of our claim are copies of the following excerpts from the Minnesota Public Lands Improvement Act of ]990: Summary (marked as Exhibit A) Page 8, Table I (marked as Exhibit B) Plat numbered Page 2]3 (marked as Exhibit C) Also attached for your information is an excerpt from United States Department of the )nter(or Plat for Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Minnesota designating the subject island as Tract 38 (marked as Exhibit D) Pliase tnfore this office of your decision concerning this matter. DNR/RERL ESTATE ID :612-297-$517 AUG 25 ' 94 16:30 N0.O14 P.02 ?99. .%ll.¥¢.'l.;LI..I,%'lfOl '.¥ 1.4.V!).¥ TI~.I,¥.¥1:I.',RI~ifl) 7'(; T/IH ~'T,17'K 01: UNDHR TilK .IllA'NK$OT/t i'UIlI, IC I..I,vlJ,~ I,%ll'ROI/i(,%tHNT ,ICT OI: 199(I I'.1.. 1~1.442. i0~ .%'T~T. I01~ Booties 204(a) of the Ninnesota Public Lands Improvement ~ct of L990, boro£naftor "tho Act;" effectively trane£eFrsd to the of ,tnnesot& all listed uplands and islands, suLcayed and unsurveyed, vhich veto not, as of Apri! 18, 199X, sub,eot to claims identified on tbs records of the Bureau of Land Management. Listed uplands and islands are defined in section 203(a)I those public land~ locaSed in the Stats o~ Hlnnosota ~hich sro spoclfiad ~n th~ ~ist containing'the leqel description of such lands and entitled '*~innosota Uplands and Islands Apl.~opriato for Ztate Hana~ement" dated ~uly ~S, AGO0, on file in tho 0fries or tho Secretary of tho ~ntorior, except for and lands to vhich ~ndian title has not been extinqvi~hed. This volume contains all [ands on the aforementioned list dated July 16, 1990. Table eno lists all u~lands and islands, surveyed, in Ls~e Superior, inland lakes and rivere, and saber bodies of vator ~ithin tho State which as of eno hundred and eighty days meter tho date of enactment of this Act (Apri~ 18, 199l) yore not subject to amy claim identified on the Table tvs lists all uplands and ~elands vhich veto sub, oct to a claim identified on the records of or f~led vith the BLH ao of one hundred eighty da~s after enactment of th~s (~p~l 18, UndoE section 204(b) of the Act, a claim has tho effect of staying transfer of cla~med lands to the State of Hlnnosota for period of ten year~, alloying the Becrotar¥ of oho Interior ~o transfer said lands to tho claimant thereof if certain condition~ contained ~n section 205 o~ the Act are mst, Title to claimed lands vests in the State of ,innesota only if, after tho ten-year period has lapsed, tho~ are not purchased by the Finally, thio volune contains maps dspict~nq those lande identified on tho L~st of Uplands and ~slanda Appropriate for State Hanagemont. For surveyed tracts, reference should b~ made to the officially recorded fedora! survey plat. Onsurveyod tracts have been identl£ied by county control number on excerpts from U.O.G.8. 7.~ minute series quadrangle maps. J J J i J Iii, i, J ~ , ~j DNR/REI:IL ESTI:ITE 1D:6~2-297-$$].? RUG 25'94 ~6:$]. No.O~4 P.O$ I'r:l'~wt,.p ~,¥~1~1. ~il'JJ Itt' S,~I) ~l ~l.l~ liter I~.f~e )c4rl: ~nJ 5%4~ 8 b.lC~J~Or'l ~fj~f~ I~d J~sI I~i~ ~IMll, cr t~ ~I.~A. or to 1he O(hce 2~, f~t conCuKC~t ref~el to Interested Indivi~uJ~s m~)' .~ply --~tbliojraphy --~cele~:ers ~f rcf~:~nc~ em~tsl:l~s --Applicant's ~atement cJ t~(~3rch ~cslt~d school ~Jn~cri;Is . --For ~ocloral Fellowship aL,~llctnls, --For Postdoctorll Fello~ship ' doclor,1 dejree ~Dricf summa~ of ~otlor3l dJsscflJlio~, if A~;li~ant~ F~ $umm~r --Curricu~u~ Vltz( --~tbllojraph~ (il --TWo letters or reference from School ot:~elals hoylflS dirct~ knowledge of. ~Appli~nt's sld:(menl d,:ribJnJ future acid&mit plJns, InlerCll In blome~icnl icienc~J, ina r,soM for ,jti~I ~n ~111 B~,~.er IRTA Fdlow~hip r. onacedemlcl, hobble~ and ~0:.". ;d'. sche:l s;.it s:rl;! or t.$t cf ( nut$*'s, ir..:lud~ng .qt,:d..' D,:;nq dx rrag~. p:cG.'tm 'IL.. Ir..~.ma ..on or~t,t 10 rtc~i~e ~ce co~.sideratlon l.~ Jrd i.~d will be u$c~ Il (!clermlne the er. at,<es. The reqcesl~d Infnr~alion ~{11 be a~l~G~e only to ~!11 o~h~,'ise rcq,irc~ b)' Id'~'. The Information ceYe~:io~ tcquiremenl~ nss~c~:ed ~i'h the I~TA holr*m been zpprove~ by I%~ Office or t~.e re~itemen'.s of S C~ i~:0. ~d~e~: A~:J 14, ] ~. L~ufd: ~ f~cr 13. 19~. XJe:!n/s:~t:r. Nj~..;Gflll Instll~tcs of Health Digest!ye and Kidney Dlse3ses; Cs~cefldllofl cf/Jell]nO c3nceS~:[~ of t~e ~ce:i,,~ of the End, St~;e genii Dise~sf g~ta Com~i:~ee on Febrda~ 1. l~t, ' · Iding M~tvt~nd. w~Ich '~'as ~ub~is~cd In the fe~raJ Resister e~ December 18. IS3 ~ The meetly8 was co,celled du~ M complications of ot~er commilments of ,~-etnl members nf I~e committee s=d will be relcEtduied ~:a I=tet dete. Con~ml::~ Mon~e.~em ~tbeer. N/iL DEPAflTM[N~ OF THE I~EfllOR Burezg of ~nd Elko Dls~lcl; Avil~billty 01 Drift Environmental Impact Statement InteriOr. Act Df 19G9. r,,)liC( It hereby ~l~*efl th31 f:nm the c%l.~,'.qfl Or Iff c.~lstl~ pit mining opeta~lon nr.d the o~lemntlves tO :hat rrcjer. I. for thc f~J:owl~ d~leL placer, end Szrecl: ~ p,m.-~ p,m. ~lity. Soctoccenom~ a~d Di3:rlcl MonA;ct. B~rclu of Land ~anE3emc~l. A~N: Eetze Ccordlnator. 3t, e drill ~S il fve?la~e fer end La~ Ve~dL WdUen rester. Set may be sent m .bore ,d~;cs, on or before c~osl~ on ~OA ru~vHtn [NrOK~T~O~ CO~AC~ Yor add,tioga: I~Om:,:iOA. write to above ad,f ,ss or call ~lck RleJer et F~d Wolf. publ;c IJndl In M;nneaotl Petetmlned Etlgltre for Ttin.fet to ~e State si Pubqc ~n~l Improvement Act Of 1J90 U.S. D~pJrtment of ~e Inle~or. ii, I I DNR/REflL ESTATE [D:6~2-297-35~? RUG 23'94 ~6~3! No.O~4 P.04 , ,,~, , - ..... E .......... ~-: ~ ~ ..... Nj(ri ............. I I~ d) I1~ ol ~.~l C~,!f M-~F~,'~l, Mi~IO14, TfinlfK will ~ Fufi~,~l Io I,~ .................... ~ ~ I ~ M.~-~' t~p.~r,~,~ .f ~ L ldt41:l [Ac~] which ~,,ts ~ ................ ~ ~) ~ u~. .....................' ,~ ' ~ his I cldim of owflrr~Mp of to Iht S:~!t of ~l~ fit the L, ~ .............. ~ , M ~,poKI of pub.it f4~ftJ~gfl, proIcktlcn ~ ................. ~ ~ ~ (o~tot~rd off I~t I;~l s~ould haiti)' of fisl~ wildl.h, and reject, ~nd the t.~ ................ ~ ..,~ va*,. ..................... k~pllcx~lcn ~dtm il rtqU~ffd, hut IbP:eof off Iq~l I~I! flCO;~.';~ :hi r.~:~ ....................... ~ ~ IniU.l Ici:ct. Th~ ~lll~ar, lI %x'III be tq,lt?.t or s.~ch cl:~nsnt~ I. tu~% J~fl~. p~ ........................... : .~ ~1 nol~cd by B~M bi Io the ~c~l,~"s . ;rt~d-~wfl ~. I~, S~l?,lezd.N'-laq P~ .............................. td'~* ~ct of !.:)' 10.1gM :~:lled Ih n~rl~enst ~ e Jo prior lo p~lJsl, tflI the f, nml nolle~ of Mir.~Motg win no1 be ~an~[p:rPd ~.)' ~ ~ .................. o ,0 O&Tt$: XYritten tl~l~, of o~vflrrl~lp will ~fsil~d c:~l~IWMCh i~e poumkr~ed Tom~TP~. ; .a~4 ~ o.tJ p.O. Oo~631,~;lwou~eLWlKoMln ~,~o~ of this public ~,~;i~ !s w~ ............... ~ ~,'o[o.d: Ill To notify resld,,i~ u[ the WOMM ..................... ~ *s.M the pvblic lihd, to be ~,iflted or w~ .................... ; I o~e~l,e Ite~sferred to ~l;~ne~8 w~ .................. ~ q,.~ ~f ~nd ~lan~lement. P.O. ~ox claim o~ o~e,Hp or t~e ~%.~er~t s~o~,'lr]s ~e ~al deI~ptlon9. Mt~M. October ii. i~J a~d o~ g~cloimd ' "' A li~l of the pub:lc land, b~ Cou~:)'. Co~[y ,re ,~-,ll,ble rot I=specd~ only Ii th, lermI a~ ~n~itloM of th, Acl. number 0~ psrcels, f~d to1~I ,rr~ at ~e ~o~ty Audl~. office tn eoc~ ~rsu~o[ to the AIL ~he Stale of follows: Co. hb' ~hocse In Minnesot. and Minnesofa ~411 re~k'e ~e public - -- ~t follow[n8 o~Ms of B~M I~d Idonlified iA ~' Iill de,~d In .o. M J k-.. Min~.oll Dt~,rlment of N,fur,J nttlce. A seco~ pubUe nollc, will ~ _~'c.~. ] R,outce,: publllhcd In the Fed,rs1 R~l,let p~or ~ ............................... ~4 u.~l ~hlv)J~:t L,l~trltl O~IcL B~telv Of ~nd lo the lttfltlnI of pblle land, Ii the '~l ~ ........................ ~ ~.~ M~ ~llo~ ~0~ ~[Ih~ ~l ~u~h~l~ th~ 3 ~ I ~..finnrqO:e ~lt'e, ~r.[httd. Minhe~l thc~e ld~ntl[;ed FuLlic ]ln(~s. ~l ~at ~ ...................., .......~ ~ ~ . DNR/REAL ESTATE ];I):612-297-3517 AU6 2:5'94 16:$2 No.014 P,05 t...u~Aa~'r. Nls r.o~ce If; to L'~furm pebl!c cf t,%c gureau of .~:an,.;.-mer.:.'s (l~t..',l) ¢¢*.Is:om to ar:., k~ote or les,; e=d Sasinaw ! i',it ('f. 1~ S. K. 1= E-. mcclT~r.f cu~..?;%.sL'~; '.,~ acres...'r,¢ r,~ J~.,a Co~.Nty..~.r:.zcna I~ protect Tarfc.'.s./.rGFcFty efl~ ~ub~C land and rts~*J;cef. Iqe person fh&lJ be exempt t:cm 0~if refuicllofl except cartier'ed h~v snf.)rce:',ent i,'ersnr..-.el ectlr, S L') ~e $ir.e ¢; ~dty tO eA;~,rce l~nJ. s~atc or hws. C&TeS:?hlf lm per'anneal rest,~ct~o, f On fUR'S. Ntf~ If.~rOKM;.T~ON CO~'fACTi P'J,'ea~ or lind Management. Phoenix .-.oat I.~ocnix. Adlzor. a 4~G4. IgPPLtMtNN'A~I? /S, ut%Orlty for II, aP OCt;O~ if contained 4 ~ ~ocle o! Federal Re~laUonf OaCd.l. imm actio~ im i/km~ to prQlect life and prc~ert¥ end allow for fife publ!c land ate. D~s;.hd.*8': of fi:earns mt Sma,'dar hfs resuh.-d In miL~r'-ific.ant damase lo m ellmJnatlcn of other public use. Addltiona!lJ,, pu!alc land adjacent lo Sa~n:)w Hi*,l pow CohlaSr. s e:e..'~cnlary fch~ol, c~'ealJnit ~e ncc'1 for thc restriction to ptolvct l)(e an(." r;c;,er:y iff IT,¢ med. ;l:?;..;:~ RI¢,.%:j"S A::~!/or a (If'.: in a.:¢¢'.~JR;~. thc S~n:¢~ci~.g U.I¢~. IJr...ary I. t?Jl. AG~ ~teau of t.4~,! M~a;en~ent. s. cTIc,: ~,enl~8 etd ?= reis ozder ~per, s' Lave be(n tn leases ur. der iht ~fcreact~c,'~ hr.:! f'.,bli: I~.L;:)~S~ Act. 1'ho I~sies Lave terc'jnate'J end :!31S~.~C3*.Jor, s ate hercby terminated a :'_ho.~zcd bi' 43 CFg /it k' ;,;e.~'ica Pri,".clr~! Ceme!oI ~,oun:;,. T.4",.~,. R.aF. Se;f ';on 7~e a,,rI d,~jc:l~s~ .¢;~ :5 I*;!.~e!;e/ ;J,t;idinn 1'.1'~.. IL&O'.V. mcr:inn '[.%e Item dtsctlbed contalnl 3 ~i acres ir. Like Ce~:r,:¥. Cold. Jo: C- At 10 a.m. oll February 3~. I~FJI. the lifl~m c~¢scril:ed shill be open to sub:err to va:id txif:inI rlahts. /.r;)ro;)r!atloa o! I:t~clf tLq;.ar the far. stat min~nR laws ;rf?r to the. da?. I.~d t~me of teetOtal[Of1 II uMu~orlleg. ,'~y Such allemptad Icclud:nl at:cap;e.4 ad;'ersc ~ndor ;0 U.S.C mec~en 35, m)~sti ve~t no rT~%tm efalmqt I.%e Un;led Staler. Acta reqtmb'e~ to ,stnbli~.% a loci'Jar, and to ifil:lets · tdlht ofpofsefsi.~ tee tovemcd b)' State law whc~ not cor.2ict with Fateful law. The Bureau of Lm.%d }k!tna~,,~enl will not i~!ervete in c~lspu:es between rival loc, aloft o~er posscafo~,/rlshla flnc~ Co~resf hit rrovlded Ior much dete."waifleOo tact,: cra. res. All of the I,,ndf J~nvr. been. and continue to be. open to operation of the mineral lassies laws. C&T~.$: t:ff.*ctlve F,,brua:y : f '%,(:,.ri:er& I~.aqon C,ty I),~.1~t Office. r t :: $ - :.'C,1. I ~l, ,u#tl~[I tkrQd¥&VlO~ I '~'-¢*~ riO) 11 ~ L% ~; Jl-Jl}J r,!.:.J j-j.:..~ll: t I; ,~mI Co:a'ado: fitlnO ef P;o',m Of Su~,ey t~c Colots~o Stat~ O;f)ce, Oaten; of I.a~d M2nat~mer.1. ~t'.cwood, Co!~;mdo. Croup ~o. C:g. wa, .cctpted T~s su,~ev wes e~e:~',ed to meal T~.e p~3: r~2tc~n:~r.~ ~e dcrcn:;(nt b~un~ry. I~c lu~d~vJs~onel ll~e~, and ~.t su~i-~ls~on o~ sec:;~ 17. and ~he Ce:or3~. G:ou7 ?~o. g~l. was accepted October 26,1~. This muh'ey wel executed 1o ~det Dureau, . s~nt to ~ Coloteda 5~a:e Office. ~urfa~ of ~nd Mdea;~men~ Yeunl~e:d S~ee~. ~kewoe~. Colorado, Ed~a) A. SUuMAPtv:Thc U,S. ~ur,~a:J or RtclJ,'co::on. Departo~ent of the DNR/REflL ESTATE ID :612-297-$517 RUG 25'94 16:$$ No.O14 P.06 inlvH~. SVMuABv: Final nolte· Is hercb)' that certain public ],2ds loc,ted tn ID19; Public ~w 103~4:J (Acll ~hith ~rants certain specified ufl~l~imed_ i~l.mds a~d uplomds .~d cert~i~ ~ther for I~e purposes of l,~blir. Cv~;fe~slonal i:ea: ~a~ will ~e pt, fl.o~e of Ih~s puldtc ~olire is to annou~ t~;f zYail&b~l;ly t,f · list ~:,:3:ni~$ the le[dl dt~ulp:~on lamds I~t ~,~11 ~ I:~CSf~:red to Ibc DAY[S: T~f ll~t will It ~r.ll.l,lc vo tlc public on ~tober 1& 1~!. list ~ould ~ sent to ~i~' D.ucr. District Mon3~cr. au:alu nf MMh~ement. P.O. ~x 631. Mans'Duke·. %%'is~fliln fOq ~UA~[~ IqFOflMA~ON CONTAC~ ~r~' John/Off. EcIIIF S;.eclkliit. ~urcuu Of bad Maflogement. P.O. ~ox G31. MAns'auks, WI 53:01~31; tclc-phnno ~0, [414) ~7~413 o~ [~] 362~413. will trinsfcr lO the Stale of lends Iff MinncqOtl f~ the pu~o)cl of pub1 c rebellion p~olectiO~ Ol (~ccrel&ty] 1o resolve c~ims of corinth other puMlc Isn~s in Minnesota and lo le&nsfer such ?sods ~o ~hereof on le~l Ih~l recognize the fqultics of such clalmir,:s la luch lindJ. notify the residents of Mi~tsesot. ks lo the ~otcrc nad locsti~n ~[ the public Kcomplf~ht'd by Ih· pu~licntio~ Ill=linT)' 17. 1~1 ~ l~t I,'~,,I liC,lil.,'l thre.,l:hr;:t .%',.:~:.,.s.:.'l d,;f;ng ~;OOLI, coflla.'.r4r.~ the Jf~Al desfri~hn.'xs and ma~s shou'::'.fl the hq'.mtl~'~s of the a ~'ai!~ql,:e Cou~t)' Audx:vr's africa In ~linhrl, pta and mi all Co,-,$:esdr, r.~l OIfiCeJ locnt(,d the puT,lie f, ot:flC&tJO.'l ~)S IWidu:d' Ill To nntsf)' rcsi".e.%:s DJ ),?,~.nflf-sttta as fo the IorJ1lon n.~ I,et. lic l~nds lO be I~r.n..4 o~ o,h,,:wise ua.~erred ,'-ndrr the Act. cr.d I~J ;'o J~,':,:~f)' of 1hr no~,mir, eral It:e,'('S1S in th,, Identbfied pu?.;c la.%~s. %x'ti,en el,ires of oW:ze:sh:p s~ c:e Accepted ur, t,! ^?ell Those l,~t(.cls .! I,'J~llc Inr. d that ha~'c be(.n ch:i.-,.ed k,)' o pers~, or pr:suns will not be l:ans~.rr.e~ Io .Mi.'3r.r Loin October 18. retained aS ~t~l,lic li.'J(~S pending tesol,':it, nb)' :he Sccre'4,~ (,! l.~e t.!.,im of T~e trar,~f*: t.f tlc usr. lalmed pt,l,l;c le~d'~ to the State sad the resolCtiPn the cl,ima of ver.Y I~eci,~l: r cqulrc.--..ehtt, c~rJ;)ined in the Ac:. WiJJbm $. I IdT,C40-~2-O 12-13; MTM-?$?Os J Notice of ,qestty ACtion: Prlvite [%chifl~o.M0ntlfll Management ~ropotes to fxchonge pbblic land fo: private land wllh propobrd exchange iflt'o)veS or. ly thc lends ire tn r~il~ips ~unty. SUHHART: The public will gain privy~e lands wilh we;lands and wildlife hauili,t for plpi~l pto~ ct. uplnnd birds, antelo;e and mule deer. Consolidation of pcbllc l.nd ~'ill ncc,Jr w~ich Allows gar belier ring~ mana~emcflt. Disposal of the pul, l~. :~n~s Il In cbnform~nce whh thc ~l~t,p~ ;-lanalement Framework Hen, Disposal of public Innflt with relatively Iow puMIc v~lue mana~emeal go~l) lot Iht ,rea where Ihe purist waft g~in pti~'~le land. ~1~ ezchan~e i':t'J""' (: r'~t 'T:d'~l ']'~:,. l,,l:vt~ ::lC d,'SL! Jndrf ~e( t,(.n ~m Of the Fedrf.I D,tJJ S~t~ 10 W ~%. ~r~f~ I:' Ai1~ T, ~b~., ~. ~ ~. .T. ~ ~,. R.~ E., Tel ah'mI ).!5: T~e Unl~,~d t,t, scr;b~'~ ~rh.n~e ~.r.t,a. a. ~,Ctluh li; $%; S~tlon 23: SecNon ~ T. 2S ~.. R.31L ~ctlon 3; ~t 1, ~cl;on 33: S%~E~, S~-cti~ 24: ~W~, Total ~ 9~1.~ ecfcJ, com~.n:s I~ ~fgnb~r~fll State UI/ecl~ will welsh adverse ~mmenll. The Stere Dl~clor may an)' ol)ifclions thll notice will beer, me the fln.I determlnntton Io~ COMMENTS J, J J I, J~, ,J, & ,~ , J DNR/RERL ESTRTE ZD:6~2-297-55~7 RUG 25'94 t6:$4 No.O~4 P.07 C,,A KC)T A J :~.~(Jl.~ Lt.( ).JGO EAST f:t LAst CLCv~ LA'.[ ~ 2~k JI~SSXS$JPPI PJVC~/R&oP L XSL C~8 001 10111 00: sodrt :.00 1,00 .1.00 L ESL NAi, UuT LA',E/TITL'-e L 'ESL tIIU:I[~0?A F ILL)IClIE 001 10411 08W O~ S v 23,43 wt/:uE'~ UeLD 23.43 003 1~8~1 JZW 14 5 Y 004 q~l, 4:~ 21 S Y 14,00 O,SO 14.S0 O.6d LoT 4 uPLO NORS(SHOE LAK£/TXTL£ ¢Ou YF=OOO-1-O11 3.SO TRA~! 37 L ZSL TXTLE COIIIIP ES.O$O-3-2~JlUlllll~qEO 26-126 · .rlflEPJf! 007 117f4 23W 19 S I~ 008 117tj 23~ 2, S t4 OOg l~TtJ 23w ~4 ~ rf 010 I1?u ~2~ ~7 ~ u 0SI 117tl ~3~ ~7 $ *f 01~ ~l?t~ 23~ 34 ~ u 2. ZO ~ ,30 O.SO ~ .00 0,30 L XSL LAKE HJtflJETC)UKA L 15L LAKE ~411dU~:TOUKA L XSL LAKE I, IXUflETb.::"A L ISL LA~C t4XNIIETOIIK~ DNR/REAL ESTflTE ID :612-297-$517 ,11: I. RUG 2:3 ' 94 , [I 16:.34 No.O14 P.08 ,.--,0 j PUBLIC LAND IN MINNESOTA '! ".'-' ;~. Pol.t 24 ORONO Black Lake c'q x, Phelps Island Park Township_ l/7 N ~Range. 23lO .Coun!y #FtYNFplN P.M. Scale: 1:24,000 Name of Quad,_ /~P//~'B O- BLM administered Islands/uplands County Control No.~ Note: Boundaries are apprGximat-;contact BLM for more detailed information. 213 ]f.-x/.~,~" C'. DNR/RERL ESTATE J I, Il, ,Ii I ,~ , I lD:612-297-3517 RUG 23'94 16:35 No.O14 P .09 TOWNSHIP 117 NORTH, RANGE 23 WE,~ S TRACTS K'--X " ~ ff I ~ i / p . ~ ~', sec. ~9/ I i ~ ~ ~. '~ t :: Mort Mode~ - T,oc~ i J! 0 I&l ,fi, Il JJj / / LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT August 23, 1994 TO: FROM: City of Mound z~ _ _~ ,~ Executive Director Eug SUBJECT: Environmenta! Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pelican Point Multi-family Residential Development BACKGROUND: The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) received information on the above EAW. On June 2 the LMCD received an application from Ralph Turnquist/Boyer Building Corp. for a New Multiple Dock License for 40 boat storage units (BSU). A public hearing was conducted July 9 by the LMCD Water Structures Committee on the above application. The public hearing findings point out that a code amendment would be required before the applicant could transfer BSU's from the island to the mainland. The applicant also determined that the site plan submitted June 30 will not work because of inadequate water depths. A new site plan is to be prepared by the applicant. The committee tabled the application to the next Water Structures Committee meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to prepare a revised dock plan taking into account various options discussed by the committee. The applicant advised that it was not prepared to appear before the committee in August and asked for the application to be held until the Septen%ber meeting. The LMCD Water Structures Committee also received an LMCD staff summary of the EAW at its July 9 meeting. The committee took no issue with the points made in the staff summary, copy attached. The committee was concerned as to whether the LMCD would be required to conduct a separate EAW for the dock application, since the dock is expected to exceed 20,000 sq. ft., the threshold where an EAW is required. LMCD staff learned from Environmental Quality Board staff that as long as there are no objections to docks being included in the development as presented in the EAW, the EQB would not require a separate EAW on the dock installation. LMCD staff finds that the dock references in the EAW fairly state the developer's intent regarding the inclusion of a multiple dock facility in the development. LMCD points out that it does not yet have a specific dock plan that it can EAW COMMENTS, Pelican Point Development, 8/23/94, P. 2 consider as to how the developer will locate the 40 slips in relation to the property in question. Dock is estimated to be 0.7 acres in area. EAW COMMENTS: LMCD staff offers the following comments on points made in the EAW: LAKE IMPACT: > The forty (40) boat dock will be roughly 60 feet away from shore. COMMENT: The developer's June 30 dock plan indicates that the dock structure will likely extend to 100 feet away from shore. This distance is within the allowances of the LMCD Code. Dock will contact shore by only a single pier. COMMENT: LMCD code would not prohibit more than a single shore contact by the dock. Erosion control measures will be installed during construction, and once site is developed an on-site stormwater system (basin) will control stormwater discharge to the lake. COMMENT: LMCD Management Plan Runoff Management Policy 4 calls for protection of the lake from detrimental effects of serious erosion during construction and to ensure that runoff from the developed site is of good quality. Cities are encouraged to require erosion and sedimentation control plans as further identified in this policy. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES: > Existing drainage ditch on and adjacent to site channels runoff into the lake. > Sedimentation pond will be constructed in upland area with outflow structure, skimmer device. Runoff QUANTITIES after development will not exceed current levels. COMMENT. Same reference to above comment on erosion control, concerning Runoff Management Policy 4, addressing the QUALITY of water receiving the lake as well as the QUANTITY. WATER QUALITY -- SURFACE WATER RUNOFF: > Overland flow from roofs, green areas to lake. COMMENT: Roof drainage expected to flow through properly designed sedimentation basin meeting Policy 4 concerns noted above. Green area runoff to the lake can be effectively improved as to water quality by EAW J' J J J J', JJ, Ji ,J COMMENTS, Pelican Point Development, 8/23/94, P. 3 providing for a buffer strip of natural vegetation between the standard residential lawn and the lake. Natural vegetation buffer strip guidelines are available through the Hennepin Conservation District and MN DNR. Controlled use and types of lawn fertilizers also effect the quality of water runoff. ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACTS: > While the applicant states there are no visual impacts the LMCD Lake Use Committee has been evaluating the impact of light glare from docks and lakeshore structures beaming intrusively out over the water. The city is understood to be sensitive to this concern. The LMCD will work with the developer on dock lighting which avoids offensive impacts on the water surface. The LMCD Water Structures Committee, Board of Directors and staff are prepared to continue working with Boyer Building Corp. and Mound city officials and staff in arriving at a quality development for the city and a compatible environmental and recreational outcome for Lake Minnetonka. CC: Boyer Building Corp. LMCD Board Representative Tom Reese LMCD Water STructures Committee PROPOSED RESOLUTION #g4- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO VARIANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE DWELLING AND A DECK 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6 AND SOUTH 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 24 0008 P&Z CASE #94-60 WHEREAS, the owner, Randall Morairty, has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 4.72 feet, resulting in a variance of 15.28 feet, to re-construct a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, and to construct two new decks within the bluff impact zone, an upper deck 6' x 20' and a lower deck 15' x 20', and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water level, and; WHEREAS, the subject property contains a bluff. A 10 foot setback from the top of the bluff is required for all structures, and; WHEREAS, the 10' x 20' portion of the dwelling was removed and reframed without the proper permits, and new roof trusses have been installed over 31 feet of the rear portion of the home. Prior to the variance application, building permits were issued for interior remodeling, but not for reconstruction of the exterior walls or the roof truss modification, and; WHEREAS, the contractor has stated that during the remodeling process, after the removal of the interior wall surface, they discovered the extremely poor construction and condition of the exterior walls, and; WHEREAS, the portion of the dwelling which was reconstructed is set at the top of the bluff, and the proposed decks would encroach into the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the footprint has not changed, and during construction, vegetation on the steep slope has not been disturbed. The buildable footprint of this property is limited by the bluff and the required setbacks, and; WHEREAS, when the upper level was reconstructed, joists were cantilevered out 4 feet to allow for a future deck. Originally, there was no door on the upper level. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined to afford the owner reasonable use of the property, a minimum deck is rational, and; WHEREAS, dense vegetation on the lot helps screen the view of the house from the lake, and the setback to the ordinary high water is approximately 80 feet, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance for the reconstruction and two decks, as modified, with conditions. Findings of Fact are: Proposed Resolution Morairty, Case #94-60 Page 2 The appearance from the lake will be enhanced by the decks. The buildable footprint between the road and the top of the bluff is very shallow. Dense vegetation to the east of the house discourages construction of an addition or a deck in that location. Reasonable use of the property will be maintained by allowing the minimally sized decks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming 4.72 foot front yard setback and grant variances to the required setback from the top of a bluff to allow reconstruction of a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, with new roof trusses, and allow the construction of two new decks, as follows: Lower Deck: maximum 10' x 20' deck with not more than 3 piers. Upper Deck: with a projection of 4 feet maximum from the house, with the corners cut off at 45 degree angles. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of these alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6, 5, and Northeasterly 1/2 of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 1744 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15, 16, AND 17, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 24 0007 P&Z CASE//94-61 WHEREAS, the owner, Michael Kohler, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling and deck in order to rebuild and slightly modify the deck, and; WHEREAS, this request results in variances of 1.2 feet to the required 20 foot front yard setback and 3.4 feet to the required side yard setback. All other aspects are conforming to the zoning ordinance, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the proposal is a logical expansion of the deck and the corner is cut back to minimize the impact to the nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 18.8 feet, and side yard setback of 3.8 feet to allow construction of a deck as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. 3 Proposed Resolution Kohler, Case 94-61 Page 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 17 and the Northeasterly 35 feet of Lots 15 and 16, Block 9, Dreamwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 4 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS AND HARDCOVER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 5865 GRANDVlEW BLVD. THAT PART OF LOTS 85 AND 86, MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-24 42 0107 P&Z CASE #94-54 WHEREAS, the owners, William and Diane Michel, have applied for variances to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to the dwelling of 13 feet to Sunset Road resulting in a request for a 7 foot front yard variance, and a variance to impervious surface coverage of approximately ~ percent (total hardcover at approximately..85r'percent), and; 5.5  he prgposed pg_rchjs confprming to setba..cks, a_.n_,d WHEREAS, the subject property is 10Jcated within the RI2 One and TwO Fame,y Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Grandview Blvd. and Sunset Road, a 6 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, this property is over intensified and any further development that occurs should include some improvement in the percentage of impervious surface coverage, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby recognize a~ foot front yard variance and a variance to impervious surface coverage of~ percent (total 64 percent, or 4,787.5 square feet of coverage), to allow construction of an 11' x 12' screen norch existing deck, subject to' ' ' ' ' ~ 132 '- over an ..... · e~:~~~t-~~~'~'a~ ( square feet) of ex~st~ng ~mperv~ous surface be returned'to green space. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution Michel, #94-54 Page 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 11' x 12' screen porch over an existing deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lots 85 and 86, MOUND SHORES, lying West of the East 70 feet of said lots, and Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said 70 feet distant 34.10 feet, North of the intersection of said West line with the South line of said Lot 85, through a point on the westerly line of said Lot 86, distant 21.56 feet northerly of the southwest corner of said Lot 86, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. '-"Z ~0 (Do Zo~ --- [ Dwe}lin3 ~NOw[,~? .... 0 /~AD ~ ~URVE¥1NG & £NOINE£RINO CO. 14 117 24, Bill Uich~le see reverse side hereof 6/2/83 6/3/83 3O JOB NUMBER SEC/TWPIRN CLIE~IT LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATE SURVEYED DATE DRAFTED SCALEIN FEET PERINCH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: none FIRST FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR SANITARY SEWER BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION ,~300 HIGHWAY lO! SO(J~'H MINN£ TONICA. MINN£~O TA 55343 STANDARD SYMBOLS "O" Denotes 112' iD pipe with plastic plug bearing State Registration NO. 9235, set. "e" Denotes iron monument found. "+" Denotes cross chiseled in concrete surface. "982x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured at the point marked by "x", In this case, 982.5 feet above mean sea level. ~Oenotes proposed spot elevation at the point marked by "x". " >" Denotes proposed direction of storm water runoff. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, survey, report or specification was prepared by me and that I ~r~, a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Profes- sional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Ja~q~ H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA ?~5'~) ~-~ EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30% = SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: ( if impervious surface under deck = 100% ) LENGTH WIDTH X = :' X -- TOTAL HOUSE ******************* X -- TOTAL GARAGE ****************** TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** ~ V' x // = X ~'-- TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** o~ E,, ~ 15'"'n k..~ : X --"- X J~)U~_,,"'~,J~ TOTALOTHER *''**'''''*'''''**' TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* -t"' .1- '5 MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YESMNO MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1994 CASE #94-54; WILLIAM & DIANE MICHEL, 5865 GRA~DVIEW BLVD., PILOTS 85 ANr) 86. MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-24 42 0107. VARIANCE - SCREEN PORCII Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize existing nonconforming conditions of setbacks and hardcover in order to construct a three season porch that is conforming to setbacks. Impervious surface information shows hardcover at well over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The existing structure is setback 13 feet from Sunset Road resulting in recognition of a 7 foot front yard variance. All other setbacks are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance to construct a 10' x 10' screen porch, subject to the following conditions: At a minimum, an equal amount of existing impervious surface be returned to green space. An updated survey be provided that is suitable to the Building Official. The following shall be identified on the updated survey: a. All existing and proposed conditions, and setbacks. b. Accurate impervious surface calculations. c. The area of impervious surface to be removed. o The updated survey shall be received and reviewed by staff prior to the City Council hearing of this case. The size of the proposed porch was clarified to be 1 1' x 12'. Mueller commented, that for such a minor improvement, the requirement for an updated survey is asking too much. The Building Official noted that accurate hardcover calculations are needed, and if the applicant can provide them without a revised survey, that would be acceptable. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Clapsaddle noted that the City's goal to reduce hardcover is for the benefit of the people in the community. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller requested the Commission reconsider the requirement for a survey. MOTION made by Mueller, and sec~)nded by Hanus to reconsider the previous motion. MOTION made by Muellero sec~)nded by Hanus, to amended condition #2 in staff's recommendation, as follows: An updated survey must be provided by the applicant that is suitable to the Building Official. The following shall be identified on the updated survey:...' MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994. ill, ! II I I III, !1, ,I CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of August 8, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~/'~'~ 0 Variance Request William & Diane Michel 94-54 5865 Grandview Blvd., part of Lots 85 and 86, Mound Shores, PID #14-117-24 42 0107 R-2 Single Family Residential This property is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which for single family dwellings, requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to both Grandview and Sunset, and side yard setback of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize existing nonconforming conditions of setbacks and hardcover in order to construct a three season porch that is conforming to setbacks. Impervious surface information shows hardcover at well over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The existing structure is setback 13 feet from Sunset Road resulting in recognition of a 7 foot front yard variance. All other setbacks are conforming. This property is over intensified and any further development that occurs should include some improvement in the percentage of impervious surface coverage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance to construct a 10' x 10' screen porch, subject to the following conditions: At a minimum, an equal amount of existing impervious surface be returned to green space. Staff Report Michel - #94-94 Page 2 e An updated survey be provided that is suitable to the Building Official. The following shall be identified on the updated survey: a. All existing and proposed conditions, and setbacks. b. Accurate impervious surface calculations. c. The area of impervious surface to be removed. The updated survey shall be received and reviewed by staff prior to the City Council hearing of this case. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. Council on August 23, 1994. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner '~ Public Works City Engineer ,'~.i DNR Other J&13 Applicatiol~ ~~,/ Case No. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~$~' Lot Addition Zoning District ~'~ ~ ~ Use of Property: Block Day Phone Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies 6f resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ! ! / V~ufance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoni~ district in which it is located? Yes (), No (,v). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (~ S l~W~ ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: (/lq S E W ) ft. ' ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N~i~_ W ) ~ / ft. /7~ ' ft. Q / ft. Rear Yard: ( N S (F~:'W) ' - ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. '(NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ~-~ ft. ft. o Does the present use of the property conform to all reg~lati0ns for the zoning district in which it is located.* Yes ('JO, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ~()~ drainage ( ) too shallow ~ shape ( ) soil .~l, existing situation ( )'other: specify Please describe: j ,~ n J I J, I, Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~/~. ff yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature /~~-~'.~,/~v~~ Date "? (/~,~//~/7~/ Applicant's Signature Date II II 11 .? r '! CON FOPS41 NG ? 2O ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S g M SIDE{ N S B~ M _. 4' Or 6' SIDE3~ N S g V 4' Og ~' ~SHO~ SO' fmeasur~d fr~ FRONT: N $ g W FRONT: N S g W SIDE{ N S K M SIDE{ N S g W N · THE PJ:~O,.~LOSI:D I~IPROI~E;I.~MTS CONFORbI? YE~ NO~. 2605.30 RES ... '14-'1 '1 7-2z 19 .',a4 (50) ?? V · ?3 s' (53) ~s ,iS ~?'~'E ¥' ,06. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND GARAGE AT 5967 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS PID #23-117-24 31 0011, P&Z CASE #94-55 WHEREAS, the owner, Bradly Curtis, has applied for a variance to construct a deck and detached garage that will be conforming to setbacks, resulting in an increase.to the existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage to a total of 43 percent, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has modified his request to be consistent with staff's recommendation that will be conforming to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has stated that he is willing to maintain green space at the side and rear of the garage, which will ultimately decrease hardcover by approximately 64 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to impervious surface coverage of 13 percent, subject to the following: A 16' x 26' detached garage that is conforming to the required side and rear yard setbacks of 4 feet. A 10' x 26' deck as shown on the survey dated July 7, 1994. The decking shall be an open pattern design with a minimum 1/4" spacing between each deck member, as approved by the Building Official. The area under the deck shall remain as a permeable surface. c. Green space be maintained at the side and rear of the garage. d. The existing shed be removed when the garage is completed. Proposed Resolution Curtis, I134-55 Page 2 e o The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 10' x 26' deck on the front of the house, and a detached garage 16' x 26'. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8, Block 10, The Highlands. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ii, ! J I J JlJ J, J, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1994 CASE #94-55; BRADLY CURTIS, 5967 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 10, PID 23- 117-2431 0011. VARIANCE- DECK AND DETACHED GARAGE Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance in order to construct a deck and garage. The proposed deck is conforming to setbacks. The garage is proposed to have a 2 foot side yard setback, a 4 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 2 feet. Both the deck and garage increase the existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage totalling 43%. The proposed deck is conforming to setbacks, however, according to our current ordinance, decks are considered 50% impervious surface, and this slightly increases (130 sq ft) the excessive hardcover on this site. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the following: 1. A 16' x 26' detached garage that is conforming to the required side and rear yard setbacks of 4 feet. A 10' x 26' deck as shown on the survey dated July 7, 1994. The decking shall be an open pattern design with a minimum 1/4" spacing between each deck member, as approved by the Building Official. The area under the deck shall remain as a permeable surface. The applicant confirmed that he would like to place the garage 4 feet from the side lot line and 4 feet from the rear lot line which would increase hardcover, however, he is willing to maintain green space at the side and rear of the garage, and ultimately decrease hardcover by approximately 64 square feet. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: 1. Green space be maintained at the side and rear of the garage. 2. The existing shed be removed when the garage is completed. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 23, 1994. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of August 8, 1994 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Bradly Curtis CASE NO. 94-55 LOCATION: 5967 Idlewood Road, Lot 8, Block 10, This Highlands, PID/t23-117-24 31 0011 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-lA Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a lake side setback 50 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance in order to construct a deck and garage. The proposed deck is conforming to setbacks. The garage is proposed to have a 2 foot side yard setback, a 4 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 2 feet. Both the deck and garage increase the existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage, as follows: 6837'sq ft @ 30% 2,051 3O% House 1,014 Driveway 1,300 Other 52 2,366 35% Garage 41 6 Deck (@ 50%) 130 Total Hardcover 2,912 43% (8% increase) Total Difference 861 13% over printed on recycledpP, per 11 I, I I ,I, ,iJ, I ~t Staff Report Curtis - #94-55 Page 2 COMMENTS The City of Mound has, in the past, supported the construction of garages to ease the accumulation of clutter. The applicant has not shown a hardship or practical difficulty in this case. It appears there is a reasonable alternative to the proposed location of the garage that is conforming to setbacks. The proposed deck is conforming to setbacks, however, according to our current ordinance, decks are considered 50% impervious surface, and this slightly increases (130 sq ft) the excessive hardcover on this site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the following: 1. A 16' x 26' detached garage that is conforming to the required side and rear yard setbacks of 4 feet. A 10' x 26' deck as shown on the survey dated July 7, 1994. The decking shall be an open pattern design with a minimum 1/4" spacing between each deck member, as approved by the Building Official. The area under the deck shall remain as a permeable surface. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4724620 Planning Commission Date:~ City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Other Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property i_5''~q~ 7 ~-.~t~ ] Addition Zoning District Owner's Name O~vn~'s Address Block PID No. Day Phone q 7,~ ~,25 Applicant's Name (if other than owuer) Address Day Phone Has m~ application cver beer,,,,,,~.,.--'~o fo-". zoning, ,~,o,4.~.an..~.~, cendifien-d use ~rmit, .... or other tuning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, g,W~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): l! ~ II I J ,J, !1, Application (11/93) Case No. o Do the existing structures comply wwiJ, l~all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~,No( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S/~V ) fi. fi- fi' Side Yard: ( NS~W ) ~4 ~ fi. _~.~_~ fi. ~ . fi. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) fi. fi. fi. Rear Yard: ( N ~' E W ) fi. fi. fi. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) fi. fi. fi. : (NSEW) fi. fi- fi. Street Frontage: fi. fi. fi' Lot Size: sq fi SCl fi sq fl Hardcover: ~OL,~ sq fi '~sq fi sq fi Does the present)~se of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Ca~ No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone/having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Wa.~ th.~/hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~.. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for)vhich 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? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date J, J II II J il, J, J PETERS, PRICE & SAMSON LAND SURVEYORS, LTD. 12400 PRINCETON AVENUE SOUTH, SAVAGE, MINNESOTA 55378 · 612-890-9201 Certificate Of Survey For SCALE 1"=30' ROAD IDLEWOOD Conc. Curb -..2 BRAD CURTIS PK nail N DESCRIPTION Lot 8 Block 10 THE HIGHLANDS Hennepin County, .:2.9 oDenotes Iron Monument Set ®Denotes Iron Monument Found We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representatio~ of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land, and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visible.encroachments, if any, from or on said land. ~,u~,,~ ~, ~,,~,s ~".'-~ ~a, o, ~--~ ,,,'~,,- ~~...~Z~'/-"~ ,..s. Minnesota License No /"~(~ 90 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: EXISTING LOT AREA~ SQ FT X 15% LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: X X GARAGE: TOTAL HOUSE ******************* X = DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE ****************** St/ x /9 = ??D TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: ~,~, ~, X / 0 = (if imperv£ous X = surface under deck = [00[) TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK ~i~ I.~ CTOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSED ********************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,49, ,, :6 (4i ~$ ,5 .(,9, (91 t DDRESS: R.~ uI t -- ~ t · / Q RED _ EXISTING '~ '~ I ~,~~ Irt ,..x -,. Survey on [J~e? Re~tred ~t Width: ~ I (frontage on an Lmproved public street) Existin9 ~t Width 8ETBACE8 REQUIRED: PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT: ~ S m~ W SIDE: M S~W ~s N~ g W ~ ~S HO~ s -- S0' (measured from ~XISTZNG ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ZS IZ (8~) ~5 (82) CONFORNI NG ? YES (85))s 3Z NO ZT. 5 '55C ~0 C' ~_==o ~.2.. = , PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 4701 SUFFOLK ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 14, WYCHWOOD PID #19-117-23 32 0148, P&Z CASE #94-56 WHEREAS, owner, Susan Culver, has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling, to construct a nonconforming 14' x 24' detached garage, resulting in the following variance requests: Existing/ Required Proposed Variance House (N) 20' 11' 9' House (E) 20' 13'_ .. ~ 7' Garage (E) 20' ~:;i ~i~ii~~' 15' and; WHEREAS, the existing garage, which is proposed to be demolished, is currently setback approximately 2.5 feet from the front property line, and; WHEREAS, there is dense vegetation and mature trees on the slope, which if disturbed, could create erosion problems, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Suffolk Road and Essex Lane, a 6 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, a side yard setback of 6 feet is required for the garage, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with a modified front setback of 15 feet for the garage. Findings of fact include: hardship and reasonable use exist due to topography and the number of mature trees; and the fact that the existing garage, which is to be removed, has a 2.5'+/- setback to the front, so a 15 foot setback is an improvement. Proposed Resolut/on Culver, #94-56 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 5 foot front yard setback variance for the proposed detached garage, and recognizes the existing nonconforming front yard setbacks to the dwelling of 11 feet to the north and 13 feet to the east. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 14' x 24' detached garage. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots I thru 3, Block 14, Wychwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1994 CASE//94-56: SUSAN CULVER, 4701 SUFFOLK ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 14, WYCHWOOD, PID//19-117-23 32 0145. VARIANCE - DETACHED GARAGE Building Official, Jon Sutherland0 reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling in order to construct a 14' x 24' detached garage. The garage as proposed is setback 5 feet from the front property line resulting in a variance of 15 feet. There is an existing garage in approximately the same location that is to be removed. The applicable variances are listed below. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. Existing/ Required Proposed Variance House (NI 20' 11' 9' House (E) 20' 13' 7' Garage (E) 20' 5' 15' The topography on this site slopes down towards the southwest, however, this does not preclude the ability to construct a garage in a conformation location. Impervious surface would also be conforming with the additional driveway that would be needed to serve the garage with a 20 foot setback. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. The Commission confirmed that a side yard setback of 6 feet is required for the garage. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Mueller explained to the commission that the lot drops-off significantly mid-way back and there is dense vegetation and mature trees on the slope. It is his opinion that due to the topography and tree coverage the garage should not be required to meet the 20 foot front yard setback. If the trees and vegetation are disturbed on this hillside it could create an erosion problem. The Commission reviewed reasons for moving the garage back, including: needing enough area to park a car in front of the garage, and line of site when existing the driveway. The applicant's noted the following reasons for allowing the garage closer to the street: if the garage is moved back it would block the view from a window in the house to the rear of the garage is a majority of her only useable level yard space she backs into her garage so there is no line of site problem there is a parking space to the side of the garage so none is needed in the front they are concerned about erosion on the hillside A compromise on the setback was discussed. Clapsaddie moved to amend the motion to approve a 15 foot front yard setback, resulting in a 5 foot variance. A conforming 6 foot side yard setback shall be maintained. Weiland seconded the amendment. Findings of fact Include: hardship and reasonable use exist due to topography and the number of mature trees; and the fact that the existing garage, which is to be removed, has a 2.5'+1- setback to the front, so a 15 foot setback is an improvement. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 23, 1994. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: ' Susan Culver CASE NO, LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of August 8, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~-~ o 94-56 4701 Suffolk Road, Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 14, Wychwood PID//19-1 17-23 32 0148 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-lA Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet to both Suffolk and Essex, a side yard setback of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 1 § feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling in order to construct a 14' x 24' detached garage. The garage as proposed is setback 5 feet from the front property line resulting in a variance of 15 feet. There is an existing garage in approximately the same location that is to be removed. The applicable variances are listed below. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. Existing/ Required Proposed Variance House (N) 20' 11' 9' House (E) 20' 13' 7' Garage (E) 20' 5' 15' COMMENTS The topography on this site slopes down towards the southwest, however, this does not preclude the ability to construct a garage in a conformation location. Impervious surface would also be conforming with the additional driveway that would be needed to serve the garage with a 20 foot setback. il, ! I I I il, l, l, Staff Report Culver - #94-56 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN' 55364 Phone: 4724}600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: ~ City Planner City Engineer Other Public Works DNR :,j Jill 151 Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property t~Ot Lots Addition Zoning District Owner's Name Owner's Address Use of Property: Block iq Pm Day Phone q-'q 'C- 03 oq Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ,~w.-~. Address Day Phone Li-3 g - 0'~ 0 q 1. 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 construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~,No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existin~ , Front Y~d:~ ~ W ) q~' fl. J i Side Y~d: ( N S E W ) '~. ft. R~Y~d: (NSEW) g' ~. ~ide: ( N S E W ) ~. ft. : (NSEW) ~. ft. S~t Frontage: ~. ft. H~ver: ~ ~ Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes.(,~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~'opography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lay ' after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. ff yes, explain: e Wast¥ hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (9'. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes { ), N~. ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature J J J J J il, J, J CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA Cj~q~j SQ FT X 30% = q3qq SQ ri' x 15% = qoq HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: LENGTH WIDTH IO.~ X l~.q = l'~- ~o. ~ X tq,~ = Iq¢, g,c, , ~, X ,.~'~. '4 _- 'Lt ~/. ,44 ~o.x" ,4 ~ ,o -_ ~ ."5 _ TOTALHOUSE · · · · · · · · * * * · · · · · · · * X = TOTAL GARAGE · X TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: ~.~ X I"~ = ) I ~- (if impervious X -- surface under deck = 100~) TOTALDECK · · ·******* ·* · TOTAL DECK @ 50% · * * ~ -" '* * * -" * * * * "' "' OTHER: X = X -- TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***·***··*·*·******··******** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .- ,,.%.00%°°, SUSSELGARAGES ROOF: ~ EAVE OVERHANG' REVERSE GABLE: "HIP RAKE OVERHANG: SEAL DOWN SHINGLES WITH PLYWOOD OR WAFERBOARD ROOF SHEATHING AND 15 LB. FELT -- Roof Sheathing / Manufactured Trusses 2" x.4" Double Top Plate Seal Down Shingles Trim l"x 4" Sub Fascia Fascia NOTE: 1) Roof approved by Minn. State Building Dept. as meeting Minn. State Code Requirements of 30# snow load. 2) Hip roofs consist of 2" x 6" rafters, 2" x 6" cross ties 48" D.C., 2" x 8" hip rafters and no plywood goss~ts are used. RAFTERS: (,,.Trusses @ 24" o.c...~ STUDS: 2" x 4" 16" D.C. 24" D.C. WALL SHEATHING: ~;~.,I.: ~. SIDING: HEADER: ~u~r OVERHEAD DOOR 2 - Micro Lams_ x_ Soffit 3/4" Cove -- 2" x 4" Studs -- Siding Slab on grade construction approved per Minnesota State Code. Refer to State Building Code Letter Number 1 I. SLAB: 4- WITH MESH 6" x 6" #10 Gauge 45 1/2" x 7" Anchor Bolt 2- x 4" Treated Bottom Plate Grade I ~DDRESS. ~., ~ ..- , ZONE: R~OuIiml~U gxls?INO ' Required ~t Widgh: __ {frontage on an improved ~blic atree~} 8E?BACKB REQUIRED-' FRONT:~Nr ,~,~.~$G~,~W ~ FRONT ~ S · ~ SIDE: N S g W ~SHO~: 50' (m~a~u~ed ~rom O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDIH~ FRONT:~N FRONT ~ S g W SIDE: NO) W SIDE: N S E W · ' L~SHO~ 50' fmeaaur~ from EXISTING ]~ND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS{ PRINCIPAL RUILDIN(~ SIDg: N S g W SIDEr N S g W ,I LAKESHORE { N · WILL THE PROPOSED~RO~NT~ CONFO~ YES NO YES PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-__ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING DECKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 5952 SUNSET ROAD, LOTS 22 & 23, MOUND SHORES PID #14-117-24 42 0058, P&Z CASE #94-59 WHEREAS, the owners, Michael and Susan Henning, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming shed at the shoreline, and two nonconforming decks within the bluff zone to allow construction of a conforming garage addition, and; WHEREAS, the 8' x 10' shed at the shoreline is setback approximately 8 feet from the ordinary high water, and 2.3 feet from the side property line, and; WHEREAS, the decks, 8' x 10' and 10' x 12', are linked to the stairway within the bluff area leading to the shoreline and according to the current Zoning Ordinance are not permitted; landings which do not exceed 32 square feet are permitted, and; WHEREAS, the proposed garage addition has. two levels with entry doors towards the street and lake side. WHEREAS, the existing 10' x 12' shed at the top of the hill can be relocated to meet the required setback from the top of the bluff, and; WHEREAS, before the Shoreland Management Ordinance was implemented, a building permit was obtained in 1989 for the stairway and decks, and they were inspected and approved by the Building Official, and; WHEREAS, the shed at the shoreline does not have a concrete floor, and can easily be relocated, and; WHEREAS, the decks are in solid condition, are of open pattern, have vegetation growing underneath, and there are no erosion problems, and; WHEREAS, when the decks deteriorate and need to be replaced, a permit will be required and they can be brought into conformance at that time, and; WHEREAS, the shed at the shoreline could possible be continually repaired or maintained, and could feasibly have a very long life, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is'located within the(~). Single F~ Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of~ square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50'Toot setback to the ordinary high water level, and; J, · J J ,~ J, il, ,Il PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING DECKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 5952 SUNSET ROAD, LOTS 22 & 23, MOUND SHORES PID #14-117-24 42 0058, P&Z CASE #94-59 WHEREAS, the owners, Michael and Susan Henning, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming shed at the shoreline, and two nonconforming decks within the bluff zone to allow construction of a conforming garage addition, and; WHEREAS, the 8' x 10' shed at the shoreline is setback approximately 8 feet from the ordinary high water, and 2.3 feet from the side property line, and; WHEREAS, the decks, 8'x 10' and 10' x 12', are linked to the stairway within the bluff area leading to the shoreline and according to the current Zoning Ordinance are not permitted; landings which do not exceed 32 square feet are permitted, and; WHEREAS, the proposed garage addition has two levels with entry doors towards 'the street and lake side. WHEREAS, the existing 10' x 12' shed at the top of the hill can be relocated to meet the required setback from the top of the bluff, and; WHEREAS, before the Shoreland Management Ordinance was implemented, a building permit was obtained in 1989 for the stairway and decks, and they were inspected and approved by the Building Official, and; WHEREAS, the shed at the shoreline does not have a concrete floor, and can easily be relocated, and; WHEREAS, the decks are in solid condition, are of open pattern, have vegetation growing underneath, and there are no erosion problems, and; WHEREAS, when the decks deteriorate and need to be replaced, a permit will be required and they can be brought into conformance at that time, and; WHEREAS, the shed at the shoreline could possible be continually repaired or maintained, and could feasibly have a very long life, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 1 O,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; Proposed Resolut/on Henn/ng, #94-59 Page 2 WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming decks located within the bluff impact zone, to allow construction of a garage addition, subject to the following: a. The 8' x 10' shed at the shoreline shall be removed by February 28, 1995. b. The garage addition shall have conforming setbacks. c. The existing 10' x 12' shed at the top of the bluff shall be relocated to a conforming location prior to building permit issuance. d. The hardcover shall be conforming. e. The applicants shall work with the Building Official on planning proper vegetation screening for the shed and garage addition to reduce the visual impact from the lake. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 30' x 34' garage addition. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 22 and 23, Mound Shores. ]1 I I I I Il, i, Proposed Resolution Henning, #94-59 Page 3 This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SUE HENNING IN LOTS 22 & 23, MOUND SHORES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA N a?° ~9'F 9o.O SUNSET 2i ( ) ROAD Existing Legal Description · : Iron marker found Iron marker set , Lots 22 and 23, MOUND SHORES. o 'i Existing elevationI This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements ! hereby certihj thai this survey was prepared by me or under my direct suF,~'- vbloa, and that I am a duly re$islered Civil Ensineer and Land Surveyor under the laws ~ the State o/Minnesota. ' ~ .' Mark $. C:ronbere ~',{inne~la l.lcen~e ~umh'r l??qq PHONE NO. il, ! I I · III, i, 1STATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RO WATERS - 1200 W~,NI~.R ROAD, ST. PA~T_,, ~ 55106 772-7910 FILE NO. August 11, 1994 Mr. Jon Sutherland city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: MICHAEL AND SUSAN HENNING, VARIANCE REQUEST, DUTCH LAKE (27- i$1P), CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the above-referenced variance proposal and we recommend that the variance be approved with the following conditions: It appears that the proposed garage may be built within the 10' setback from the top of the bluff that is on the property. The proposed garage should approach no closer to the top of the bluff than the current house, or 10', whichever is less. There is a reasonable alternative available to constructing the proposed garage within the 10' setback from the top of the bluff. Based on the information we received, it appears that the garage could be shifted toward Sunset Road. The applicants propose moving an existing shed onto the bluff. The shed should not be placed within the bluff area. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify moving the shed into the bluff. The approval of this portion of the variance proposal due to hardship should be based on the following pre-requisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable Be It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns"' and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. The problem must not be created by the landowner. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound August 11, 1994 Page 2 The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. Should you have any questions regarding these comments contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, lchter Hydrologist JR/cl c: City of Mound Shoreland file il, I I I I lIJ, i, I. ~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 004) _~ SQFT X 30% = Z~47~ SQFT X 1590 = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: ,./'7. 'v x 2 6' = /Z3z, Y -' ~',o7 x /,7 = - yz.p TOTAL HOUSE ****************'** ?. ?.~ 2,3 = DRIVEWAY: X X -- TOTAL DRIVEWAY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DECK: ¢~¢~% X =. (if impervious X = surface under deck = 100[) TOTALDECK ************* 3o7 OTHER: TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** X TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************' /~,o~£F~ ,~,~/r,~,,~ 3,~o_- lO2O- (:~~ (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * /?2 3~3 6 I ~,.YES, .NO DATE: MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1994 CASE #94-59: MICHAEL AND SUSAN HENNING, 5952SUNSET ROAD, LOTS 22 & 234 MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-2442 0058. VARIANCE - GARAGE ADDITION Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory buildings, in order to construct a 30' x 36' garage addition that is nonconforming by .5' to the required 6' side yard setback. The proposed garage addition has two levels with entry doors towards the street and lake side. This property is in a bluff zone. A revised survey was received today which indicated the top of the bluff, and it has been determined that the 10' x 12' shed at the top of the hill can be relocated to meet the required setbacks. Hardcover calculations do not include any driveway modifications and must be revised. The applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the proposed garage to be conforming to the required 6 foot side yard setback. The DNR's comments have not yet been received. The existing decks are not permitted in the bluff area. Landings are permitted which do not exceed 32 square feet. It may be more desirable to have a deck on the dwelling and reduce the size of the decks on the hillside. The applicant's, however, have indicated that they do not desire to construct a deck on the lake side of the home. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to construct a garage addition with a conforming 6 foot side yard setback and conforming bluff setbacks, subject to the following conditions: 1. Both existing sheds shall be relocated to conforming locations in the rear yard or lake side of the dwelling, prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised survey shall be submitted that details conforming hardcover and setbacks. 3. The revised survey shall be reviewed by staff prior to the City Council hearing this request. The existing decks within the bluff impact zone and shall be reduced in size to a maximum of 32 square feet in area for each deck. 5. This variance includes approval of the future construction of and deck on the lake side of the dwelling that is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for hardcover and setbacks. Il I, I I I,, iJ, i · Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 The Building Official also noted that the shed on top of the hill, and the garage addition, should be screened with vegetation to reduce the visual impact from the lake. The Commission clarified that if the applicant's comply with staff's recommendation, a variance is not needed. Applicant, Sue Henning, submitted revised hardcover calculations to the Commission which includes the driveway and the hardcover is conforming. The applicants indicated that the stairway and decks were inspected and approved by the Building Official in 1989, before the Shoreland Management Ordinance was implemented, and were legal at the time. In addition, at the time the shed by the shoreline was constructed, it was also conforming. The Commission noted that the shed does not have a concrete floor. The Building Official confirmed that the decks are in solid condition, are of open pattern, have vegetation growing underneath, and there are no erosion problems. Hanus moved, and Weiland seconded a motion to extend the meeting adjournment time to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission noted that when the decks deteriorate and need to be replaced, a permit will be required and they will be brought into conformance, but what would prevent the shed from being continually repaired or maintained. It is possible that the shed by the shoreline could last a very long time. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance to allow the existing nonconforming decks at the lake side to remain, subject to the following: 1. The garage addition be constructed with conforming setbacks. 2. The hardcover be conforming. 3.' The 8' x 10' shed at the shoreline be removed by February 28, 1995. 4. The applicants work with the Building Official on planning proper vegetation screening for the shed and garage addition. MOTION carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of August 8, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .~ '~ o Variance Request APPLICANT: Michael & Susan Henning CASE NO. 94-59 LOCATION: 5952 Sunset Road, Lots 22 and 23, Mound Shores, PID//14-117-24 42 0058 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-lA Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a lake side setback 50 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory buildings, in order to construct a 30' x 36' garage addition that is nonconforming by .5' to the required 6' side yard setback. The proposed garage addition has two levels with entry doors towards the street and lake side. Please refer to the attached plans. This property is in a bluff zone. Additional topographical information is needed on the survey to identify the following: the toe and top of bluff the bluff impact zone the 25 foot setback to the shore impact zone related setbacks to structures Staff will address these issues as soon as the information is provided. Hardcover calculations do not include any driveway modifications and must also be revised. Presuming an additional 18' x 45' = 810 square foot area is added, total hardcover will still be conforming at 3,779 square feet (note hardcover calculation work sheet). ~i ! I I I il, l, Staff Report Henning - #94-59 Page 2 COMMENTS The proposed garage should be reduced in size to be conforming to the required 6 foot side yard setback. The existing 10' x 12' shed at the lake side should be relocated to a conforming location. The number of accessory buildings and their size is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. The DNR's comments were unavailable at the time of this report, but should be available and considered by the Planning Commission at the meeting. The existing decks are not permitted in the bluff area. Landings are permitted which do not exceed 32 square feet. It may be more desirable to have a deck on the dwelling and reduce the size of the decks on the hillside. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to construct a garage addition with a conforming 6 foot side yard setback and conforming bluff setbacks, subject to the following conditions: Both existing sheds shall be relocated to conforming locations in the rear yard or lake side of the dwelling, prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised survey shall be submitted that details conforming hardcover and setbacks. The revised survey shall be reviewed by staff prior to the City Council hearing this request. The existing decks within the bluff impact zone and shall be reduced in size to a maximum of 32 square feet in area for each deck. This variance includes approval of the future construction of and deck on the lake side of the dwelling that is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for hardcover and setbacks. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 :j, JJ. 2 Planning Commission Date: August 8, 1994 City Council Date: A.?.,,~r 23, 1994 Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Distribution~ × \/ City Planner _,,~ Public Works City Engineer ~ DNR Other q Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 5952 Sunset Road Mound MN Lot Mound Shores Lots 22 & 23 Block Addition Zoning District Owner's Name PIDNo. 14-ll7-?fi fi2 0058 ZR-1A Resfdential Use of Property: ~ichael & Susan Henning Residential pdf~3fPhone 479-3013 6a.m. to Owner's Address 5952 Sunset Road Mnl,nd Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resoluUon number(s) mid provide copies of resolutions. Nc} Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): We would like to .ut a 30' X 36' garage on olace of our present detriorating 1 stall garage. This would include a foundation underneath the new garage. ii, J J J J il, J, ,J ariance ^pplicati0a (11/93) Case No. Page 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)' Yes, as faf as we know. SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Pron. Garage side Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) Lower decklake-:e( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: 6 ft. 5.5 ft. 4 ft. 2.3 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 50 ft. 7.5 ft. 50 ft. 31 ft. ft. ft. sqft sq ft sqft sq ft .5 ft. 1.7 ft. 42.5 ft. 19 ft. exceeds 32 ft. ft. max. sq ft sq ft o Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Yes S( Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (x) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (x) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: hills ,adam a '~v?lication (11/93) Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: No Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: No Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vaciance peculiar only to the property described ir, this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? No, other Dutch Lake shore owners have ghod~ dn,,n hy the !~ke because of the topography of the area(hills). 9. Comme~ts: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. C w::er'$ Signature A~Tcrnt's Signature_ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1'7.0 Z Ex/sfl n9 Shed ~'0.0 ( 87° Ig'F ~10. 0 '?-/3. ROAD SUNSET !1 i)-/r ;I, JJ J J J I il, ,J, J JJ ADDRESS: ~ J ~ 2~NE: _ ~Ouz~u ~XXS~ZNO _ ~ Date of surveyS. ~t of Record? yes~ no ?__ (frontage on an ~proved pubXLc atteetJ V Survey on file? yes~ no__ Required Lot Width: Existing Lot Width S~TBACKS REQUXRED: PRINCIP~ ~ILOING FRONT: N ~ W FRONT: N E W FRONT: N $ E W AChY BUILDING FRONT: N0 FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S~W 4' ~; ~' SIDE: N S EO 4' 9; §' ~AR: ~S E W 4' L~KJ:SNO~: S0' (meaeu~e~ from 0,~.W.I FRONTz FRONT: SIDE: SIDE: R~AR~ LAK~SHOR~: WILL THE PROPOSED IMPRO~]~MENTS ACCESSORY BUILDING LUI CONFORm? YES, NO~. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of August 22, 1994 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official '<~',~ ' Variance Request Randall Morairt¥ 94-60 4536 Denbigh Road, Lots 5, 6, and South 1/2 of 4, Block 2, Avalon, PID//19- 117-23 24 0008 R-lA Single Family Residential This property is located in the R-lA Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, a rear yard setback of 15 feet, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level. The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 4.72 feet in order to gain approval for the re-construction of portions of the structure as identified on the attached plans. A 10' x 20' two story area at the rear was dilapidated, and it has been removed and reframed. New roof trusses have been installed over 31 feet of the rear portion of the home. Also included in this request is a 3 foot deck on the rear. The deck and the reconstruction are within the bluff impact zone. Impervious surface, lakeshore, and side yard setbacks are conforming. COMMENTS There have been two building permits issued recently for this property, one in January of 1993 for a fireplace, interior insulation, and sheetrock; and one in July of 1994 to finish the basement area. Permits have not been issued that cover the reconstruction of the exterior walls or the roof truss modification. This portion of the work exceeds the scope of the current permits. p~'lnted on re¢¥cledpaper PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO VARIANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION ~AND A DECK 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTSS, SAN S~THI/2OF4~ BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID P&Z CASE #94-60 WHEREAS, the owner, Randall Morairty, has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 4.72 feet, resulting in a variance of 15.28 feet, to re-construct a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, and to construct two new decks within the bluff impact zone, an upper deck 6' x 20' and a lower deck 15' x 20', and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water level, and; WHEREAS, the subject property contains a bluff. A 10 foot setback from the top of the bluff is required for all structures, and; WHEREAS, the 10' x 20' portion of the dwelling was removed and reframed without the proper permits, and new roof trusses have been installed over 31 feet of the rear portion of the home. Prior to the variance application, building permits were issued for interior remodeling, but not for reconstruction of the exterior walls or the roof truss modification, and; WHEREAS, the contractor has stated that during the remodeling process, after the removal of the interior wall surface, they discovered the extremely poor construction and condition of the exterior walls, and; WHEREAS, the portion of the dwelling which was reconstructed is set at the top of the bluff, and the proposed decks would encroach into the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the footprint has not changed, and during construction, vegetation on the steep slope has not been disturbed. The buildable footprint of this property is limited by the bluff and the required setbacks, and; WHEREAS, when the upper level was reconstructed, joists were cantilevered out 4 feet to allow for a future deck. Originally, there was no door on the upper level. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined to afford the owner reasonable use of the property, a minimum deck is rational, and; WHEREAS, dense vegetation on the lot helps screen the view of the house from the lake, and the setback to the ordinary high water is approximately 80 feet, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance for the reconstruction and two decks, as modified, with conditions. Findings of Fact are: Proposed Resolution Morairty, Case #94-60 Page 2 The appearance from the lake will be enhanced by the decks. The buildable footprint between the road and the top of the bluff is very shallow. Dense vegetation to the east of the house discourages construction of an addition or a deck in that location. Reasonable use of the property will be maintained by allowing the minimally sized decks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming 4.72 foot front yard setback and grant variances to the required setback from the top of a bluff to allow reconstruction of a 1 O' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, with new roof trusses, and allow the construction of two new decks, as follows: Lower Deck: maximum 10' x 20' deck with not more than 3 piers. Upper Deck: with a projection of 4 feet maximum from the house, with the corners cut off at 45 degree angles. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of these alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6, 5, an~ortheasterly 1/2 of Lot 4,~lock 2, Avalon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 2 Il, I I I I il, i, i Staff Report Morairty #94-60 Page 2 The contractor has stated that during the remodeling process, after the removal of the interior wall surface, they discovered the extremely poor construction and condition of the exterior walls. They then proceeded to replace them, assuming this work would be approve~l, a~ there wa~ no further expanslon of the foundation. The footprint has not changed, and during construction vegetation on the steep slope has not been disturbed. The buildable footprint of this property is limited by the bluff and the required setbacks. All structure is out of the 25 foot shore impact zone. The original dwelling was constructed in 1920. There appears to be a practical difficulty and hardship in this case in order to maintain reasonable use of the property. A variance of some sort is needed to maintain a functional and buildable lot. The setback requirements are partially established for aesthetic reasons, to prevent erosion and disturbance of the bluff. One option would have been to pull back the once dilapidated portion of the structure to the east side and not have an after-the-fact situation. However, due to typical construction techniques this would cause a greater disturbance to the bluff than the existing situation where everything remains intact. Any further expansion into the bluff by the deck should not be permitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the reconstruction as shown on the survey dated August 16, 1994. This is limited to the existing footprint and does not include the proposed deck expansion. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0~20 Planning Commission Date: ? i30~&rla ~i~E'~, - ~cx"b'~i~A{ ,~...~_..._c~ Application Fee: I J - City Council Date: Distribution: ~- 17~. City Planner Public Works City Engineer _,~..- !'7..- DNR Other $50.O0 Please tyi~ or print lhe foflowing information: of openy /4g Owner's Address ~6 Block "~ PID No. Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner). Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure f6r this property? ( ) yes, ~ If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. g 2o/~c/o/ Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No~4~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N~ W ) '2-o ft. /O2 ft. [O4- ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft- Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft- Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft- Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the pres%t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? YestlK]j, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too sh~ow ( ) shape // ( ) soil existing situation other: specify :3537 Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan(' after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No {/~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described intthis petition? Yes (), No~. ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authori~ official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaininI and removin/~7/, h~~uired/1 by law. Owner's S,gnature ~f~A~,/~ c~J//~~ Date t t" - '"~[ · - Applicant's Signature (_// Date il, I I I ,l, il, i, i RECEIVED 05/17/94 ~9~09 --) ClTV OF ~OUND P.$1 BUIT-~ING PE~ SURVEY 13 ' WOOD STAKE PLACED BEARINGS.ON ASSUMED DATUM O · IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION · Ist FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV, · - IRON MON. INPLACE _.__._.__ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. - ,. TOP BLOCK ELEV. ,~ L___~' ELEV. E&P. , ,-- ORAINAGE OOO.O - EXIST. ELEV. ~uuu.u~, PROPOSED EXIST.& PROP. ELEV, { . .... I , ,,...,,,.....,~, ..., ,,.,. ,,,.,,. ~,..~ o. ",;~,,~ ,,-. I Joe.. ', I ~,~ 'z vsa ~" !'~a_ _ I a dulv Rm~{$terld Lafld Surveyor u~der the lav~ of U~ Stale b L.4[ND SURVEYING_ ! o,M~'..;.'°,.. __ I ~oo,-.~.e I., CITY OF MOUND NAME: ADDRESS: HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA J_51 (::)t~ 4-/_. SQ FT X 30% = EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100% ) OTHER: LENGTH WIDTH ~ x z/~ = X = X = TOTAL HOUSE * * _ x X TOTAL GARAGE * x X TOTAL DRIVEWAY TOTAL DECK * * * TOTAL DECK ~ 50% X X TOTAL OTHER * * TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNileVER) ME EI~~~. O YE RAG~~NTS DATE: [ ~~ J ~.. ES, NO Don Bonnickson ~~ PHONE 472-1717 ............................................................ ~-¢~ ~ % e-~-.~t ~. ~,d J, J I I J , il, 1, Don Bonnickson PHONE 472-1717 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 1744 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 15, 16, AND 17, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-2424 0007 P&Z CASE #94-61 WHEREAS, the owner, Michael Kohler, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling and deck in order to rebuild and slightly modify the deck, and; WHEREAS, this request results in variances of 1.2 feet to the required 20 foot front yard setback and 3.4 feet to the required side yard setback. All other aspects are conforming to the zoning ordinance, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the proposal is a logical expansion of the deck and the corner is cut back to minimize the impact to the nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 18.8 feet, and side yard setback of 3.8 feet to allow construction of a deck as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. 3 Proposed Resolution Kohler, Case 94-61 Page 2 o This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 17 and the Northeasterly 35 feet of Lots 15 and 16, Block 9, Dreamwood. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 4 J, J J J J, il, J, J CITY sQ FJ OU ND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of August 22, 1994 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Michael M. Kohler CASE NO. LOCATION: 94-61 1744 Avocet Lane, Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 9, Dreamwood, PID//13-117-24 24 0007 ZONING: R-la Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property is located in the R-la Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling and deck in order to rebuild and slightly modify the deck. The proposed modifications are slightly nonconforming to the front yard setback. There is no further encroachment as the deck follows the existing footprint and setback. This request results in variances of 1.2 feet to the required :20 foot front yard setback and 3.4 feet to the required side yard setback. All other aspects are conforming to the zoning ordinance. The proposal is a logical expansion of the deck and the corner is cut back to minimize the impact to the nonconforming setback. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as the encroachment is minimal, it follows the existing footprint, and it is a reasonable use of the property. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994. Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $50.00 Distribution: ~ l~)., City Planner City Engineer Other Public Works DNR Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property / 7 ~lAt/ Lot /ift I~,~ 1'7 Zoning District Owner's Address Block ~ PID .o. l lt7-o. 0007 51 Applicant's Name (if other than owner). Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure ftr this property.'? ( ) yes, ( ) no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ' x ~.t~:~- ~ I/. x 17.. Ill, I, I Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all ara,e94 height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (~.If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: requ.~ed requested VARIANCE (or existing) Fron ¥ : Side Yard: ((~S E W ) /_o' ft. .~.g ft. ~y' ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq fi .SCl ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~,No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject properly prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: V~u-iance Application (11193) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lar after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)9. Yes (~,No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Z 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? 9. Comments: '~ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date 30, / I hereby c'ert~f:/ th:,t this ~s a true and correct re,~resen!~t!o~ of a ~-urvey / of th,? teund'~ri>:,'~ cf Loi 17 ]:~: t!.c .No:'th,":~:,terl.'. ]5 ['eet of '-'~ It coe~ not ouri~rt to ,~ho~ oth.,~r ]:':.rov.~.:~,-,n:~ or .}nrro:chments. Date : 2-2~-~i0 o ; Iron marker NAME: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND~ HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA>. ~,~ !~-,) EXISTING'LOT AREA:"?~. SQ FT'X'30% = HOUSE: GARAGE: LENGTH x X TOTAL HOUSE * WIDTH DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE ****************** DECK: F (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** X = TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** BY:/ ....... DATE:'~7 ~ GENEIGkL ZONING LNFOIL%IATION $1IEE~F FRONT FRONT I SIDE{ SLOE{ REAR; LAAESHORE { 50' fmeasured fi'om O.N.W,) EXZBTING ~qD/OR PROPOSED 8ETBACKSi PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT { N S ~ W SID~I ~S K W ~ SIDE{ N~ W I.A.K~SHORg { Acc..o,,,. ,,u,L,,,,. "? FRONT FRONT SIDE{ SIDE{ REAR: "~/~/~1 NO 1 7-24. ( HARR I SONS (./) ~ 0:~ B~ I-- < -- ¢~ 0 0 F" MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12~. 1994 DOCK LICENSE FEES FOR 1995: PUBLIC HEARING Parks Director, Jim Fackler, indicated that staff recommends the dock license fees for 1995 stay the same as 1994, with the exception that the LMCD fees have been reduced. Tom Reese, Mound's LMCD Representative, was present to answer questions. Reese explained the history of the LMCD fees for multiple docks, and how the program is run today. Chair Schmidt asked if anyone present was here to speak on this issue, and there was not. Ahrens stated that she would like to see the dock license fees reduced, and questioned the Parks Director what staff's plans are for the fund balance. The Parks Director noted that a fund balance is needed in order to have the ability to do projects such as riprapping and maintenance dredges. The cost of dredges keeps rising. The proposed projects for 1995total $42,770. MOTION made by Geffre, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend to the City Council that the Dock License fees for 1995 remain the same as in 1994, with the exception that the LMCD fees have been reduced. Motion carried unanimously. Taking advantage of Tom Reese's presence, the Commission discussed current issues relating to the LMCD, including their pending light ordinance. The Park Commission requested that staff mail a copy of their guidelines for lights to Mr. Reese. Il I J · J il, J, CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD :- DAD t,aOUND, MINNESOTA 55'.<6-:-":_ 5- ,6:2~4-206a1 FAX ,6'2 ,;:2 {sSi Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 15, 1994 The Laker Peggy James, Secretary News Release Please publish the following news article in the August 1, and August 8, 1994 issues of "The Laker." DOCK LICENSE FEES TO BE DISCUSSED The Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission will be reviewing the dock license fees for 1995 at its meeting on Thursday, August 11, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. The public is invited to comment on this issue. It is the intent of the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the fees remain the same as they were in 1994. If you have any questions, please call City Hall at 472-0600. printed on recycled paper CiTY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 3, 1994 Mr. Tom Reese 5641 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: LMCD DOCK LICENSE FEES AND WINTER DOCK REMOVAL Dear Mr. Reese: The Park and Open Space Commission has requested staff to ask you, as Mound's Representative to the LMCD, to attend their August 11, 1994 meeting to be held at Mound City Hall. A public hearing is scheduled for their August 11th meeting regarding the 1995 Dock License Fees. The Commission feels it would be beneficial to you have present to answer a. ny questions relating to the LMCD fees. Also, the Park Commission has been discussing the issue of winter dock removal. Their concern is that docks not removed during the winter, which are damaged by ice or wind, can produce floating dock parts resulting in a hazardous situation for boaters and other lake users. A copy of the July 14, 1994 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes have been enclosed for your reference. Please notify Peggy James at 472-0607 whether you are able to attend the meeting or not. · erely, Parks Director JF:pj Enclosure il, I I I I Ill, i, ,~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 14, 1994 DOCK LICENSE FEES FOR 1995: PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR AUGUST 11, 1994 PARK MEETING Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the Parks Department proposed budget for 1995 and recommended that the dock fees for 1995 remain the same as in 1994. The 1995 Proposed fund balance is $97,520. Fackler emphasized that it is important to maintain a fund balance for future projects, such as riprapping, dredges, stairways on the commons, and other such improvements. Three of the eight stairs proposed to be constructed on accesses to the commons will be completed next year with a total cost of $10,000. Darling agreed that the fees should remain the same, and commented that the fees are reasonable. The Commission agreed. The LMCD fees were discussed, and it was suggested that Tom Reese be present at the hearing to address any questions relating to those fees. Mound City Code Section 510:00 CHAPTER V FEES; CHARGES AND RATES ~ECTION 510 - FEES, BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS Section 510:00. December $1st Expiration~. Subd. Code No, Section I 437:25 2 437:25 Type of License Conditions A oun Late Dock License Application On or After March 1st $20.00 ** **Add an additional $10 to late dock license applications received on or after April 1, and add an additional $10 per month for each consecutive month thereafter. Straight Docks L, T Docks U, or Special Size Docks Sail Boat Mooring Annual $150.00 Annual $200.00 Annual $235.00 Annual $150.00 (Temporary Boat Docking Fee - See Section 510:35) Application for shared dockage will have $30.00 added to the regular fee charged, to cover the additional administrative work. Senior citizens (65 or order) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00, or $117.50. Senior citizens (65 or older) sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00, or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 of the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $112.50, $150.00, or $176.25. 3. Any additional charges made by the L.M.C.D. (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) will be added to the regular dock fees. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) 3 405:00 Arcades Annual $100.00 12-23-91 a4 4- MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 26, 1994 1.10 APPROVAL OF 1995 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to approve the 1995 Dock License forms, as submitted. The vote was unanimously In favor. Motion carried. 1995 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1995, (must be postmarked by February 28, 1995). Applications received on March 1, 1995 and before April 1 are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the third (3rd) priorit category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31st wil_ not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will be placed in a third (3rd) priorty category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal application BY FEBRUARY 28, 1995 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by March 31. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See information on back for senior citizen rates. Ail information pertaining to you must be completed or the application will be denied. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS WORK PHONE RENEWAL: 1994 Dock Site ~ NEW APPLICATION: Indicate preferred area: Permanent Resident (owner) ' ' *Summer Resident ! ! Owner (paying fee for renter) I .I Renter *SUMMER RESIDENT'S MAILING ADDRESS: H & R m NAME OFPERSONSHARINGDOCK: MOUND STREET ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: CHECK ONE: I__[ Permanent Resident (Owner) [__I Summer Resident [__[ Renter List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft License Number, make and size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses: BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE 1 2 3 4~ ski L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long = $ 7.50 = $11.25 = $15.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $18.75 over 40' and up to 48' long = $22.50 over 48' feet long = $26.25 Permits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof of boat ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. ~1 ! I I I II, i, I l~SDock This is an application only. TYPE OF DOCK No dock can be installed until a location is granted. BASIC FEE I--I I I I--I I I I__1 Straight Dock ..................... L or T Dock. ..................... U or H Dock (not available in all areas) ........ $150.00 $200.O0 $235.00 straight dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' or 'H' Dock --I I FEE AND LEGALITY OF DOCK WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR OR PARK COMMISSION. SENIOR CITIZENS (65 years or older at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50. Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, i.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus $30.00 share fee. SENIOR CITIZEN NAME BIRTH DATE BASIC FEE: 81-3260 $ SHARED DOCK $30.00: 81-3260 $ L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: 81-3200 $ LIGHT FEE: 81-3260 $ LATE PENALTIES: 81-3260 $ TOTAL DUE: XX-XXXX $ (MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF MOUND) LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd. 2 f., if this license is not renewed at expiration (February 28, 1995), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenance from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. Also, if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. DATE Signature /TE Signature (shared dock holder) RETURN TH1SAPPLICATIONWITHAPPL1CABLEFEE ~NDCOPY OF MNLICENSETO TIIECITYOF MOUND BYFEBRUARY28TH. CODE 3260 3200 3810 DOCKS REVENUE DOCK PERMITS LMCD FEE INTEREST TOTAL REVENUE 4350 1992 1993 1994 1995 ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROVED PROPOSED 64357 64816 63500 1372 6213 6000 4085 7435 2500 69814 78464 72000 qO 1300 1440 2100 EXPENDITURES SALARIES, TEMP. 15527 PERA/FICA ~ 1479 OFFICE SUPPLIES 70 17299 16980 1524 1650 74 160 1 ~o 2140 COPY MACHINE FEES 298 264 300 %ZO 2200 OPERATING SUPPLIES 273 2300 REPAIR/MAINT. SUPPLIES 0 244 0 61o ~ 1000 ~OoO 3100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3O 1448 2000 ZooO 3210 POSTAGE 305 3340 USE OF PERSONAL AUTO 156 446 176 5o0 ~go 180 ZoO 4100 LMCD FEES 7338 5110 TREE REMOVAL 8108 587O 7180 6000 4300 53OO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS (R. IP-RAP/DREDGING) 3427 19831 TOTAL 37002 54356 20000 20oo0 '-~ 53680 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE - JANUARY 1 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE. - DECEMBER 31 32812 24108 31305 64117 0 0 64117 88225 18320 Iq~ZC> 80000 C~20 0 98320 0 BOCK~ 4350 CODE 1992 ACTUAL 1993 ACTUAL 1994 1995 APPROVED PROPOSED REVENUE 3260 DOCK PERMITS 64357 64816 63500 3200 I~CD FEE 1372 3810 INTEREST 4085 TOTAL REVENUE 69814 6213 7435 78464 6000 2500 72000 6-'o0 -_- ,_ qO EXPENDITURES 1300 1440 2100 2140 SALARIES, TEMP. 15527 ~~e ~53o,T)~l<',~sfc. fl~o PERA/FICA ~ 1479 OFFICE SUPPLIES 70 COPY MACHINE FEES 298 17299 1524 74 264 16980 1650 160 300 2200 OPERATING SUPPLIES 273 2300 REPAIR/MAINT. SUPPLIES 0 244 0 61o 1000 tOoO 3100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3O 1448 2000 ZOOO 3210 POSTAGE 305 446 500 5'5'o 3340 USE OF PERSONAL AUTO 156 176 180 ZoO 4100 LMCD FEES 7338 5110 TREE REMOVAL 8108 587O 7180 6000 q?oo 4300 ~O 5300 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS (RIP-RAP/DREDGING) 3427 19831 TOTAL 37002 54356 20000 qZ qqO "~ s368o fl REVENUE OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 32812 24108 18320 FUND BALANCE - JANUARY i 31305 64117 80000 ~q q~O TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 0 0 0 FUND BALANCE. - DECEMBER 31 '64117 88225 98320 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 NOTICE DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dock Site Holders Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector WINTER DOCK STORAGE Docks that are not removed from the lake before winter have a tendency to receive damage from the ice and wind during the winter and spring. Damaged docks are unsightly and unsafe. Dock sections floating in the water in the spring are hazardous to boaters, swimmers, and the environment. The Park and Open Space Commission would like to make you aware of this problem, and ask that you please remove your dock from the lake before it is damaged. In the long run, if you remove your dock from the water before winter you will save time and repair expenses. The City's policy has been to allow docks to remain in the water as long as they are in complete sections and there is no sign of damage. This shall be monitored closely this winter, and notices will be sent to site holders where problems develop. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) also requests dock left in during the winter be reflectorized or fenced for the safety of snowmobilers, skiers, etc. Please remember that compliance to the City's Ordinance is required, and noncompliance can lead to revocation of docking privileges for up to two years. pJ Il !, I I iJ, i ,~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 14, '1994 BEOUIREMENTS Ahrens recalled that the reason she wanted this item discussed, was to try and find a way to prevent old docks floating away from the site and rotting on the bottom of the lake, or floating onto shore. Fackler noted that they currently require docks to be removed if they are damaged. Ahrens suggested that people be required to advise the City, on their dock application, if they plan to keep their dock in through the winter. Ahrens does not feel that people should be able to leave their docks in, especially in large open bays. Schmidt suggested that the Dock Inspector prepare for review at the May meeting, a color coded dock map indicating the areas where docks should be allowed to remain, and where docks definitely cannot stay, and the questionable areas. She also suggested that the review of the dock forms be delayed for review at the May meeting if there is going to be a question added to the form relating to dock removal. McCaffrey commented that there is verbiage mailed with the dock application relating to the removal docks. He also feels that a question of the dock form would not be necessary, because if the areas are established, they can be notified of the removal requirement when the license is issued. J, J II I J Ill, !1, I, DRAFT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST ~!:~', 1994 WINTER DOCK STORAGE J REMOVAL: REVIEW OF "NOTICE"_ The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the proposed "notice" to be mailed to dock holders this fall. He noted the cost of the mailing to by $90 to $130. He suggested that this notice could be utilized to enforce the existing ordinance, and if a problem was found to exist this winter when the Dock Inspector does his rounds, he can then be given a second notice and then a third, and if compliance is not accomplished, their dock license can be revoked. The Commission acknowledged that the notice refers to a "policy", and that there is not actual written policy. The Parks Director noted that the language should be amended to read "ordinance". MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of the "notice", as amended, for mailing this fall. Darling noted that it is his opinion that it would be discriminatory to require removal of commons docks, when the removal of private docks is not required. Ahrens disagreed, and noted that if someone wants to have a skating rink on the shoreline, docks interfere, and she believes they should be required to be removed. The Parks Director suggested that staff work with the notice this year, and monitor the number of problem docks to determine the necessity of an ordinance amendment. It was proposed that the results be reviewed in June of 1995. The number of how many docks were left in, how many were damaged, and how many notices were sent out should be provided. MOTION carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Darling, Geffre, Schmidt, and Casey. Those opposed were: Ahrens, Byrnes, and Steinbring. Schmidt clarified that staff will report on this issue at their February 1995 meeting. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612~ 472-0600 FAX (6,2) 472-0620 NOTICE DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dock Site Holders Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector WINTER DOCK STORAGE Docks that are not removed from the lake before winter have a tendency to receive damage from the ice and wind during the winter and spring. Damaged docks are unsightly and unsafe. Dock sections floating in the water in the spring are hazardous to boaters, swimmers, and the environment. The Park and Open Space Commission would like to make you aware of this problem, and ask that you please remove your dock from the lake before it is damaged. In the long run, if you remove your dock from the water before winter you will save time and repair expenses. The City's policy has been to allow docks to remain in the water as long as they are in complete sections and there is no sign of damage. This shall be monitored closely this winter, and notices will be sent to site holders where problems develop. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) also requests dock left in during the winter be reflectorized or fenced for the safety of snowmobilers, skiers, etc. Please remember that compliance to the City's,peliey-is required, and noncompliance can lead to revocation of docking privileges for up to two years. pJ Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 10 Subd. 10. Winter Dock Storage. Winter dock storage by permit holders: a. Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are met: 1. The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. 2. Docks may be partially removed, provided that those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters. 3. Docks must be brought up to the construction standards outlined in this Section 437 within 4 weeks after the ice goes out in the spring of the year (approximately May 15). If the dock does not meet construction standards, the procedures as specified in Subd. 8 of this Section 437 will apply. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) 4. Docks may not be left in the water or on public land if they conflict with the following uses as shown on the dock location map: Slide area Snowmobile crossings Skating rinks Trails Road access Other conditions or circumstances which are determined by the Council to have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. Docks may be stored on commons during the winter months providing the conditions set forth in a.4 above are met along with the following conditions: Repealed. (ORD 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be stored on commons shown on the dock location map as having topographical conditions which are too steep, or have fragile flora or where tree damage may occur due to tree density or where there is unstable ground. Mound City Code Sectio~ 437:10, Sub~. 10, b., 3~ 3. Docks may. be stored only in areas designated for dock permits and as shown on the dock location map. 4. All storage shall be done in an orderly, compact, and unobtrusive manner. 5. Docks and associated hardware must be removed from the commons and/or public lands between June 1st and September 1st of each year. 6. Storage shall be restricted to dock materials, dismantled docks, and dismantled boat lifts. 7. The Park CommiSsion, City Dock Inspector, and City Council shall review the dock location map each year and designate areas not available for winter storage because of the conditions heretofore stated. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 11. Removal Deadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later than December 31 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. 8ubd. 12. Docking of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. The City may check with the State of Minnesota to determine if the boat docked at the licensed dock is owned by the licensee and/or a member of the same household as the licensee. Any boat registered to someone not a member of the licensee's household shall not be docked in excess of 48 hours unless a Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit has been obtained from the City and the fee established by the City Council in Section 510:35 has been paid. No more than one Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit may be issued in any calendar year to an individual dock licensee or visitor. All Temporary Visiting Dockage Permits shall contain the State registration number of the boat and shall be limited to 21 days. Any violation of this Section 437 by the dock licensee shall result in the loss or revocation of the dock license unless the City Council shall determine upon evidence submitted by the licensee that there were mitigating circumstances. The City Council may determine that revocation is too severe a penalty and may then condition said license so that any future violation will result in automatic revocation. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) ~1 ! I I I III, i, Mound city Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13 Subd. 13. Licenses Non-Transferable. Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges of receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth of ~, using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the conditions of the area. Docks wh~ i~ existence June 1989, shall be brought 1'-~?o with al~--p~°visions ~[ t~~~ansion or compliance _ m~x~l~on is reque--~te---d~ o~--~placemen_t of 50% or more of any s~ dock that is d~a9%q~7~-~troyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. - 12-29-90) MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 14, 1994 ! WINTER DOCK STORAGE ! REMOVAL: RATIONALE FROM DOCK INSPECTOR The Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed his rationale for choosing which areas docks can remain or should be removed during the winter. Wind flow and ice flow are primary considerations. Docks in protected areas should be allowed to remain during the winter. The LMCD does not have a specific policy on dock removal, they only require that if they are left in that they be reflectorized by some means. The LMCD also recommends that docks in wetland areas not be removed as this disturbs the wetlands. McCaffrey commented that if this was a new program, he may recommend that all docks be required to be removed in the winter, however, docks have been allowed to remain in during the winter for so many years that it would be difficult to enforce a change at this time. Darling summarized, if a policy were adopted, that 75% of the dock holders would have to remove their docks on a yearly basis. It was noted that docks on private shoreline are not required to be removed. Fackler noted that all docks are required to be installed by June 1, and suggested that the City enforce this regulation more stringently, which may help alleviate some of the dilapidated docks from breaking up and floating away, Darling suggested that a friendly notice be mailed to the dock holders advising them of the issue, informing them of the regulations, and asking them to assist in helping alleviate the problems. Fackler commented that most people are responsible about their docks, it is only a minor percentage that cause problems. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Schmidt to recommend that the current guidelines be used to help regulate dilapidated docks and that a notice be mailed to the dock holders advising them of the issue and asking them to remove their docks annually. Motion carried unanimously. Schmidt requested staff write a letter to Tom Reese asking him to attend the August 11,1994 Park Commission meeting where discussion will be held relating to dock fees, and winter dock storage. She also requested that the ordinances which pertain to winter dock storage be included in their August packet, and a copy of the drafted notice also be included. CITY of MOUND Memorandum DATE: July 11, 1994 TO: FROM: Park and Open Space Commission Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector SUBJECT: Winter Dock Storage / Removal Dock Inspector's Rationale and Comments. In response to your request at the May 12, 1994 Park Commission Meeting, and in reference to the "Winter Dockage" listing dated 4-29-94, following is my "Rationale" and comments. The dock sites marked "YES" (not required to be removed in the winter) are all located in channels, coves, or inlets where the docks are protected from the wind. Because these sites are protected from the wind, they are less affected by water and ice flow which causes damage to docks. Waterside Commons was marked "YES" and "NO" because traditionally they are protected from the wind, however, two of the last three years they have received a fair amount of damage due to abnormal wind direction. If the dock license program were new, I would lean towards requiring that all docks be seasonal. The reasons are debris from broken docks and snowmobile safety. As it is, some people have invested money in more permanent docks so they could be left in. The LMCD does not have a specific policy on winter dock removal, but generally requires all seasonal docks that are left in to be well marked, either by reflectors or reflecting material such as the orange meshing. The LMCD suggests that docks in wetland areas be of permanent construction due to the potential damage to the wetlands during installation and removal. Docks that are permanent, require a permit from the LMCD. TM:pj printed on recycled paper L CO (Rev. 12/92) Subd. 33. "Owner" in the case of personal property means a person, other than a 1ten holder, having the property interest in or title to such property; the term includes a person entitled to the use or possession of such property, subject to an interest in another person, reserved or created by agreement and securing payment or performance of any obligation, but the term excludes a lessee under a lease not intended as security. In the case of real property, the term "owner" means the fee owner of land or the. beneficial owner of land whose interest is primarily one of possession and enjoyment in contemplation of ultimate ownership; the term includes, but is not limited to, vendees under a contract for deed and mortgagors. Subd. 34. "Other waste" means any refuse, organic or inorganic, wood, oil, tar or chemicals, and any other substance or material of any kind whatsoever which is or may be an aquatic nutrient source. Subd. 35. "Permanent dock" means any dock which is not a Seas6nal Dock. Subd. 36. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association or corporation; the term may extend and be applied to bodies corporate and politic, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations. Subd. 37. "Personal watercraft" means a watercraft less than 14 feet in length which uses a motor powering a water Jet pump, as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside, the watercraft. Subd. 38 "Pollution" means the contamination of the waters of the district so as to create a nuisance or render such waters unclean, or noxious, or impure so as to be actually or potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, to domestic, commercial, industrial or recreational use or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life. Subd. 39. "Private club" has the meaning given by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.07, Subd. 15: the term does not include a homeowner's association, an outlot association, or other similar organization whose membership is restricted to, or comprised in major part of, owners of specific property not abutting the Lake who have an interest in or right to use an outlot or similar tract or parcel of land located on the Lake. Subd. 40. "Prohibited drug" means any of those substances designated as controlled substances pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 152, whether prescribed or unprescrlbed. Subd. 41. "Restricted Watercraft" means any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public waters on the Lake except for boats -5- 11, I I I I iJ, i, i or vessels which are 16 feet or less in length, and which are unmotorized or which use motors of 10 horsepower or less. Subd. 42. "Roof" means a permanent dock cover. Subd. 43. "Rubbish" means any trash, refuse or waste material of any kind and old automobiles or machinery or parts thereof. Subd. 44. "Schedule A" means a sound level emission range as prescribed in S.A.E. Standards - S.A.E. J986a for mufflers. Subd. 45. "Season" or "boating season" means the period between April 15 and October 15 of any year. Subd. 46._"Seasonal dock" means any dock which is so designed and ~6nstructed that it may be removed from the Lake on a seasonal basis. Ail components such as supports, decking and footings must be capable of removal by manual means without use of power equipment, machines or tools other than hand held power tools. Subd. 47. "Sewage" means the water-carried waste products from residences, public buildings, institutions or other buildings, including the excrementitious or other discharge from the bodies of human beings or animals, together with such ground water infiltration and surface water as may be present. Subd. 48. "Sheriff" means the Sheriff of Hennepin County or the sheriff's authorized agents. Subd. 49. "Shoreline" means the line of contact of the of water in the Lake with the shore. body Subd. 50. "Shorezone" means that area of the ice of the Lake within 150 feet of the shoreline. Subd. 51. "Site" means any shoreline lot, parcel or other piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder. Subd. 52. "Slip structure" means a structure designed solely to secure a watercraft for the purpose of protecting it from damage from sun, wind, storm, or rain; the term does not include boat houses, decks, roofs or similar structures. Subd. 53. "Snowmobile" means a self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or on natural terrain steered by wheels, skis or runners. Subd. 54. "Special event" means any act or activity on the Lake which will involve: a) the placing of any structures or buoys in the Lake other than in authorized dock use or mooring areas or as authorized by permit issued pursuant to Section 2.07; or -6- MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 12, 1994 WINTER DOCK ~;TORAGE I REMOVAL 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. 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. Ii ! I I I il, I 4-29-94 WINTER DOCKAGE The sites marked "yes" may keep their docks intact in the lake through the winter months, AVOCET NORTH 00000 - 00105 NO BLUEBIRD NORTH 00135 YES CANARY NORTH 00165 YES DOVE NORTH 00165 - 00395 YES WAWONASSA COMMONS 00490 - 01140 NO WAURIKA COMMONS 01150 - 02560 NO PEBBLE BEACH 02560 - 02800 NO THREE POINTS END 02800 - 02930 NO BEACHSIDE NORTH 04060 - 04120 NO SHOREWOOD LANE 10020 NO BEACHSIDE SOUTH 10040 - 10100 NO CRESCENT PARK 10220 - 10780 NO WREN ROAD 12430 NO WlOTA COMMON 12450 - 13810 NO PEABODY LANE 20050 YES WATERSIDE COMMON 20100 - 20810 NO EXCEPT 20760 YES CENTERVIEW 20830- 22030 NO WATERSIDE COMMON 22180- 23255 NO EDGEWATER DRIVE 23275 NO ARBOR LANE 23325 NO NORWOOD 30000 - 30040 YES CARLSON PARK 30040 - 30240 YES INWOOD 30250 - 30270 YES AVON 30300 YES EMERALD 30320 - 30420 YES LONGFORD 30420 - 30884 YES KENMORE COMMON 30994- 31670 NO EXCELSIOR LANE 31 670- 32370 YES KELLS 32600 YES STRATFORD 32650 - 33550 YES AVALON PARK 40475 - 40625 NO DEVON 40765 - 44408 NO WATERBURY 50205 - 50270 NO BRIGHTON 50375 - 50745 NO BRIGHTON COMMON 50745 - 51925 NO LOST LAKE 55000 - 55200 YES IDLEWOOD 60610 - 60715 NO TWIN PARK 60715 - 60815 NO HIGHLAND PARK 60815 - 60995 NO RIDGEWOOD PARK 60995 - 61170 YES LAGOON PARK 61190 - 61265 NO MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 14, i 994 REVIEW DOCK LICENSE ORDINANCE. SECTION 437, AS IT RELATES TO DOCK REMOVAl. REQUIREMENTS Ahrens recalled that the reason she wanted this item discussed, was to try and find a way to prevent old docks floating away from the site and rotting on the bottom of the lake, or floating onto shore. Fackler noted that they currently require docks to be removed if they are damaged. Ahrens suggested that people be required to advise the City, on their dock application, if they plan to keep their dock in through the winter. Ahrens does not feel that people should be able to leave their docks in, especially in large open bays. Schmidt suggested that the Dock Inspector prepare for review at the May meeting, a color coded dock map indicating the areas where docks should be allowed to remain, and where docks definitely cannot stay, and the questionable areas. She also suggested that the review of the dock forms be delayed for review at the May meeting if there is going to be a question added to the form relating to dock removal. McCaffrey commented that there is verbiage mailed with the dock application relating to the removal docks. He also feels that a question of the dock form would not be necessary, because if the areas are established, they can be notified of the removal requirement when the license is issued. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE PUBLIC LANDS PROCEDURE MANUAL ADDING "EXHIBIT Q" GUIDELINES FOR ALLOWING PLANTINGS ON COMMONS/PUBLIC LANDS WHEREAS, City Code Section 320:00, Subd. 6. requires that the Public Lands Procedure Manual be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolutions, and that the City Council may amend or change the manual by resolution, and; WHEREAS, while processing public land permit applications, the Park and Open Space Commission found it difficult to review issues pertaining to plantings on the commons, and therefore, developed the subject guidelines, and; WHEREAS, the "Goal" is: "to maintain and restore the natural look of the commons by the use of more native vegetation", and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to amend the Public Lands Procedure Manual, adding "Exhibit Q", Guidelines for Allowing Plantings on Commons/Public Lands, as attached. PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits Exhibit Q City of Mound Parks and Open Space Commission Guidelines for Allowing Plantings on Commons/Public Lands GOAL: TO MAINTAIN AND RESTORE THE NATURAL LOOK OF THE COMMONS BY THE USE OF MORE NATIVE VEGETATION. Plantings shall not interfere with the free, easy and open traversing of the commons. Plantings shall not give the appearance that the commons is privately owned or that access is restricted to the general public. Plant species: a. Plants shall not pose a danger of overrunning naturally occurring native species or other already authorized plantings. b. Introduction of species shall not create a hazard, unsafe or unlivable environment for wildlife that naturally inhabits the subject commons area. c. Species shall not increase risk of health problems or be injurious to the public. d. No species shall be authorized that are classified as noxious weeds, fruit/vegetable bearing plants, or species that would attract unusually excessive amounts of harmful insects to the area. e. Naturally occurring native species are the preferred choice on the commons, such as: Trees: Bur Oak White Pine Sugar Maple Aspen Mountain Ash Basswood Elm Birch Shrubs: Gray Dogwood Hazel Pagoda Dogwood Viburnum Ground Covers: Wild Geranium Aster Violets Lady Ferns Columbine $olomon's Seal Plantings shall be introduced, maintained and administered in such a manner that protect the environment, wildlife, and lake from any damage or loss of use and solely at the requestor's responsibility, risk and expense, and removed immediately if so directed by the City of Mound at the requestor's sole responsibility, risk and expense if found to be inconsistent with these guidelines. Non-native plant species are discouraged, but in any event, shall not be closer than forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water level (929.4 for Lake Minnetonka). (REV. 8/15/94) Mound City Code Section 320:00, Subd. 4 Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. #54-1991 12-23-91) ' Subd. 5. ~treet Excavation Permit Require~. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 6. _Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. #62-1993 - 4/19/92) 4/19/93 ~i, I I I I, IJ, i · DRAFT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1994 GUIDELINES FOR PLANTINGS ON THE COMMONS The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the report prepared by Mark Koegler, City Planner, and refer[ed to the amended guidelines as prepared by staff. The following changes were suggested: The commission agreed that the verbiage used within the guidelines should be "shall" verses "will" or "should". The "Goal" be: To maintain and restore the natural look of the commons by the use of more native vegetation. #2. The word "either" should be deleted. #3.b. Typo: "or" should be "for". #3.d. amend as follows: "No species should be authorized that are classified as noxious weeds, fruit/vegetable bearing plants, or species that would attract unusally excessive amounts of harmful insects to the area. #3.e. amend as follows: "Naturally occurring native species are the preferred choice on the commons, ,~uch as #5. amend as follows: "Non-native plant species ~re discouraged, but in any event. cc, , c ...... not be closer than ° ....... ~ .... forty (40) feet shall ;"+'^'~ .... -~ +^ +~-~ mm of the ordinary high water elevation (929.4 for Lake Minnetonka)." MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the "Guidelines for allowing Plantings on Commons/Public Lands", as amended, for the Public Lands Procedure Manual. Motion carried unanimously. Drafted 8/5/94' Mound Parks & Open Space Commission Guidelines for Allowing Plantings on Commons/Public Lands Plantings should not interfere with the free, easy and open traversing of the commons. Plantings should not give the appearance that the commons is either privately owned or that access is restricted to the general public. Plant species: Plants should not pose a danger of overrunning naturally occurring native species or other already authorized plantings. Introduction of species should not create a hazard, unsafe or unlivable environment or wildlife that naturally inhabits the subject commons area. c. Species should not increase risk of health problems or be injurious to the public. No species should be authorized that are classified as weeds, fruit/vegetable bearing plants, or species that would attract unusually excessive amounts of insects to the area. Naturally occurring native species are the preferred choice on the commons, as follows: Trees: Bur Oak White Pine Sugar Maple Aspen Mountain Ash Basswood Elm Birch Shrubs: Gray Dogwood Pagoda Dogwood Hazel Viburnum · Ground Covers: Wild Geranium Violets Columbine Aster Lady Ferns Solomon's Seal Plantings should be introduced, maintained and administered in such a manner that protect the environment, wildlife, and lake from any damage or loss of use and solely at the requestor's responsibility, risk and expense, and removed immediately if so directed by the City of Mound at the requestor's sole responsibility, risk and expense if found to be inconsistent with these guidelines. 5. Non-native plant species introduced to the commons should not be closer that twenty (20) feet of the ordinary high water elevation (929.4 for Lake Minnetonka). J J J J J, il, J, Ho/s/ngton Koegler Group Inc, MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Fackler, Parks Director FROM: Bob Day DATE: 3 August 1994 SUBJECT: Mound Parks and Open Space Commission Guide for Granting Permission to Plant on City of Mound Commons ISSUE As per your request, we have examined the proposed standards, focussing on both their content and implications. Our understanding is that the City of Mound is concerned about the way in which private land owners, who live along the commons, use new plantings and other improvements to create an extension of their lot into the public land. Some of the plantings have become added resources to the commons by increasing aesthetic appeal, reducing erosion, and strengthening the overall quality. Yet others have decreased aesthetic appeal, reduced traversability, and privatized public land. REGULATORY GUIDELINES Providing planting guidelines will protect and enhance the aesthetic appeal of the commons. Guidelines can accomplish two things. First, they can provide private lot owners a written documentation of guidelines to be followed when considering modifications of the commons. Secondly, they can become a supportive tool to help guide more consistent review of new land alteration permits. NEED FOR OVERALL GOAL The most beneficial result from the i~plementation~Q~f_th~.se guidelines will be the creation of hn.pv~ra, jl, i?'~s~h-eti~--_ ~pp'~[ t~6~fi~ii-~h~-~b-~i~s which ~iii'"~i~i~' abs_o~r.b~m, odificatio~n~ Defining the appropriate aesthetic appeal leads to another imp~rtanF~i-est~ib-ff~' What should the commons area look like and reflect? Two possible choices appear to be present. One option could be an appearance of brightly colored decorative annuals and perennials set within a well-manicured lawn. The other option appears Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 83%3160 to be the use of more native vegetation to maintain and restore the natural look of the commons. Whichever option is most appropriate will need to be specified in order to give an overriding goal for the guidelines to support. LANGUAGE MODIFICATION It appears that the language used is that of guidelines rather than standards. Based on the information that was provided, it appears that flexibile guidelines would best suit the city's needs, so we would recommend that the language of the document be modified to reflect that intent. For example, rather than saying, "Plantings will not interfere," the document should say, "Plantings should not interfere." Use of the term "should" implies a guideline. If the intent is to enact standards, the term "shall" would be appropriate. SPECIFIC ITEM MODIFICATIONS Item #8 states, "Naturally occurring species are the preferred choice on the commons." The next item, #9, then provides for a 20' setback for non-native plantings. In areas where land is available, we would suggest increasing this distance because a 20' strip of native species is not enough to maintain the natural appearance of a native plant community. A setback of 40' would be more appropriate for the health and aesthetics of the native plant communities along the shoreline. SUGGESTED NATIVE PLANTS LIST The following is a brief list of native species common to the area that can be used as planting suggestions, not a comprehensive planting guide. Trees: Bur Oak White Pine Sugar Maple Aspen Mountain Ash Basswood Elm Birch Shrubs: Gray Dogwood Hazel Pagoda Dogwood Viburnum Groundcovers: Wild Geranium Aster Violets Lady Ferns Columbine Solomon's Seal If adopted, the "Mound Parks and Open Space Commission Guide for Granting Permission to Plant on City of Mound Commons" can become a beneficial document for the City of Mound. With improved regulation of commons modifications, the public, as well as the private land owners abutting the commons, will be able to enjoy the distinct character of the commons for many years to come. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 14, 1994 ! PLANTING POLICY Commissioner Darling distributed drafted guidelines for allowing planting on the commons. The commission agreed to delete item 9.(B), (C), and (D). Schmidt recalled from previous discussions that they did not want any language stating that there is a place on commons that somebody could put plantings. Darling is in favor of 9.(A) which restricts non-native plant species tO be planted within 20 feet of the shoreline. The Parks Director referred to a pamphlet received from the DNR which suggests certain plantings within the shoreland district. He also suggested that all this information be forwarded to the City Planner for his review and comments. The Parks Director noted that item 10. is already covered by the Shoreland Management Ordinance, which does allow for limited trimming. Fackler also noted, that according to the Use Plan, trimming is not permitted in designated Nature Areas. The Commission agreed that the policy should be forwarded to Mark Koegler. Schmidt requested that a "flow chart" format be used. (rec'd from Darling at P&OSC meeting 7-14-94) Mound Parks and Open Space Commission Guide For Granting Permission To Plant On City Of Mound Commons OBJECTIVE: Standardize decision making guidelines use to allow planting on City of Mound Commons STANDARDS: Ail items below must be complied with to grant planting on commons 1. Requestor has applied for land alteration permit. 2. Abutting land owners received prior written notification of intended plantings. 3. Dock owners on commons received prior written notification of intended plantings. 4. Plantings will not interfere with the free, easy and open traversing of traversable commons. 5. Plantings will not give the appearance that the commons is either privately owned or that access is restricted by the general public. 6. Planted species will not pose a danger of overrunning naturally occurring native species or other already authorized plantings, nor will introduction of species create a hazard, unsafe or unlivable environment for wildlife that naturally habitat the commons area, nor will species increase risk of health problems or injuries to the public. No species are authorized that are classified as weeds, fruit/vegetable bearing plants, or species that would attract unusually excessive amounts of insects to the area. 7. Plantings will be introduced, maintained and administered in such a manner that protect the environment, wildlife and lake from any damage or loss of use and solely at the requestor's responsibility, risk and expense, and removed immediately if so directed by the City of Mound at the requestor's sole responsibility, risk and expense if found to be in violation of current policies and guidelines. 8. Naturally occurring native species are the preferred choice on the commons. (The City of Mound maintains a list that shall be used in determining naturally occurring native species.) p. 2. 9. Non-native species introduced to the commons are restricted to: (A) no closer that twenty feet of installed rip-rap, or where rip-rap is not installed, then no closer than twenty feet to the Lake Minnetonka normal high water level shore line of 929.4 feet above mean sea level, (B) no closer than twenty feet to any dock, (C) no closer than five feet to abutting land owner property if requestor is not the abutting land owner for this request and no wider than five feet (D) no farther that five feet from the property line if the requestor is the abutting land owner. Exception is the introduction of lawn grass on commons. 10. No request or action will include the removal, cutting down. trimming or otherwise modification of any species on commons without the prior expressed written consent of the City of Mound. That any request of this type will be done for the sole purposes of either public safety, preventing damage to private property, or protection of the environment. Modifications to naturally occurring species is not approved for cosmetics including the increased viewing capability of the lake or surroundings. Exception is the removal of weeds in lawn or the mowing of lawns on commons. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August18,1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER PROPOSED MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SALARIES TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1995. You have been discussing over the past several months Mayor and City Council salaries. As you know, the Mayor and City Council's salaries have not been increased since 1979. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) has published annually a salary survey of metropolitan cities in different population categories. Based upon the salaries indicated in the survey and your own beliefs about what your salaries should be, you have indicated you would like to increase your salaries. Under state law, city council salaries cannot go into effect until after a municipal election. In this case, if you were to increase the salaries of the mayor and city council, they would not become effective until January 1, 1995. Based upon previous discussions, you have indicated that the Mayor's salary should be increased from its present rate of $1800 to $4500 per year. You have also indicated that the City Council salaries should be increased from the present of $1200 per year to $3000 per year. Therefore, the attached resolution directs that the Mayor and City Council approve salaries effective January 1, 1995, at the above rates. If you have any questions, with regard to this matter, please contact me. ES:Is ~0, ! ! I I .... II, t ,a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 155:35 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO SALARIES OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 155:35 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 155:35. Salaries of Mayor and Council Member~. Effective January 2, 1995, the salary of the Mayor shall be $375 per month and the salary of each Council Member shall be $250 per month. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council August 23, 1994 Published in the Official Newspaper, The Laker, August 29, 1994 il, i, I I I il, ,', RESOLUTION #94 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council presently earn $1,800 and $1,200 per year respectively; and WHEREAS, these salaries have been in effect since 1979; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have reviewed the salary survey of the Association of the Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM); and WHEREAS, the salary survey indicates that Mound is one of the cities within its population group that pays its Mayor and City Council a minimal amount of salary; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council believe that their salaries ought to be increased to reflect the rest of the municipal environment and the amount of time that they spend conducting business of the City. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, hereby sets the salaries of Mayor and City Council at $4,500 for Mayor and $3,000 for City Council per year effective January 1, 1995. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk C) :$200.00 Annual Fee ON-SALE OFFICE USE ONLY $25.00 Annual OFF-SALE Original 'Renewal / License Yr. J 7:1- tO 6-30-I Not Transferable:License NumberPers°n or PremisesI CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUORi Business: ~ ~, ~kJ ~ [ ~_~-_~' Bus. Phone: Appli~t Na~: ~ ~ ~ ( c~ (~ * ~ .o~ Phone: ~y N~: Co. Phone: Company Address: City: Zip: Company Officials: I. (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) (Date of Birth) (First) (Middle) (Last) Refereueea: ~ist ~ - na~ ~d addr~ of ~ch) Indicate whether you sold $20,000 or mom of nonintoxicating malt liquor ~' w~ in previous year://Yea: No: A Si~n'~m of AppliCant - - ' OFFICE USE ONLY Police Dept. Adm. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Departmeat Approval/Denifl (Submit memo if denied) Approved Dcnie~! Il ! I I I, il, i, a~ CITY of MOUND April 25, 1994 TO: FROM: RE: MOUND LANES FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Enclosed are renewal forms for your Liquor License(s) which expire June 30, 1994. Please fill out and return all paper work, including the insurance, by June 6, 1994, so that your license can be considered by the City Council at its June 14, 1994, Council Meeting. This will also allow the State time to process your application(s). This is the only renewal notice you will receive. If the paperwork is not turned in by June 6, 1994, there will be a lapse in your license. Accountants Statement NEEDED: ~/Federal Special Occupational Stamp ~Jc ~-~---l'nsurance Certificate ~C~[~m Shop Insurance (must cover period) Worker's Comp Form On-Sale Beer Application AMOUNT DUE THE CITY OF MOUND full license $200.00 $200.00 Receipt from Hennepin County showing the delinquent taxes have been paid. printed on recyct~d paper LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION 190 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 105 ST. PAUL. MN 55101 (612) 296-6159 TDO: (612) 297-2100 FAX: (612) 297-5259 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SAINT PAUL 55155 December 14, 1993 TO: All Licensing Authorities FROM: Marlene Kjelsberg and Rochelle Novak, Licensing SUBJECT: Liquor Liability Insurance Certificates M.S. 340A.40g provides that no retail liquor license may be issued, maintained, or renewed unless the licensee demonstrates proof of financial responsibility and that proof shall be submitted to the Commissioner. In order for Liquor Control to comply with state statute, all on and off sale intoxicating liquor, wine, and club license renewal Dram Shop insurance certificates have to be submitted to our office before the'first day of the new license period, or before expiration of the current liquor liability insurance certificate, whichever occurs first. The provisions of M.S. 340A.310 allows wholesalers to ship liquor only to duly licensed liquor establishments. Without this proof of financial responsibility in our possession by the above deadline, Liquor Control has no knowledge if a licensee meets the necessary requirements for licensure. It is Liquor Control's responsibility to enforce this statute, consequently, liquor shipments shall be denied to retailers until their proof of financial responsiblity is submitted to our office. Please notify your licensees of this new Liquor Control Policy.  AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Il i I I · Ill, i, ~UG-16-94 TUE P. 02 ~UG-16-94 TUE 11:16 00000.'~$0 Ill I II · J Jh J, ,J August 5, 1994 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: National League of Cities ECEIVED hUG 1301 Pennsyk, ania Avenue NW. Washington, D.C. (202) 626-3000 Fax: (202) 626-3043 City Clerks of Direct Member Cities Executive Direc~f Stj~.~~l Leagues Donald J. Bo _/p~~t~4rDir&ttor Opportunit~ to Present Proposed Amendments to National Municipal Policy and Separate Resolutions, Annual Congress of Cities, December 1-4 Minneapolis, Minnesota Officers Fv~l V~e Ptes~de~ Caro~ Long Bar~ ~-aVLaro~. AtU, nta, ~ ~ V~ ~ ~. ~ ~ra. ~1~ G~E ~ DUE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 NL.C's direct member cities and state municipal leagues are invited to submit policy proposals and resolutions for consideration at the NLC's Congress of Cities in Minneapolis, Minnesota, December 1-4, 1994. Procedures for submitting such proposals are described below. Please notify your mayor, all members of the city council, and city managers of this opportunity. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION All advance proposals to amend the NLC National Municipal Policy and advance separate resolutions must be submitted to: Chairman, Resolutions Committee National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 To assure sponsors full rights in the NLC policy process, to allow review by steering committees, and to allow for distribution of advance proposals to NLC's membership, proposals must be received in NLC's office by the end of business on Thursday, September 1, 1994. Past PresMents: Sidney 8arthe amy, Mayor New Orleans Louis*ama · Ferd Harrison, Mayor Scotland Neck Norlh Carohna · Cathy Reynolds, Councilwoman a -Large Denver ColoraOo · Directors: Lucy T. Allen, M~:>r Lou*sburg North Carolii%a · Ann Azari, Mayo Fort Colhns Colorado · Lock Beachum, St., Cour~cdman Youngs own. Oh*o. Don Benninghoven, Execul~ve Chrector League of Cahforma C4,es · Jimmy Burke, Mayor Deer Park Texas · Anlhony Cal~zzi, C,ty Commissioner Dayton Omo · Carl Clas~en, Executive D~rector. Wyom,ng Assoc*al,on Of Mumc~pa;~hes · E. W. Cromatt~, II, Councilman Columbia SOulh Carot,na · Charles A. DeVaney, Mayor. Augusta. Georg,a * John Divine, Commissioner. Sahna Kansas · William Evers, Mayor Braoe,lton Florida * Marlin Gipson, Alderman North Dttle Rock Arkansas · Robetl R. Jefferson, Cout3cflmember Lexmgton Kentucky · Sleven E. Jeffrey, Execut,ve D~rector Vermont League of C~l*es an(t Town5 · Walter F. Kelly, Town Councd Pres,dent F shers lnO~ana · Abbe Land. Mayor Pro Tern West Hollywood. Cahforma * Gregory Lashutke, Mayor Columbus Oh~o · Sheila Jackson Lee, Counolmember aPLarge HoustOn. Texas · liana Lieberman, Mayor Lauderhfll, FlOrida · Sylvia k lovely, Executwe D~*eclor. Kenlucky League of Gilles · Mille MacLeod, Co~.nol Member Moorhead M~nnesola · Maryann Mahaffey, C~ty Counc*l Pres~enl Oelro~l. M~cmgan · Thomas M. Menino, Mayor, Boston. Massachusetts · Thomas F. Morales, Jr., Wce Mayor Avonda e Arizona · J. Ed Morgan, Mayo~, Halhesburg M=ss*ss~ppl · Kalhryn Neck, V~ce Mayor Pasadena. Callforma · James P. Nix, Mayor Fa~rhope. Alabama · Ma~/Pinkelt, Counol Member. New York New York . Sharon Priest, C~ty D~rector L~tlle Rock Arkansas · Carolyn Ret~o, Council Member, TuHock Cahlom~a · Bill Revell, Mayor Dyersburg Tennessee · L. lynn Rex, Execulwe D~reclo,' League of Nebraska Mun~c~paht~es · Alicia M Sanchez, Councdmember. Porl Huron, M~cmgan · Raymond C. Siltig. Execulwe O,rector F~or~a League o Ct~-5 * Woodrow Stanley, Mayor Fhnl M~ch~gan · Frank Sturzl, £~ecul~ve D~reclor Texas Mun~pal League · Dan Thompson, £xecutwe D{~ector I W,scons,n Momc,oalmes · Iaaa[ W Wells, Counolmember Da!res Texas. Jim W. While, Counc,tmember Kepi W3sh~ngtOn · Jack S Will,ams, Mayor Franklm Park II,mo,s 3~7 -2- FORM OF SUBMISSION National Municipal Policy is the comprehensive policy statement of the National League of Cities. It is subject to amendment at each annual business meeting of NLC. We would appreciate your submitting changes to the National Municipal Policy using the format outlined on the enclosed insert. Resolutions are short-term expressions of the membership of the National League of Cities, typically endorsing or opposing specific Congressional bills or current Presidential positions. They do not become part of the continuing National Municipal Policy document but are transmitted to appropriate federal officials following the annual meeting. Such resolutions automatically die at the end of the calendar year following the Congress of Cities at which they were passed. A suggested format for resolutions appears on the reverse side of the attached insert. Each policy amendment or resolution should be accompanied by a one-page explanation which describes the nature of the problem or concern addressed from the municipal perspective and discusses the proposed action which should be taken to address the problem. The one-page explanation will be distributed along with the proposed amendments or resolutions to all Policy Committee members. A suggested format is enclosed. PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADVANCE SUBMISSIONS All proposals received in NLC's offices before the end of business on Thursday, September 1, 1994, will be assigned to one of NLC's five steering committees for preliminary review at their fall meetings. All proposals will be reviewed by the full policy committees when they meet on Thursday, December 1, in Minneapolis. Members submitting proposals will be notified of the committee to which their proposal is referred and the time and place of the policy committee meeting. Sponsors of proposals or their representatives will be expected to appear before the full committee to present and discuss their proposal. If the policy committee accepts the proposal, it will be submitted to the Resolutions Committee as part of the policy committee report. If the policy committee rejects the proposal, the fact that the proposal was received by Thursday, September 1, 1994, and was distributed to members in advance permits the sponsor to appeal the policy committee action to the Resolutions Committee during their meeting on Friday, December 2. Ii i I J J il, J, ,J -3- PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS NOT SUBMYiTED BY THURSDAY, SEIrI'EMBER 1. A member of a policy committee may offer amendments to National Municipal Policy or Resolutions within that committee's jurisdiction during the Policy Committee meeting on Thursday, December 1. Policy Committees are composed of from three to seven members from each state selected by the state municipal league. Member cities and state leagues are urged to work with their state committee delegation if they are unable to submit their proposal prior to the Thursday, September 1, deadline. Your state municipal league can provide names of the elected officials from your state who serve on the relevant policy committees. The Resolutions Committee can consider only Policy Committee reports, those proposals received in NLC's offices from member cities and state municipal leagues by Thursday, September 1, and recommendations of individual Resolutions Committee members. ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING Any certified voting delegate of a member city or state league may offer a National Municipal Policy amendment or a separate resolution for consideration at the Annual Business Meeting on Sunday, December 4, 1994. However, any proposals not submitted to the voting delegates by the Resolutions Committee or the Board of Directors must be accompanied by a petition containing the signatures of ten voting delegates, presented to the NLC Policy Office at the site of the Congress of Cities no later than 10 a.m. on the day of the annual business meeting. To be accepted for floor consideration at the Annual Business Meeting, such a petition must receive a majority vote of all certified voting delegates present and voting. All proposals to amend National Municipal Policy and all separate resolutions, however submitted, require a 2/3 vote of delegates present and voting for passage. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY PROPOSAL~ NLC's Board of Directors has adopted the following guidelines for policy proposals to be considered for adoption at the Congress of Cities: Whether acted upon as amendments to National Municipal Policy or separate resolutions, policy proposals: ao shall -- in their subject matter -- concern shared policy and program needs, issues or problems of the nation's municipal governments; bo shall be concerned with federal government policy and, therefore, be addressed to federal government policy-makers; Co shall neither contradict nor duplicate existing NLC policy statements, except where they are intended to amend or repeal such policy; do shall not compromise the independence or integrity of individual member cities to pursue any course of action adopted by appropriate municipal policy-making bodies; and eo shall not compromise the budget-making, program determining, or priority setting role of the NLC Board. As basic, continuing organizational policy positions, proposed amendments to National Municipal Policy should specify city positions on federal roles and responsibilities, policy goals, purposes, principles and/or program characteristics within the broad subject areas covered by existing policy or authorized by Board action. They should not refer to proposed Congressional legislation by title, sponsor's name, or bill number. Resolutions should be restricted to those action-specific items of short-term utility addressed to the Congress or the President. In separate resolutions, specific reference to proposed legislation by title, sponsor's name, or bill number is appropriate. Resolutions shall be considered only when they do not conflict with or contradict existing National Municipal Policy. Further information regarding the NLC policy process may be secured prior to the Congress of Cities from: Sharon Anderson or Douglas Peterson Center for Policy and Federal Relations National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626-3020 ~m m m · i , mi, 14, m PROPOSED RESOLUTION SAMPLE ONLY OCEAN DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES WHEREAS, the United States Navy has a proposal to dispose of up to 100 defueled decommissioned nuclear submarines during the next three decades; and WHEREAS, one of the options is for ocean disposal of these submarines; and WHEREAS, the oceans are a food source for much of the world's population and contamination of the food chain could have far reaching implications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the National League of Cities should support the 1972 ban on all ocean dumping of nuclear wastes until it can be demonstrated that the safety and efficiency of ocean disposal offers less harm to human health and the environment than other practical alternative methods of disposal. TYPING INSTRUCTIONS Since we try to distribute your submission to NLC's membership exactly as you submit it to us, it would help if you could follow these guidelines. Margins -- one inch on all sides Courier 12 typing element. Under the words "Proposed Resolution", type a one-line, title. Make sure to type in the resolution's sponsor (individual, city or state municipal league). NOTES: You may submit a 5 inch floppy disc, marked with the name of the software (e.g. "Wordperfect") and a hard typed copy. Submitted by: (MUST BE COMPLETED) Date Received: (LEAVE BLANK) Referred to: (LEAVE BLANK) 1994 CONGRESS OF CITIES MINNEAPOLIS, MIN~ESOTA EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENT OR RESOLUTION Submitted by: (city or State Municipal League) Date: N amc: Title: A sheet like this should accompany each proposed amendment to the National Municipal Policy and each proposed resolution. It should describe the nature of the problem or concern being addressed from a municipal perspective and discuss the proposed action which is being advocated to address the problem. It should add to the information contained in the body of the proposal. PLEASE TYPE SINGLE SPACE BELOW THIS LINE McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX RECEIVED August 17, 1994 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1994 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Payment Request in the amount of $25,810.15 for the 1994 Seal Coat Program. The contract price for the project was $26,795.00. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with your Street Superintendent and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosures An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 0 Z Z Z 0 0 0 ~' 0 0 C Z 0 0 0 T)~ ~ 0) ~) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 0 0 CO O~ (.nO O~ ~'0 ::ro · m al, i, I _ BILLS .August 23, 1994 BATCH 4073 BATCH 4082 TOTAL BILLS $128,332.43 213,875.23 $342,207.66 0 0 0 I rn Z 0 r- Z I --4 Z r- r- C: 0 Z Z 0 0 ;:I33:,, Z r- r-I-- I Z C 0 3Slk o o o oO o I 0 I 0 o o o oO o I ~;3 "'z I Z~ I~ C I 0 Z 0 r- · r~ z 0 --t r' z Cs; c IIII III III I I IIII III III I I o n C. I.~ I I III II IIII I I I ~ I III II III IIII I I I o oo oooo oo¢ oooo ooooo oo oo co ~,, 0 C Z Z C ',I, e Z Z 0 ,43 Z ZZ · Z 0 Z 0 Z .-.4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I oooooooooooo~ooooo o o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I ~ -43 ~0 o o o o o Z ~ 0 o Z ~3 0 r~ r- rn > I ~, ~ I Z "13 r'n Z :'1'1 I I (..CZ ~Z Z~ F'O I Z OC, Z Z Z 0 Z {33 -z C Z 0 Z IIIIIII o 7777??? C: Z Z C: r~ ~n n n I I , Il, l, I Z C~ o ~ ~.~ 0 o *,~ Z ? ,'-'c 0 Z n Z Z C m Il i I · Il , il, i, J Z 0 Z 7 0 '12 0 Z z C IIIIIIIIIIII I o ! Z 0 Z 0 Z Z Z I Z ;30 t- OZ ),, c 0 C; Z C Z Z rn JiB ,l II I j il, J, lB Z -it ,-~0 c C~~ Z ZZ ~ Z ~-. '~ 0 o ff.- ! C Z CZ r- z CZ ,,o z oo o ¢ C Z I I o o I oc3, o °"~o~o~gg°°§o~oo~g§go°°oo oo o~o°o°o°o°o°o°g~°o°o°o°o°o°o°°° CZ m zz z oo o o ????????? oo o o o ? II I I II I I I oo ~o oo ~o~ooooooc ooo ~ oo oo C Z --4 Z C :]¢ I C~I, Z~ ;ZZ I I I I I I III II I I I II ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ o o o o ??? oo o ? oo ~ I I I I I II I I II oo oo ~o ~ oo oooo ~o ~o ~o oo ooo ~ 'm Z I ¢ Z CD 0 Z ~ ~ oo~oo~, o ~ oooo o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o 0 0 Z ;:Dm 0 :Z :Z Z I , ;:~ 0 Z c c o I I I I II II CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 1994 58.33% July 1994 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE_ RECEIVED GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE 1,231,780 611,735 611,710 9,450 115 7,578 59,850 20,012 65,081 884,960 400,986 428,881 49,500 884 8,006 65,000 5,114 31,979 60,800 1,390 13,586 _15,000 853. ~ 2 376 340 .1,041.089_ 1_~174.242_ (620,070) 49.66% (1,872) 80.19% 5,231 108.74% (456,079) 48.46% (41,494) 16.17% (33,021) 49.20% (47,214) 22.35% (7,579) 49.47% ,202.098.) 49.41 FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 308,817 49,756 197,098 108,000 3,631 58,167 1,300,000 139,125 766,667 380,000 31,584 192,877 680,000 56,244 390,247 5,650 0 1,105 72,000 1 21 72,253 (111,719) 63.82% (49,833) 53.86% (533,333) 58.97% (187,1 23) 50.76% (289,753) 57.39% (4,545) 19.56% 253 100.35% 08/15/94 rev94 G.B. ~i !, I I I , Il, I CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 1994 58.33% July 1994 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 63,130 4,873 34,294 28,836 54.32% Pro motions 2,000 0 0 2,000 0.00% Cable TV 1,380 271 621 759 45.00% City Manager/Clerk 180,330 14,814 99,079 81,251 54.94% Elections 11,320 68 3,465 7,855 30.61% Assessing 48,350 15 355 47,995 0.73% Finance 151,080 11,998 83,858 67,222 55.51% Computer 24,200 1,908 12,917 11,283 53.38% Legal 81,500 15,267 52,832 28,668 64.82% Police 795,240 62,145 424,524 370,716 53.38% Civil Defense 5,400 670 1,388 4,012 25.70% Planning/Inspections 157,850 14,614 80,730 77,120 51.14% Streets 397,520 29,686 211,398 186,122 53.18% City Property 102,860 5,548 57,360 45,500 55.77% Parks 136,620 12,859 71,539 65,081 52.36% Summer Recreation 33,930 0 475 33,455 1.40% Contingencies 40,000 0 3,847 36,153 9.62% Transfers 134,240 10,027 70,187 64,053 52.28% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,366~950. 184,763, 1~208.869 1,158.08!_ 51.07% Area Fire Service Fund 240,190 20,029 122,249 117,941 50.90% Recycling Fund 104,330 14,931 77,769 26,561 74.54% Liquor Fund 190,840 15,078 112,975 77,865 59.20% Water Fund 834,990 16,399 238,705 596,285 28.59% Sewer Fund 1,390,280 60,098 606,803 783,477 43.65% Cemetery Fund 5,240 642 2,971 2,269 56.70% Docks Fund 53,680 8,201 35,873 17,807 66.83% exp94 08/15/94 G.B. AUGUST 10, 1994 PATRICIA A. MEISEL P.O. BOX 258 MOUND, MN. 55564 RECEIVED '"" ,~uu 1 2 tg~ MOUND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUND 5541MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN. 55364 DEAR COUNCIL: THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU OF MY RESIGNATION FROM THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT BOARD EFFECTIVE OCTOBER I, 1994. I HAVE FOUND SERVING ON THE HRA BOARD A LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. SINCERELY, PAT MEISEL CC: MOUND HRA RECEIVEO ~.lJ$ 10 199~ Steve Smith State Representative District 34A Hennepin and Wright Counties Minnesota House of Representatives COMMITTEES: COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; HOUSING; INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY; JUDICIARY; JUDICIARY FINANCE DIVISION August 8, 1994 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Enclosed please find a copy of the Lottery gross sales and disbursements from 1990 to current year. Please copy this enclosure and place in the council packets for your next council meeting. If I can help you in any other way, please feel free to contact me. You~_, Se/v< Smith, State Representative 2710 Clare Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364 State Office Building. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612) 472-7664 (612) 296-9188 IR FAX (612) 296-3949 IR CAUCUS RESEARCH Minnesota House of Representatives 206 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 612-296-4272 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Rep. Steve Smith Scott Simmons August 4, 1994 Lottery Expenditures Below is a table showing total lottery sales and uses of proceeds since fiscal year 1990. Additionally, advertising expenditures in 1994 were $8.41 million, or 2.70% of gross revenue. The statutory cap on advertising spending is 2.75%. Lottery advertising expenditures were $7.61 million and $7.80 million in FY92 and FY93, respectively. Attached is FY94 summary of lottery sales and net proceeds information prepared by the lottery. LOTTERY GROSS SALES AND DISBURSEMENTS (f'~scal year totals; in millions of $) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Sales 67.83 321.49 297.60 Prizes 34.33 179.43 172.61 Tax (6.5%) 4.07 19.29 19.34 Net Proceeds 9.11 66.88 54.65 General Fund -- 9.00 32.7,9 Env Trust Fund 3.65 26.75 21.86 Gtr MN Corp 2.28 7.72 Infrastructure 3.19 16.99 -- Bond Funds -- 6.41 -- 328.84 331.48 196.87 192.25 21.37 21.55 57.14 59.37 34.29 35.62 22.86 23.75 A state constitutional amendment requires that 40% of state lottery proceeds be deposited in the environmental and natural resources trust fund. The amount available to be spent on environmental projects is set by statute. Beginning with fiscal year 1994, in addition to interested earnings generated from the trust fund, up to 25% of the revenue deposited in the trust fund from lottery proceeds may be expended only for capital investment in parks and trails. Spending authorized in 1993 was identified in Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 172, the omnibus environment and natural resources bill of 1993. I have attached several pages from the bill to show examples of authorized projects. This list was amended in some cases by legislation enacted in 1994. Our Natural ~nd Economic £m~iron LOTTERY SALES/NET PROCEEDS INFORMATION Fiscal Year 1994 July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994 DESCRIPTION Instant Sales On-line Sales Total Sales May 1994 $17,238,406 $8,056,120 $25,294,526 June 1994 $14,039, 22O $8,554,158 $22,593,378 FISCAL YEAR 1994 TOTALS $204,216,901 $127,258,249 $331,475,150 Other Income Prize Payments to Players Commissions and Incentives Paid to Lottery Retailers Administration Costs $57,974 $14,943,876 $1,484,392 $2,938,207 $219,204 $13,184,655 $1,221,335 $3,452,438 $1,202,445 $192,253,676 $19,673,485 $39,835,302 TOTAL TO STATE: In-Lieu-of-Sales Tax (6.5%) *(Transferred to General Fund each month) 40% Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund 60% General Fund $5,986,025 $1,644,144 $1,736,752 $2,605,129 $4,954,154 $1,468,570 $1,394,234 $2,091,35O $80,915,131 $21,545,885 $23,747,699 $35,621,547 ,~dimte~ta State Lotted. 2645 Lon,~ I,lke Road Ros~millc. Mimle~ta 55113 (612) 635-8100 FAX (612) 297-7498 An Equal Opportunit) Employer SF1570 FOURTH ENGROSSMENT [REVISOR ] CM 1 must consult with the pseudorabies 2 advisory council about how this money 3 should be spent. The appropriation is 4 available only as matched, dollar for _ 5 dollar, by money from nonstate sources. · 6 Sec. 9. MiNNESOTA-WISCONSIN '~'7 BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION 8 This appropriation is only available to 9 the extent it is matched by an equal 10 amount from the state of Wisconsin. 11 Sec. 10. CITIZEN'S COUNCIL ON 12 VOYAGEURS NATION~J~ PARK 13 The council shall have an executive 14 committee composed of the legislative 15 members and the chair. The executive 16 committee shall act on matters of 17 personnel, out-of-state trips by 18 members of the council, and nonroutine 19 monetary issues. 20 Sec. 11. SCIENCE MUSEUM 21 OF MINNESOTA 22 $6,000 is appropriated for a project to 23 study the creation of a freshwater 24 aquarium on the Mississippi river in 25 downtown St. Paul. The project will 26 look at displaying and interpreting the 27 aquatic life and surrounding cultures 28 of the great river of the world. The 29 science museum will work with groups 30 including but not limited to the 31 department of natural resources, 32 Minnesota tourism office, University of 33 Minnesota, city of St. Paul, the 34 Minnesota alliance for geographic 35 education, and other interested 36 parties. A report must be submitted to 37 the appropriate finance committees of 38 th% house and senate by February 1, 39 1994. This appropriation is contingent 40 upon securing matching funds. 41 Sec. 12. MINNESOTA ACADEMY 42 OF SCIENCE 43 Sec. 13. MINNESOTA HORTICULTURAL 44 SOCIETY 45 Sec. 14. MINNESOTA RESOURCES 46 Subdivision 1. Total 47 Appropriation 48 Summary by Fund 129,000 72,000 1,114,000 36,000 72,000 41,274,000 49 Minnesota Future 50 Resources Fund 14,662,000 51 Minnesota 52 Environment and 53 Natural Resources 54 Trust Fund 24,600,000 55 Of this appropriation $10,298,000 is 56 for trust fund acceleration. S1570-4 130,000 1,108,000 36,000 72,000 21 4 - · a , IJ, l, t i Oil Overcharge 2 Money in the Special 3 Revenue Fund 2,012,000 The ~ppropriations in this section are available until June 30, 1995. ','. 6 In this section: 7 (a) "Future resources fund" means the 8 Minnesota future resources fund 9 referred to in Minnesota Statutes, 10 section 116P.13. 11 {b) "Trust fund' means the Minnesota 12 environment and natural resources trust 13 fund referred to in Minnesota Statutes, 14 section 116P.02, subdivision 6. 15 (c) "Trust fund acceleration" means the 16 Minnesota environment and natural 17 resources trust fund to be expended 18 only for capital investments in parks 19 and trails referred to in Minnesota 20 Statutes, section l16P.11, paragraph 21 (b), clause (3). 22 (d) "Oil overcharge money" means the 23 money referred to in Minnesota 24 Statutes, section 4.071, subdivision 2. 25 Subd. 2. Legislative Commission 26 on Minnesota Resources 27 $425,000 of this appropriation is from 28 the future resources fund and $270,000 29 is from the trust fund pursuant to 30 Minnesota Statutes, section 116P.09, 31 subdivision 5. 32 For the biennium ending June 30, 1995, 33 the commission shall monitor the 34 programs in this section; assess the 35 status of the state's natural 36 resources; convene a state resource 37 congress; establish priorities for, 38 request, review, and recommend programs 39 for the 1995-1997 biennium from the 40 future resources fund, environment and 41 natural resources trust fund, and oil 42 overcharge money, and for support of 43 the citizen advisory committee 44 activities. 45 Subd. 3. Agriculture 46 (a) Biological Control of Plant 47 and Animal Pests 48 This appropriation is from the oil 49 overcharge money to the commissioner of 50 administration for transfer to the 51 commissioner of agriculture to develop, test, and implement biological control 53 agents to reduce the use of 54 petroleum-based chemicals. A grant 55 request to supplement this 56 appropriation must be submitted to the 57 United States Department of Agriculture 58 and the results reported to the 59 legislative commission on Minnesota 695,000 880,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 22 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 i resources. 2 (b) Cover Crops in a Corn and 3 Soybean Rotation - '4 Thi~ appropriation is from the future 5 resources fund to the commissioner of '~'- 6 agriculture for a contract with the 7 university of Minnesota for the 8 development of economic management 9 strategies of cover crops for corn and 10 soybean rotations to reduce soil 11 erosion, nitrate leaching, and 12 pesticide use. 13 (c) Increasing Utilization of 14 Federal Cost Share Feedlot Funds 15 This appropriation is from the future 16 resources fund to the commissioner of 17 agriculture to provide technical 18 assistance for the rehabilitation of 19 priority feedlots with water quality 20 concerns. 21 (d) Demonstration of Production 22 Scale Waste Collection in 23 Aquaculture 24 This appropriation is from the future 25 resources fund to the commissioner of 26 the ~ollution control agency for a 27 contract with Minnesota aguafarms to 28 evaluate operational efficiencies of a 29 fish waste collection system and to 30 evaluate the potential for the waste 31 collection system to meet state water 32 quality requirements. 33 (e) Reinvest in Minnesota - 34 Conservation Reserve Easements 35 $500,000 of this appropriation is from 36 the trust fund and $323,000 of this 37 appropriation is from the future 38 resources fund to the board of water 39 and soil resources to accelerate the 40 RIM program to acquire perpetual 41 conservation easements on marginal 42 agricultural lands. Up to $165,000 may 43 be used to implement conservation 44 practices on the easements. None of 45 this appropriation may be used for 46 administrative costs. 47 (f) Alternative Aquaculture 48 Methods 49 This appropriation is from the future 50 resources fund to the commissioner of 51 agriculture to develop and evaluate 52 alternative methods of raising fish, 53 focusing on water conservation through 54 waste removal, and collection involving 55 recirculating aquaculture systems. 56 Grant requests to supplement this 57 appropriation must be submitted to the 58 united States Department of Agriculture 59 and the national Sea Grant program and 60 the results reported to the legislative 61 commission on Minnesota resources. 23 150,000 480,000 100,000 823,000 230,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 I (g) Minnesota Aquaculture 2 Development Program 3 This appropriation is from the future 4 resqurces fund to the commissioner of - 5 agriculture to cOndUct a'grant program 6 for the evaluation and development of '~'. 7 environmentally sound aquaculture 8 systems. 9 (h) Managing Agricultural 10 Environments of No=th-Central 11 Minnesota Sandy Soils 12 This appropriation is from the future 13 resources fund to the commissioner of 14 agriculture for a contract with the 15 University of Minnesota to develop 16 improved management strategies for 17 water, nitrogen, and herbicide use on 18 sandy soils in north central Minnesota. 19 (i) Nutrient Availability 20 From Land-Applied Manure 21 This appropriation is from the future 22 resources fund to the commissioner of 23 agriculture for a contract with the 24 University of Minnesota to determine 25 nutrient availability from 26 manure/soil/crop systems to improve 27 manure utilization by crops, reduce 28 environmental impacts on water 29 resources, and provide best management 30 practices (BMPs) to guide manure 31 management decisions. 32 (j) Effective Manure Management 33 in Conservation Tillage Systems 34 for Karst Areas 35 This appropriation is f~om the future 36 resources fund to the commissioner of 37 agriculture for a contract with the 38 University of Minnesota to investigate 39 factors that influence losses of 40 contaminants to surface and 41 groundwater. The emphasis will be on 42 soil, crop residue, and manure 43 management to maximize crop recovery of 44 nitrogen and minimize losses to surface 45 and groundwater. 46 (k) Nutrient Recycling 47 Through Plants and Animals 48 This appropriation is from the future 49 resources fund to the commissioner of 50 agriculture for a contract with the 51 University of Minnesota to improve 52 techniques to predict nitrogen 53 mineralization from manure and soil · 54 organic matter in west central 55 Minnesota. 56 (1) Developing Soil Specific 57 Nitrogen Management as a Best 58 Management Practice (BMP) 59 This appropriation is from the oil 60 overcharge money to the commissioner of 230,000 480,000 280,000 500,000 260,000 294,000 24 7 8 9 10 1 administration for transfer to the 2 commissioner of agriculture for 3 development of new soil specific, 4 variable rate nitrogen applications $ tha~ will increase operating efficiency - 6 and reduce applied nitrogen without reducing yield. Subd. 4. Energy (a) Reducing Energy and CO2 This appropriation is from the oil 11 overcharge money to the commissioner of 12 administration for a contract with the 13 center for energy and urban environment 14 to develop a comprehensive action plan 15 that will focus on energy efficiency, 16 alternative energy, and fuel switching 17 through an assessment of opportunities 18 for the reduction of CO2 and other 19 greenhouse gases. 20 (b) Photovoltaic Demonstration Project 21 This appropriation is from the future 22 resources fund to the commissioner of 23 public service'for a grant to the St. 24 Paul school district for purchase and installation of a photovoltaic 26 demonstration system at the Battle 27 Creek environmental magnet school. 28 (c) Operational Implications 29 of Alternate Transit Bus Fuels 30 This appropriation is from the oil 31 overcharge money to the commissioner of 32 administration for a contract with the 33 metropolitan transit commission to test 34 alternate bus fuels to evaluate their 35 potential for reduced fuel consumption 36 and increased operational efficiency. 37 (dj The Bus, Bike, or Car 38 Pool (B-BOP) Challenge 39 This appropriation is from the oil 40 overcharge money to the commissioner of 41 administration for a contract with the 42 center for energy and urban environment 43 to reduce energy use by the delivery of 44 an employer-based program that cost 45 effectively reduces the use of single 46 occupant vehicles by commuters who 47 pledge to B-BOP or telecommute 48 regularly during the summer. 49 (e) Tree and Grass Production 50 for Ethanol 51 This appropriation is from the oil 52 overcharge money to the commissioner of 53 administration for a contract with the 54 agricultural utilization research 55 institute to implement a program to 56 supply biomass feedstock derived from 57 trees and grass to a national renewable 58 energy laboratory (NREL), United States 59 Department of Energy Engineering 60 Development facility for converting 25 230,000 230,000 CHAPTER No. i72 S.F. No. 1570 78,000 150,000 380,000 - 5 1 biomass to ethanol and thermochemical fuels. This appropriation is contingent on a NR£L agreement by 4 January l, 1994, to purchase biomass. Sub~. 5. Forestry (a) Development of Tree Seed Orchard Complex 8 This appropriation is from the future 9 resources fund to the commissioner of l0 natural resources for production of 11 genetically improved forest tree seed. 12 (b] Como Park Replanting Program 13 This appropriation is from the future 14 resources fund to the commissioner of 15 natural resources for a contract with 16 the metropolitan council for a subgrant %7 to the city of St. Paul to replant ' ' areas in Como Park that have lost trees ~ due to disease, age, or other causes. 20 (c) Reforestation in Ramsey 21 County Parks and Open Space 22 This appropriation is from the future 23 resources fund to the commissioner of 24 natural resources for a contract with 25 Ramsey county to accelerate the 26 reforestation program in Ramsey county 27 regional and county parks to replace 28 trees lost to storm damage, drought, 29 and disease and begin establishment of 30 new plantings. None of this 31 appropriation is to be used for 32 administration. 33 (d) Developing Quality 34 Hardwood Forests 35 Thks appropriation is from the future 36 resources fund to the commissioner of 37 natural resources for a contract with 38 the University of Minnesota to conduct 39 research on the effects of different 40 canopy gap sizes and site preparation 41 methods on natural hardwood 42 regeneration. 43 Subd. 6. General 44 (a) Minnesota County Biological 45 Survey - Continuation 46 This appropriation is from the trust 47 fund to the commissioner of natural 48 resources to continue the Minnesota 49 county biological survey of systematic 50 collection ($432,000) and management of 51 data on the distribution of rare 52 plants, animals, and natural habitats 53 ($288,000) and to provide for 54 distribution and integration of rare 55 features information ($180,000). 56 (b) Minnesota's Forest-Bird 57 Diversity Initiative - Continuation 80,000 93,000 50,000 210,000 900,000 500,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 26 1 This appropriation is from the trust 2 fund to the commissioner of natural 3 resources to monitor forest songbird 4 populations and to utilize geographic 5 information system tools to correlate 6 forest bird populations with dynamics 7 of the forest landscape. 8 (c) Description and Evaluation 9 of Minnesota Old Growth Forests - 10 Continuation 11 This appropriation is from the future 12 resources fund to the commissioner of 13 natural resources to accelerate the 14 evaluation of old growth candidate 15 stands ($90,000), develop detailed 16 descriptions of old growth forest types 17 ($110,000), and determine habitat 18 relations of forest fungi in old growth 19 forests ($50,000) for completion of the 20 implementation of the department of 21 natural resources old growth guidelines. 22 (d) Mississippi Headwaters River 23 Inquiry and Education Project 24 This appropriation is from the future 25 resources fund to the commissioner of 26 natural resources for a contract with 27 the Mississippi headwaters board to 28 provide for the investigation of river 29 corridor biology, hydrology, and 30 cultural issues, training of local 31 government officials, and public 32 education on river protection 33 strategies. 34 (e) Anadromous Fish Monitoring 35 This appropriation is from the future 36 resources fund to the commissioner of 37 natural resources for biologic 38 monitoring to improve the management of 39 the steelhead population on the north 40 shore of Lake Superior. 41 (f) Land and Water Conservation 42 Fund Administration 43 This appropriation is from the future 44 resources fund to the commissioner of 45 natural resources for administration of 46 the federal land and water conservation 47 program and other contract 48 administration activities assigned to 49 the commissioner in this section. 50 Subd. 7. Information/Education 51 (a) Quantify Pesticide and 52 Fertilizer Runoff from Golf Courses 53 This appropriation is from the future 54 resources fund to the commissioner of 55 the pollution control agency for a 56 contract with suburban Hennepin 57 Regional Park district for a study of 58 the quantity of pesticide and 59 fertilizer runoff water from golf 60 courses and an assessment of the impact 250,000 27 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 75,000 137,000 80,000 49,000 I, I CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 1 of these contaminants on downstream 2 waterbodies. This appropriation must 3 be matched by $49,000 of nonstate funds. 4 (b) ~eveloping Multi-Use 5 Urban Green Space '='.6 This appropriation is from the future 7 resources fund to the commissioner of 8 natural resources for a contract with 9 the Minneapolis park and recreation 10 board to develop city tax forfeited 11 lands into neighborhood gardens, 12 orchards, alternative landscape 13 demonstration areas, and tree nurseries. 14 (c) K-12 Prairie Wetland Field 15 Study Program - Ecology Bus 16 This appropriation is from the future 17 resources fund to the commissioner of 18 education for a contract with Heron 19 Lake Environmental Learning Center. 20 Inc., to purchase, equip, and opera:e 21 an ecology bus to deliver an 22 interdisciplinary K-12 school 23 environmental education program in 24 southwest MinneSota. This 25 appropriation is contingent on the 26 learning center employing a specialist 27 to guide student and teacher 28 participation in the ecology bus. 29 (d) The On-Line Museum: 30 Computer and Interactive Video 31 This appropriation is from the trust 32 fund to the commissioner of education 33 for a contract with the science museum 34 of Minnesota to create an interactive 35 video data base of selected cultural 36 and natural history collections as a 37 prototype for a unique learning 38 experience in environmental education 39 for museum visitors and school children. 40 (e) Environmental Education 41 Outreach Program 42 This appropriation is from the future 43 resources fund to the commissioner of 44 education for a contract with 45 metropolitan waste control commission 46 (MWCC) to develo? a.multidisciplinary 47 environmental scxence and math 48 curriculum for grades K-12 and 49 team-taught by private sector 50 volunteers, teachers, and MWCC 51 volunteer staff. A grant request to 52 supplement this appropriation must be 53 submitted to the United States 54 Environmental Protection Agency and the 55 results reported to the legislative 56 commission on Minnesota resources. 57 This appropriation must be matched by 58 an equal amount of nonstate funds. 59 (f) Summer Youth History Program 60 This appropriation is from the future 61 resources fund to the Minnesota state 28 220,000 270,000 260,000 215,000 100,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 1 historical society to provide summer 2 employment for high school students of 3 at least 50 percent minority or 4 disadvantaged at historic sites. 5 (g) The Ecology of Minnesota - 6 Book 7 This appropriation is from the future 8 resources fund to the University of 9 Minnesota for a grant to the university 10 press to assist in the preparation and 11 production of a book presenting a 12 comprehensive overview of Minnesota's 13 natural environment. 14 (h) Green Street: An Urban 15 Environmental Awareness Project 16 This appropriation is from the trust 17 fund to the commissioner of education 18 for a contract with the science museum 19 of Minnesota to develop a 20 comprehensive, coordinated urban 21 environmental education project, which 22 will be a core exhibit and outreach 23 program focused on revealing the links 24 between modern'lifestyles and major 25 environmental issues. 26 (i) Minnehaha Park Environmental 27 Interpretive Center 28 This appropriation is from the trust 29 fund to the commissioner of natural 30 resources for a contract with the 31 metropolitan council for a subgrant to 32 the Minneapolis park and recreation 33 board to adaptively reuse the 34 Longfellow house in Minnehaha Park as 35 an urban interpretive center. This 36 appropriation must be matched by 37 $37,000 from the Minneapolis park and 38 reoreation board. 39 (j) Nicollet Conservation Club 40 Swan Lake Interpretive Room 41 This appropriation is from the future 42 resources fund to the commissioner of 43 natural resources for a contract with 44 the Nicollet conservation club to equip 45 a Swan Lake interpretive center at the 46 Nicollet conservation club. Facilities 47 will be open for use b~ local school 48 groups and state agencies for 49 interpretive programs and meetings at 50 no charge. This appropriation must be 51 matched by an equal amount of nonstate 52 funds. 53 (k) Project City Camp: 54 Experiential Urban Environmental 55 Education 56 This appropriation is from the future 57 resources fund to the commissioner of 58 education for a contract with Pillsbury 59 Neighborhood Services, Inc., to 60 implement Project City Camp, to help 61 inner city poor and minority youth and 29 51,000 550,000 300,000 18,000 130,000 I adults understand the urban environment and its impact on human development. 3 (1) Granite Quarry Park and 4 Interpretive Center, Planning 5 This appropriation is from the future ';' 6 resources fund to the commissioner of 7 natural resources for a contract with 8 Stearns county to study the features of g the quarry sites and plan for the 10 development of an interpretive and 11 recreational regional park. This 12 appropriation must be matched by 13 $50,000 of nonstate funds. 14 (m) Expanded Crosby Farm Park 15 Nature Program 16 This appropriation is from the future 17 resources fund to the commissioner of 18 education for a contract with the city 19 of St. Paul to accelerate the nature 20 study program established at Crosby 21 Farm Park utilizing the Como zoo, Como 22 .conservatory, and Crosby Farm Nature 23 Park. 24 (n) Multiple-Use Forest 25 Management Learning Kit 26 This appropriation is from the future 2? resources fund to the commissioner of 28 education for a contract with Deep 29 Portage environmental learning center 30 to develop a multiple use forest 31 management learning kit. This 32 appropriation must be matched by $5,500 33 of nonstate funds. 34 (o) An Outdoor Classroom to 35 Improve Rural Environmental 36 Education 3? This appropriation is from the future 38 resources fund to the commissioner of 39 education for a contract with the 40 Faribault County Environmental Learning 41 Center, Inc., in cooperation with area 42 4-H, communities and schools, for an 43 outdoor classroom project using native 44 Minnesota vegetation, to train 45 instructors, educate youth and 46 community members, and evaluate changes 47 in environmental awareness. 48 Sub~. 8. Land 49 (a) Base Maps for 1990s - 50 Continuation 51 This appropriation is from the trust 52 fund to the commissioner of 53 administration to provide the state 54 share of a 50/50 match program with the 55 United States Geological Survey to 56 continue statewide coverage of 57 orthophoto maps, u~date mapping for the 58 state ~aJor urban areas, and plan for 59 future cooperative mapping and air 60 photos programs. 3O CHAPTER No. i72 S.F. No. 1570 SO,O00 91,000 15,000 60,000 710,000 1 (b) Rural County Use of National 2 Aerial Photography Program Flight 3 This appropriation is from the future 4 res@urces fund to the commissioner of - 5 administration for a contract with 6 Houston county to evaluate the quality '~'. 7 of digital planimetric map products and 8 the effectiveness of national aerial 9 photography program products in meeting 10 the needs of Houston county users and 11 to assist other counties in the future 12 use of. the products. This project must 13 comply with the data compatibility 14 requirements set forth in subdivision 15 14. 16 (c) Recreati°nal Resource 17 Planning in the Metro Mississippi 18 Corridor 19 This appropriation is from the future 20 resources fund to the commissioner of 21 natural resources for a contract with 22 the University of Minnesota to 23 investigate the potential for enhancing 24 and enriching the recreational' 25 opportunities along the Mississippi 26 river in the metropolitan corridors of 27 the Mississippi National River and 28 Recreation Area (MNRRA). This 29 appropriation must be matched by 30 $25,000 of nonstate funds. 31 Subd. 9. Minerals 32 Mitigating Concrete 33 Aggregate Problems in Minnesota 34 This appropriation is from the future 35 resources fund to the commissioner of 36 transportation for a contract with the 37 University of Minnesota to study means 38 of mitigating concrete aggregate 39 problems in southern Minnesota. 40 Subd. 10. Recreation 41 The appropriations in items (a) to (1) 42 are for trust fund acceleration. 43 (a) State Park Betterment 44 This appropriation is from the trust 45 fund to the commissioner of natural 46 resources to develop, improve, and 47 rehabilitate state park facilities to 48 meet growing user demand as well as 49 prevent further deterioration of 50 outstanding historically significant 51 structures. 52 (b) Americans With Disabilities 53 Act: Retrofitting Regional Parks 54 This appropriation is from the trust 55 fund to the commissioner of natural 56 resources for a contract with the 57 metropolitan council to make subgrants 58 to regional park implementing agencies 59 to retrofit existing facilities to meet CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 90,000 175,000 179,000 3,000,000 220,000 31 1 federal A~ertcans vith Disabilities Act IADA) requirements. ) {C) Trail Linkages, Metropolitan Regional Network $ This appropriation is from the trust -:'. 6 fund to the commissioner of natural 7 resources for a contract with the 8 metropolitan council to make subqrant$ 9 to acquire and improve regional trails 10 which link existing and planned 11 ~eg£onal, local, and state parks and 12 trails. (d) Initiate Gateway Segment of 14 the Wlllard Munger State Trail into 15 Downtown St. Paul 16 Of this appropriation, $200,000 is from 17 the trust fund and $54,000 is from the 18 future resources fund to the 19 commissioner of natural resources for 20 acquisition and development of the 21 trail right-of-way of the gateway 22 segment of the Willard Munqer state 23 trail into downtown St. Paul. This 24 appropriation is for acquisition and 25 development only and must be done in 26 cooperation with the city of St. Paul. 27 (e) Birch Lake Regional Bikeway/Walkway 29 This appropriation is from the trust 30 fund to the commissioner of natural 31 resources for a contract with the 32 metro~olitan council for a subgrant to Ramsey county which shall cooperate 34 with the city of White Bear Lake to develop a bikeway/walkway linking trunk 36 hiqhway 96 regional bikeway with Tamarack nature center and business 38 ceqters, and a trailside interpretive 39 pro, ram. This appropriation is 40 contingent on this facility being 41 designated part of the metropolitan 42 repional park and open space system. 43 (f) Cedar Lake Trail Development 44 This appropriation is from the trust 45 fund to the commissioner of natural 46 resources for a contract with the 47 metropolitan council for a subgrant to 48 the Minneapolis park and recreation 49 board to plan and construct Cedar Lake S0 recreational and nonmotorized commuter 51 trail from Highway 100 to downtown 52 Minneapolis intersecting with the chain 53 of lakes. This appropriation must be 54 matched by $200,000 of nonState funds. 55 This appropriation is contingent on 56 this facility being designated part of 57 the metropolitan regional park and open 58 space system. 59 (9) State Trail Development 60 This appropriation is from the trust 61 fund to the commissioner of natural 32 11 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 2,327,000 254,000 450,000 610,000 2,327,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 - 6 7 1 resources to start development of the 2 Paul Bunyan state trail, the 3 development of an abandoned railroad 4 grade located between Barnum and 5 Carlton, and provide for the acquisition and development of a trail connection from Harmony to the Root river state trail. 9 (h) Shingle Creek Trail Improvement 10 This appropriation is from the trust 11 fund to the commissioner of natural 12 resources for a contract with the 13 metropolitan council for a subgrant to 14 the Minneapolis park and recreation 15 board to develop the Shingle Creek 16 trail connection between Minneapolis 17 and Hennepin county regional trail. 18 (£) hilydale/Harriet Island 19 Regional Park Trail 20 This appropriation is from the trust 21 fund to the commissioner of natural 22 resources for a contract with the 23 metropolitan council for a contract 24 with the city Of St. Paul to plan and 25 construct a pedestrian bicycle trail in 26 the Lilydale/Harriet Island Regional 27 Park. 28 (j) Como Park East Lakeshore 29 Reclamation 30 This appropriation is from the trust 31 fund to the commissioner of natural 32 resources for a contract with the 33 metropolitan council for a subgrant to 34 the city of St. Paul to provide site 35 improvements for reclamation and 36 restoration of severely eroded areas on 37 east lakeshore in Como Park. 38 (k)' Acquisition of Palace 39 Restaurant Site on Mississippi 40 River 130,000 246,000 163,000 325,000 41 This appropriation is from the trust 42 fund to the commissioner of natural 43 resources for a contract with the 44 metropolitan council for a subgrant to 45 the Minneapolis park and recreation 46 board to acquire the Palace Restaurant 47 property located on the east bank of 48 the Mississippi for open space and 49 recreational opportunities. This 50 appropriation is contingent on this 51 facility being designated part of the 52 metropolitan regional park and open 53 space system. 54 (1) Access to Lakes and Rivers - 55 Continuation 1,000,000 56 This appropriation is from the trust 57 fund to the commissioner of natural 58 resources to accelerate access to lakes 59 and rivers statewide. $500,000 is for 60 boat access to lakes and rivers and 61 $500,000 is for shoreline access and 33 ~m ,B · I , ,NJ, il, 1 fishing piers statewide. 2 (m) saint Louis River Land Acquisition - 4 Thi~ appropriation is ~om the trust 5 fund to the commissioner of natural '~'. 6 resources to acquire and protect 7 undeveloped lands known for their 8 resource and recreation values located 9 along the Saint Louis, Cloguet, and 10 Whiteface rivers. Up to $50,000 of 11 this appropriation may be used as a 12 grant to the Saint Louis river board 13 for the implementation of the Saint 14 Louis river management plan. 15 (n) Lake Minnetonka Water 16 Access Acquisition 17 This appropriation is from the future 18 resources fund to the commissioner of 19 natural resources to acquire land for a 20 water access site on Maxwell and 21 Crystal Bays in Lake Minnetonka. 22 (o) Lake Superior Safe Harbors - 23 Continuation 24 This appropriation is from the future 2S resources fund to the commissioner of 26 natural resources to acquire a site not 27 to exceed 25 acres and construct a Lake 28 Superior safe harbor site at Silver Bay 29 in cooperation with the north shore 30 management board. This appropriation 31 is contingent on additional funding 32 being requested from the IRR~, the 33 United States Army Corps of Engineers 34 and other federal/local sources as 35 described in the north shore harbors 36 plan. 37 (p~ Cooperative Trails Grant 38 Program 39 This appropriation is from the future 40 resources fund to the commissioner of 41 natural resources for a grant program 42 to assist in the acquisition and development of local connections to 44 planned and existing state trails and 45 other public recreation facilities. 46 (q) Agassiz Recreational 47 Trails (ART) 48 This appropriation is from the future 49 resources fund to the commissioner of 50 natural resources for a contract with 51 Agassiz Recreational Trail Joint Powers 52 Board to plan, purchase, and develop 53 Agassiz recreational trails and improve 54 up to five local parks. 55 (r) Mesabi Trail Acquisition, 56 Planning and Development 57 This appropriation is from the future 58 resources fund to the commissioner of 59 natural resources for a contract with CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 1,000,000 944,000 1,000,000 800,000 650,000 700,000 34 2 3 4 5 6 ? 1 the St. Louis and Lake county regional rail authority to plan and begin acquiring and developing a 132-mile multipurpose trail linking the Mesabi iro$ range between Grand Rapids and Ely. This appropriation must be matched by $350,000 cash from IRRRB or nonstate funds. 9 (s) Recreational Programming: 10 Inclusiveness for Persons with 11 Disabilities 12 This appropriation is from the future 13 resources fund to the commissioner of 14 education for a contract with Vinland 15 National Center to provide staff 16 training and consultation, targeted 17 outreach and resource education, to 18 enhance the inclusiveness, 19 accessibility, and utilization of 20 existing recreational programs by 21 persons with disabilities. 22 (t) Enhanced Recreational 23 Opportunities for Southeast 24 Asian Ethnic Communities 25 This appropriation is from the future 26 resources fund to the commissioner of 27 natural resources to provide community 28 education, develop bilingual 29 communication exchanges, and cultural 30 and sensitivity training with community 31 members and natural resource 32 professionals. 33 (u) Urban Community Gardening 34 Program 35 This appropriation is from the future 36 resources fund to the commissioner of 37 natural resources for a contract with 38 the Sustainable Resources center to 39 pr6vide technical assistance and 40 information to neighborhood based 41 groups, special populations, and 42 municipalities for community gardening, 43 including the rehabilitation of urban 44 open space. 45 (v) National Register Grants 46 Program 47 This appropriation is from the future 48 resources fund to the Minnesota state 49 historical society to assist in the 50 preservation of outstanding historical 51 properties such as Pickwick Mill 52 (1854-58), Sibley C~unty Courthouse 53 (1879), Wendelin Grimm Farmstead 54 (1876), and Tugboat Edna G (1896), and 55 other emergency needs of properties of 56 national or statewide historic 57 significance. 58 (w) Historical Research and 59 Planning for Traverse Des Sioux 60 This appropriation is from the future 61 resources fund to the Minnesota state 35 160,000 300,000 110,000 165,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 68,000 ~tn ! i n II, I I 1 historical society to research and 2 develop a master plan for Traverse des 3 Stouxo a h£storic site owned by the 4 Minnesota historical society and 5 located in Nlcollet county. 6 (x) Peninsula Point Two Rivers ';'. 7 H£storical Park 8 This appropriation is from the future resources fund to the commissioner of 10 natural resources for a contract with 11 the city oe Anoka to develop Peninsula 12 Point Two Rivers Historical Park 13 located at the coneluence of the Rum 14 and Mississippi rivers. iS Subd. 11. Nater 16 (a) Minnesota River 17 Zmplementation - Continuation 18 This appropriation is from the trust 19 fund to the commissioner of the 20 pollution control agency to accelerate 21 the adoption of best management 22 practices (BMPs) and to accelerate 23 related state and local implementation 24 activities for the Minnesota river 25 basin. 26 (b) Local River Planning - 27 Continuation 28 This appropriation is from the future 29 resources fund to the commissioner of 30 natural resources for contracts of up 31 to two-thirds of the cost to counties 32 or groups of counties acting pursuant 33 to a joint powers agreement, to develop 34 comprehensive plans for the management 35 and protection of rivers in northern 36 and central Minnesota. The 37 co~missioner of natural resources shall 38 include in the work plan for review and 39 approval by the legislative commission 40 on Minnesota resources a proposed list 41 'of rivers and a planning process 42 developed by the consensus of the 43 affected counties. All plans must meet 44 or exceed the requirements of state 45 shoreland and floodplain laws. Up to $100,000 is available for 47 administration and technical assistance. 48 (c) Mercury Reduction in Fish - 49 Continuation 50 This appropriation is from the trust Si fund to the commissioner of the 52 pollution control agency for a contract 53 with the University of Minnesota to 54 complete pilot studies testing mercury 55 reduction in fish for Minnesota 56 waters. Grant requests to supplement 57 this appropriation must be submitted to 58 the United States Environmental 59 Protection Agency and the results 60 reported to the legislative commission 61 on Minnesota resources. CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 435,000 1,100,000 480,000 200,000 36 1 (d) Stream Flow Protection This appropriation is from the future resources fund to the commissioner of natural resources to collect stream habitat data (width, depth, velocity, substrate, water elevation) in up to 39 watersheds to develop community-based flows that protect stream resources. This project must comply with the data compatibility requirements set forth in subdivision 15. 12 (e) The South Central Minnesota 13 Groundwater Contamination 14 Susceptibility Project - 15 Continuation 16 This appropriation is from the future 17 resources fund to the commissioner of 18 natural resources for a contract with 19 Mankato state university to couple 20 surface hydrology, subsurface geology, 21 and hydrogeology for enviroru~ental 22 analysis to assess present 23 environmental conditions, establish 24 benchmarks, and develop regional 25 priorities for'south central 26 Minnesota. This project must comply 27 with the data compatibility 28 requirements set forth in subdivision 29 14. 30 (f) White Bear Lake Levels 31 Feasibility Study 32 This appropriation is from the future 33 resources fund to the commissioner of 34 natural resources to install additional 35 observation wells at White Bear Lake 36 ($50,000), to study lake and 37 groundwater relationships, to conduct a 38 feasibility study to address lake level 39 issues ($50,000), and to abandon or 40 retrofit existing augmentation wells 41 ($128,000). 42 (g} County Geologic Atlases 43 and Regional Hydrogeologic 44 Assessments - Continuation 45 $425,000 is from the trust fund to the 46 University of Minnesota, Minnesota 47 geologic survey, and $425,000 is from 48 the trust fund to the commissioner of 49 natural resources to expand production 50 of county geologic atlases and regional 51 hydrogeologic assessments. This 52 project must comply with the data 53 compatibility requirements set forth in 54 subdivision 14. 55 (h) Septic System Replacement for 56 Water Related Tourism Businesses 57 This appropriation is from the future 58 resources fund to the commissioner of 59 trade and economic development to 60 provide matching grants of up to 61 $10,000 to resorts and related tourism 62 businesses located on lakes and rivers 2 3 4 - 5 6 8 9 10 ll 37 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 280,000 290,000 228,000 850,000 SO0,O00 ill J J, , !1, l, CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 i for replacement of failing or 2 nonconforming septic systems. 3 Businesses that begLn replacement of 4 failing or nonconforming septic systems 5 after the effegtive dat~9<Of this act 6 are eligible for these grants. (i} Optical Brighteners: 8 Indicators of Sewage 9 Contamination of Groundwaters 10 This appropriation is from the future 11 resources fund to the commissioner of 12 the ~ollution control agency for a 13 contract with Dakota county to study 14 the correlation of optical brighteners 15 present in d6mestic sewage from 16 detergent use with nonagricultural 17 nitrogen as interferences with atrazine 18 detection. 19 Subd. 12. Wildlife, Fisheries, Plants {al Reinvest in Minnesota - 21 Critical Habitat Match, Scientific 22 and Natural Area, Wildlife, and 23 Prairie Acquisition 24 This appropriation is from the trust 25 fund to the commissioner of natural 26 resources to accelerate the reinvest in 27 Minnesota program. $2,600,000 is to 28 protect and improve critical fish, 29 wildlife, and native plant habitat 30 through critical habitat match; 31 $1,000,000 is to acquire land for 32 scientific and natural areas; $300,000 33 is to acquire North American waterfowl 34 management plan projects; and $100,000 35 is to acquire prairie bank easements to 36 protect native prairie on private lands. (b) Reinvest in Minnesota - 38 Wildlife Habitat Stewardship and 39 Property Development 40This appropriation is from the trust 41 fund to the commissioner of natural 42 resources to accelerate the reinvest in 43 Minnesota program, to develop state 44 land, to protect wildlife and native 45 plant ~opulations, restore native plant 46 communities, and enhance wildlife 47 habitat. 48 (c) Reinvest in Minnesota - 49 Statewide Fisheries Habitat 50 Development 51 This appropriation is from the trust 52 fund to the commissioner of natural 53 resources to accelerate the reinvest in 54 Minnesota program through the 55 develo~ent of trout, walleye, and 56 smallmouth bass habitat in streams, 57 removal of the Flandrau dam on the 58 Cottonwood river to allow migration of 59 fish, and the installation of aeration 60 systems on winterkill-prone lakes. 61 (d) Establishment of Critical 38 157,000 4,000,000 900,000 687,000 CHAPTER No. 172 S.F. No. 1570 1 Winter Habitat Areas on 2 Intensively Farmed Land 3 This appropriation is from the future 4 resources fund to the commissioner of - 5 natural resources for a contract with 6 Pheasants Forever, Inc., to acquire and '~' 7 establish areas of critical winter 8 habitat for wildlife on farmland in 9 Scott county. This appropriation must 10 be matched by $60,000 nonstate funds. 11 (e) Wild Turkey Hunting 12 Safety/Education 13 This appropriation is from the future 14 resources fund to the commissioner of 15 natural resources for a contract with 16 the wild turkey federation to develop a 17 program to promote safety in the sport 18 of wild turkey hunting, to minimize 19 accidents, and improve hunter/landowner 20 relationships. 21 (f) Niemackl Watershed Restoration 22 This appropriation is from the future 23 resources fund 'to the commissioner of 24 natural resources for the restoration 25 of the Niemackl watershed by 26 improvement of water quality, flood 27 reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, 28 and recreation through citizen 29 participation with federal, state, and 30 local governments, and nongovernment 31 agencies. $200,000 is available to 32 begin the project and the remaining 33 $300,000 is contingent on a match of 34 $300,000 of nonstate funds. 35 (g) Deer'Critical Habitat 36 Survey - Koochiching County 37 This appropriation is from the future 38 resources fund to the commissioner of 39 natural resources in cooperation with 40 Koochiching county to conduct an 41 intensive survey of deer winter cover 42 in Koochiching county to identify 43 critical habitat for deer for improved 44 timber management and for deer 45 population management. This 46 appropriation must be matched by $5,000 47 of nonstate funds. 48 {h) Reinvest in Minnesota - 49 Fisheries Acquisition for Angler SO Access and Habitat Development 51 This appropriation is from the trust 52 fund to the commissioner of natural 53 resources to accelerate the reinvest in 54 Minnesota program. $50,000 is for 55 trout stream easements~ $50,000 is for 56 warm water stream easements; and 57 $200,000 is for aquatic management 58 areas acquisition. 59 (i) Establishing Goose Nesting 60 Sites in Northern Minnesota and 61 Relocation of Giant Canada Goslings 39 100,000 39,000 500,000 75,000 .300,000 21,000 CHAPTER No. S.F. No. 1570 1 This appropriation is from the future 2 resources fund to the commissioner of 3 natural resources for a contract with 4 Geese International, Inc., to - 5 manufacture and place 160. permanent 6 goose nesting sites in the Squaw Lake '~"7 and Baudette areas and to purchase a 8 four-wheel drive vehicle capable of 9 towing a trailer for 400 goslings. l0 This appropriation must be matched by ll $31,890 from Geese International, Inc. 12 (j) prairie Ecosystem Restoration 13 in the Minneapolis Park System 14 This appropriation is from the future 15 resources fund to the commissioner of 16 natural resources for a contract with 17 the Minneapolis park and recreation 18 board to restore and rehabilitate the 19 remnant, secondary, and introduced 20 prairie tracts in the Minneapolis park 21 system. This appropriation must be 22 matched by $60,000 from nonstate funds. 23 (k) Theodore Wirth Park Tamarack 24 Bog ?~eservation Project 25 This appropriation is from the future 26 resources fund to the commissioner of 27 natural resources for a contract with 28 the People for Minneapolis Parks fund 29 in cooperation with the Minneapolis 30 park and recreation board to restore 31 the Theodore Wirth park tamarack bog, 32 improve the access trail, construct a 33 boardwalk, and develop and install 34 self-guided interpretive signage. 35 (1) Biological Control of 36 Eurasian Water Milfoil and 37 Purple Loosestrife 38 This appropriation is from the trust 39 fund to the commissioner of natural 40 resources to research biological 41 control for purple loosestrife and 42 Eurasian water milfoil. The purple 43 loosestrife research must be done in 44 cooperation with the commissioner of 45 agriculture. $100,000 is for the 46 propagation, release, and evaluation of 47 insects for purple loosestrife control; 48 $50,000 is for the development of 49 mycoherblcides to control purple 50 loosestrife; $200,000 is for evaluation 51 of biocontrol agents for Eurasian water 52 milfoil fungi and insects; and $50,000 53 is to research the biology of Eurasian 54 water milfoil. The $250,000 for 55 Eurasian water milfoil must be matched by $200,000 of nonstate funds. 57 (m) Replacement of Eurasian 58 Water Milfoil with Native Minnesota 59 Plants 60 This appropriation is from the future 61 resources fund to the commissioner of 62 natural resources for a contract with 4O 60,000 40,000 400,000 .40,000 CHAPTER No, 172 S.F. No. 1570 1 the White Bear Lake conservation district to research the replanting of 3 areas treated for Eurasian water 4 milfoil with native aquatic plants. - 5 (n) }ntegrated Control of 6 Purple Loosestrife 7 This appropriation is from the future 8 resources fund to the commissioner of 9 agriculture in cooperation with the 10 commissioner of natural resources to 11 accelerate evaluation of integrated 12 biological control agents for purple 13 loosestrife infestations in Houston, 14 Hennepin, Wabasha, and Goodhue counties. 15 (o) Ecological Impacts of 16 Releasing Genetically Engineered 17 Fishes 18 This appropriation is from the trust 19 fund to the commissioner of agriculture 20 in cooperation with the commissioner of 21 natural resources for a contract with 22 the University of Minnesota to assess 23 impacts of the release of genetically 24 engineered fish on Minnesota's game 25 fish and aquatic ecosystems and 26 formulate recommendations to reduce 27 detrimental impacts through measurement 28 of bioenergetic and behavioral traits. 29 Subd. 13. MFRF Contingent Account 30 If cancellations or increased revenue, 31 or both, create an excess balance in 32 the future resources fund, up to 33 $600,000 for the biennium is 34 appropriated from the fund for 35 acquisition or development of state 36 land or other projects that are part of 37 a natural resources acceleration 38 activity, when deemed to be of an 39 emergency or critical nature. This 40 appropriation is also available for 41 projects initiated by the legislative 42 commission on Minnesota resources that 43 are found to be proper in order for the 44 commission to carry out its legislative 45 charge. 46 This appropriation is not available 47 until the legislative commission on 48 Minnesota resources has made a 49 recommendation to the legislative 50 advisory commission regarding each 51 expenditure from the account. The legislative advisory commission must 53 then hold a meeting and provide its 54 recommendation on each item, which may 55 be spent only with the approval of the 56 governor. 57 Subd. 14. Data Compatibility 58 Requirements 59 During the biennium ending June 30, 60 1995, the data collected by the 61 projects funded under this section that 62 have common value for natural resource 41 90,000 175,000 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1994 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, Lisa Crum, and Ed Surko, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jori Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Council Representative Liz Jensen was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Phil Davis, William Michel, Mike and Sue Henning, Crane J. Bodine, Carl and Bedy Glister, and Susan Culver. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 1994 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously. WELCOME NEW COMMISSION MEMBER Ed Surko was welcomed to the Commission. CASE #94-57: AMENDMENT TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 350:1200. PUBLIC HEARING. City Planr~er, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The City of Mound does not currently have a Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) that has been approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). City staff and the DNR has been working together to address questions and issues that have been raised pertaining to the ordinance. As a result, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider further modifications to the SMO (City Code Section 350:1200) which was previously adopted by the City of Mound and has been enforced since its publication. The DNR's comments on Mound's ordinance are contained in a memorandum from Steve Prestin to Ed Fick dated May 3, 1993. Staff recommended the following ordinance modifications: Section 350:1225. Zoning - Shoreland Management, Subd. 3. Placement, Design, and Height of Structures, A. Placement of Structures on Lots. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 TOp of Bluff: Existing lots of record or lots created through Minor Subdivisions (3 lots or less) consistent with Section 330.'20, Subd. I of the City Code ......... 10 feet Ma/or Subdivisions consistent with Section 330:20, Subd. 2 of the City Code ................... 30 feet Section 350:1220 Subd. 2. Land Use District Descriptions. Within the shoreland ar~a, land use descriptions and allowable land uses therein shall be as identified in Sections 350:640and 350:670. Public, semi- ~ublic, commercial and industrial uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters fronta.qe, or, ff located on 10ts or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be setback double the normal OHWL setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer leaf-on conditions. Section 350:310 Definitions. Subd. 96. Ordinary Hiqh Water .Mcrk Level. Subd. 106. Public Waters. ~^~.. ..... .~..~:....~. ;.. ~A; ..... ... e..,..,~- e^.,,;,.,- I =r~ ~-~ e, ,~;,,:.'..,. 14 "'"'~ '~ = Wat defin d ot .......... ers e in Minnes a Statute, Section 103G. 005, Subdivision 15. Lakes, ponds or flowage of less than 10 acres shall not be considered public waters. Subd. 147. Wetland. Land which is annually subjected to periodic or continual inundation by water and commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh. The delineation of wetland shall be in compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39, Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. Shoreland Management - Stormwater Management. B. Specific Standards: Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. Open patterned decks and stairways shall be counted as 50% 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 impervious cover providing that they are installed over a permeable surface. Those constructed over an impermeable surface or are impermeable themselves shall be counted as 100% impervious cover. On existing lots of record in residential ~reas, thc maximum amount of impervious coverage shall not exceed 4O percent providing that the following techniques ~re utilized as applicable: Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated preas or qrass filter strips throuqh the use of .crowns on driveways, direction of downspouts on qutters collecting water from roof areas, etc. Dividinq or separating imz~ervious preas into small areas throu.qh the use of grass or vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by orass or sand allowing infiltration. Use .~Tradin.(7 and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption. Mueller referred to the proposed modification in Section 350:1220, Subd. 2. Land Use District .Descriptions, and questioned if a definition is needed for "semi-public". K~egler offered to draft a definition prior to the City Council public hearing if the Commission finds it is needed. It was also noted that there is a typo in this section, "leaf-of" should read "leaf-on". Hanus commented that this section is confusing to him. He questioned, what are "water-oriented needs" ? Mueller referred to the modification of the definition for "Public Waters" which refers to a definition in a Minnesota Statute, and questioned if the statute should be sited. Koegler noted that the statute definition is too cumbersome, but if the concern is that the Statute could change or be amended, he could add language to the definition "or as amended." 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 The verbiage used in the proposed modification for Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. was discussed. The Planning Commission wanted it made clear that the maximum coverage allowed is 30%, however, 40% may be allowed if the listed techniques are utilized. It was also questioned how staff will enforce that the techniques are used. The Building Official proposed that the ordinance include a statement requiring that a plan must be provided showing the techniques to be used. Sutherland also noted that he liked language suggested by Clapsaddle that would begin this section with, "Impervious coverage shall be limited to 30 percent on existing lots of record, impervious surface may be permitted up to a maximum of 40 perce~t providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable:..." Koegler stated that he can clarify the language in the proposed section. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to the Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section 350:1225 of the City Code, as recommended by staff, and including the following: 1. A definition for 'Semi Public' be added. Within the definition for "Public Waters', add "as amended" at the end. 3. A typo within the staff report is to be corrected within 'Land Use District Descriptions: "leaf-of_n". The Building Official and the City Planner requested that the Planning Commission also consider an amendment to the Impervious Coverage regulations relating to decks. Koegler noted that the DNR has agreed to not count porus decks as hardcover, and staff is in favor of making this change. Weiland amended his motion to also include the following to the proposed ordinance amendments: 4. Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. shall indicate that porus decks do not count as impervious surface. The amendment was seconded by Clapsaddle. MOTION carried unanimously. 4 ~n n a a I,, I, I Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Hanus noted that he voted in favor of the amendment, however, he is still concerned about the ambiguity of the changes proposed within "Land Use District Descriptions" and feels that a definition may be needed for "water-oriented needs". These proposed ordinance amendments will be reviewed by the City Council on August 23, 1994. ~ REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF HILLSIDE LANE, BY CRANr .BODINE OF 5025 WREN ROAD, LOTS 1,2.3, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24-130022; AND ROLAND BOF-~TCHER OF 1780 HILLSIDE LANE, PART OF LOTS 5, 6, & 7. BLOCK 2, PID 13 117-24 13 0028, BOTH IN LINDEN HEIGHTS. PUBLIC HEARING City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicants are requesting vacation of the unimproved Hillside Avenue between Hillside Lane and Crescent Road. The lot owned by Roland Boettcher has a deck that encroaches into the subject Hillside Avenue. The City needs to assess whether or not any current or future public purpose will be served by maintaining the property under public ownership. If no such purpose can be identified, an action to vacate the right-of-way can occur. This request will also be reviewed by the Park Commission, and their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The City Engineer, Parks Director, and Public Works Director have reviewed this request. The Public Works Director, Greg Skinner, concluded that the right-of-way is not needed for either street or utility purposes, and if the vacation occurs, the maintenance of the sanitary sewer will become the responsibility of 1780 Hillside Road. The City Engineer and Parks Director both recommended denial and that the street be retained for a walkway leading into Crescent Park. Staff recommended denial. Depending upon the recommendations of the Commissions, the following comments should also be considered. If the recommendation is to deny the request for the proposed street vacation, all private encroachments should either be removed from public property or the applicant should submit an "after the fact" application for improvements on public lands permit. Such a permit could identify an allowable time frame for the removal of the encroachments (2 or 3 years?) and possible a clause escalating the time frame should the City desire the install a walkway through the Hillside Avenue right-of-way. If the recommendation is to approve the request for the proposed street vacation, it sh~)uld be conditioned upon the preparation of a conservation easement that would prohibit the owners from removing the mature trees that exist within the existing right- of-way. 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Staff noted that a response from the DNR has not yet been received. Hanus questioned the location of the ordinary high water mark. The Building Official clarified that at the end of the road there is a wetland, however, he believes the ordinary high water to be at least 50 feet from the end of Hillside Avenue. The Commission reviewed the amount of property that would be gained by each abutting owner to be approximately 2,250 square feet. Mueller questioned the possibility of subdividing the adjacent property in Block 1. The City Planner noted that a subdivision may be possible, but a revised survey would need to be reviewed in order to determine the possibilities. Applicant, Crane Bodine, of 5025 Wren Road, informed the Commission that he is a 27 year summer resident. He stated that Hillside Avenue has no trees or significant vegetation on it, that all the trees are actually located on his property. He wants to maintain the integrity of the area. He stated that if it is important for the City to keep the property for park or recreational purposes he has no problem with it as long as the integrity of their lots are not harmed or their privacy is not disturbed. He explained that the Boettcher's maintain the right of way and cut the grass. If the street was vacated, he would not cut the trees. In the future, he plans to build a house for his son on his property. He would have no problem with the City having a walkway on the right of way. The Commission questioned what plans the Park Commission has for this property, and questioned how much width would be needed for a walkway. Mr. Bodine noted that there already is another access to Crescent Park and the wetlands. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Carl Glister of 5008 Wren Road stated that he is not in favor of the vacation, and the he and his neighbors want to keep the open space. He commented on how Wren Road is wall to wall houses on the lake side and feels the open space is valuable to the community. Scott Boettcher, Roland's son, stated that there is only about 15 feet from the end of Hillside Avenue to the water, and if there is a walkway installed on the right of way, it will not lead to anything. He stated that if the City does not approve this request, that is okay. Mueller addressed Scott Boettcher regarding the deck encroachment. Mr. Boettcher stated that the previous owner had a deck there, and they replaced it and expanded it a little. He estimated the life expectancy of the deck to be 2 or 3 years. Mr. Boettcher confirmed that the dog kennel is gone. Reasons for the City to retain the right of way, and reasons for the applicant to want the street vacated were reviewed. Michael commented that he would like to see a plan for the use of this area from the park commission before he would recommend denial. Clapsaddle 6 · · , II, I, ,I Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 does not agree that the City has to have reasons to not give up the land. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the street vacation, and to recommend that the deck encroachment either be removed or that the proper permits be obtained to allow the deck to remain. Voss does not feel there is a need to see a plan. Mueller questioned if the width of the right of way could be compromised, he does not feel 30 feet is needed for a walkway. Michael commented that he does not feel the property would be a good access, and the kind of property the access would lead to is not what he would consider a park. Crum agreed and added that she does not see a reason not to vacate. MOTION to deny carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Weiland, Surko, Hanus, ross, and Mueller. Michael and Crum opposed. Hanus stated that he voted in favor to deny, but he agrees with Mueller in that he would like to see a plan to substantiate their decision to retain the property. Weiland commented that it is good the Parks Department has the foresight to want to keep this property and save it for the future. The Secretary informed the applicant's that this request will be heard by the Park and Open Space Commission on Thursday, August 11, 1994 and by the City Council on September 13, 1994. CASE #94-54: WILLIAM & DIANE MICHEL, 5865 GRANDVlEW BLVD., P/LOTS 85 ANn ~I6, MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-2442 0107. VARIANCE - SCREEN PORCll Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking variances to recognize existing nonconforming conditions of setbacks and hardcover in order to construct a three season porch that is conforming to setbacks. Impervious surface information shows hardcover at well over the maximum 30 percent allowable. The existing structure is setback 13 feet from Sunset Road resulting in recognition of a 7 foot front yard variance. All other setbacks are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance to construct a 10' x 10' screen porch, subject to the following conditions: At a minimum, an equal amount of existing impervious surface be returned to green space. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 An updated survey be provided that is suitable to the Building Official. The following shall be identified on the updated survey: ao All existing and proposed conditions, and setbacks. Accurate impervious surface calculations. c. The area of impervious surface to be removed. 3. The updated survey shall be received and reviewed by staff prior to the City Council hearing of this case. The size of the proposed porch was clarified to be 1 1' x 12'. Mueller commented, that for such a minor improvement, the requirement for an updated survey is asking too much. The Building Official noted that accurate hardcover calculations are needed, and if the applicant can provide them without a revised survey, that would be acceptable. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Clapsaddle noted that the City's goal to reduce hardcover is for the benefit of the people in the community. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller requested the Commission reconsider the requirement for a survey. MOTION made by Mueller, and seconded by Hanus to reconsider the previous motion. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to amended condition #2 in staff's recommendation, as follows: 2. An updated survey must be provided by the applicant that is suitable to the Building Official. The following shall be identified on the updated survey: · · ." MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 23, 1994. 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 _.CASE #94-55: .BRADLY CURTIS, 5967 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 10, PID 23 117-2431 0011. VARIANCE- DECK AND DETACHED GARAGE Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance in order to construct a deck and garage. The proposed deck is conforming to setbacks. The garage is proposed to have a 2 foot side yard setback, a 4 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 2 feet. Both the deck and garage increase the existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage totalling 43%. The proposed deck is conforming to setbacks, however, according to our current ordinance, decks are considered 50% impervious surface, and this slightly increases (130 sq ft) the excessive hardcover on this site. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the following: A 16' x 26' detached garage that is conforming to the required side and rear yard setbacks of 4 feet. A 10' x 26' deck as shown on the survey dated July 7, 1994. The decking shall be an open pattern design with a minimum 1/4" spacing between each deck member, as approved by the Building Official. The area under the deck shall remain as a permeable surface. The applicant confirmed that he would like to place the garage 4 feet from the side lot line and 4 feet from the rear lot line which would increase hardcover, however, he is willing to maintain green space at the side and rear of the garage, and ultimately decrease hardcover by approximately 64 square feet. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: 1. Green space be maintained at the side and rear of the garage. 2. The existing shed be removed when the garage is completed. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 23, 1994. 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 CASE #94-56: SUSAN CULVER 4701 SUFFOLK ROAD LOTS 1 2 3 BLOCK 14 WYCHWOOD, PID #19-117-23 32 0148. VARIANCE - DETACHED GARAGE_ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling in order to construct a 14' x 24' detached garage. The garage as proposed is setback 5 feet from the front property line resulting in a variance of 15 feet. There is an existing garage in approximately the same location that is to be removed. The applicable variances are listed below. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. Existing/ Required Proposed Variance House (N) 20' 11' 9' House (E) 20' 13' 7' Garage (E) 20' 5' 15' The topography on this site slopes down towards the southwest, however, this does not preclude the ability to construct a garage in a conformation location. Impervious surface would also be conforming with the additional driveway that would be needed to serve the garage with a 20 foot setback. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. The Commission confirmed that a side yard setback of 6 feet is required for the garage. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Mueller explained to the commission that the lot drops-off significantly mid-way back and there is dense vegetation and mature trees on the slope. It is his opinion that due to the topography and tree coverage the garage should not be required to meet the 20 foot front yard setback. If the trees and vegetation are disturbed on this hillside it could create an erosion problem. The Commission reviewed reasons for moving the garage back, including: needing enough area to park a car in front of the garage, and line of site when existing the driveway. 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 The applicant's noted the following reasons for allowing the garage closer to the street: if the garage is moved back it would block the view from a window in the house to the rear of the garage is a majority of her only useable level yard space she backs into her garage so there is no line of site problem there is a parking space to the side of the garage so none is needed in the front they are concerned about erosion on the hillside A compromise on the setback was discussed. Clapsaddle moved to amend the motion to approve a 15 foot front yard setback, resulting in a 5 foot variance. A conforming 6 foot side yard setback shall be maintained. Weiland seconded the amendment. Findings of fact include: hardship and reasonable use exist due to topography and the number of mature trees; and the fact that the existing garage, which is to be removed, has a 2.5'+ I- setback to the front, so a 15 foot setback is an improvement. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 23, 1994. CASE//94-59: MICHAEL AND SUSAN HENNING, 5952 SUNSET ROAD, LOTS 22 & 23, MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-2442 0058. VARIANCE - GARAGE ADDITIOF' Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory buildings, in order to construct a 30' x 36' garage addition that is nonconforming by .5' to the required 6' side yard setback. The proposed garage addition has two levels with entry doors towards the street and lake side. This property is in a bluff zone. A revised survey was received today which indicated the top of the bluff, and it has been determined that the 10' x 12' shed at the top of the hill can be relocated to meet the required setbacks. Hardcover calculations do not include any driveway modifications and must be revised. The applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the proposed garage to be conforming to the required 6 foot side yard setback. The DNR's comments have not yet been received. The existing decks are not permitted in the bluff area. Landings are permitted which do not exceed 32 square feet. It may be more desirable to have a deck on the dwelling and reduce the size of the decks on the hillside. The applicant's, however, have indicated that they do not desire to construct a deck on the lake side of the home. 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to construct a garage addition with a conforming 6 foot side yard setback and conforming bluff setbacks, subject to the following conditions: 1. Both existing sheds shall be relocated to conforming locations in the rear yard or lake side of the dwelling, prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised survey shall be submitted that details conforming hardcover and setbacks. 3. The revised survey shall be reviewed by staff prior to the City Council hearing this request. 4. The existing decks within the bluff impact zone and shall be reduced in size to a maximum of 32 square feet in area for each deck. 5. This variance includes approval of the future construction of and deck on the lake side of the dwelling that is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for hardcover and setbacks. The Building Official also noted that the shed on top of the hill, and the garage addition, should be screened with vegetation to reduce the visual impact from the lake. The Commission clarified that if the applicant's comply with staff's recommendation, a variance is not needed. Applicant, Sue Henning, submitted revised hardcover calculations to the Commission which includes the driveway and the hardcover is conforming. The applicants indicated that the stairway and decks were inspected and approved by the Building Official in 1989, before the Shoreland Management Ordinance was implemented, and were legal at the time. In addition, at the time the shed by the shoreline was constructed, it was also conforming. The Commission noted that the shed does not have a concrete floor. The Building Official confirmed that the decks are in solid condition, are of open pattern, have vegetation growing underneath, and there are no erosion problems. Hanus moved, and Weiland seconded a motion to extend the meeting adjournment time to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission noted that when the decks deteriorate and need to be replaced, a permit will be required and they will be brought into conformance, but what would prevent the shed from being continually repaired or maintained. It is possible that the shed by the shoreline could last a very long time. 12 Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 1994 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance to allow the existing nonconforming decks at the lake side to remain, subject to the following: 1. The garage addition be constructed with conforming setbacks. 2. The hardcover be conforming. 3. The 8' x 10' shed at the shoreline be removed by February 28, 1995. The applicants work with the Building Official on planning proper vegetation screening for the shed and garage addition. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 13 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1994 Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, David Steinbring, Janis Geffre, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Peter Meyer and Mary Goode were absent and excused. The following persons were also in attendance: Crane Bodine, Scott Boettcher, Carl Glister, and Tom Reese. MINUTES. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Darling, to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of July 14, 1994 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES_ Byrnes requested that Celebrate Summer be added to the agenda. DOCK LICENSE FEES FOR 1995: PUBLIC HEARING. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, indicated that staff recommends the dock license fees for 1995 stay the same as 1994, with the exception that the LMCD fees have been reduced. Tom Reese, Mound's LMCD Representative, was present to answer questions. Reese explained the history of the LMCD fees for multiple docks, and how the program is run today. Chair Schmidt asked if anyone present was here to speak on this issue, and there was not. Ahrens stated that she would like to see the dock license fees reduced, and questioned the Parks Director what staff's plans are for the fund balance. The Parks Director noted that a fund balance is needed in order to have the ability to do projects such as riprapping and maintenance dredges. The cost of dredges keeps rising. The proposed projects for 1995total $42,770. MOTION made by Geffre, seconded by Byrnes, to recommend to the City Council that the Dock License fees for 1995 remain the same as in 1994, with the exception that the LMCD fees have been reduced. Motion carried unanimously. Taking advantage of Tom Reese's presence, the Commission discussed current issues relating to the LMCD, including their pending light ordinance. The Park Commission requested that staff mail a copy of their guidelines for lights to Mr. Reese. i n I I I,, I, I, I Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August IL 1994 STREET VACATION REQUEST BY CRANE BODINE AND ROLAND BOETTCHER TO VACATE "HILLSIDE AVENUE" Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the various staff reports, and informed the Commission that his recommendation is for denial of the vacation. The Chair asked if anyone present wished to speak on the issue. Applicant, Crane Bodine, recited and distributed a letter to the Commission, including the following requests: The site should be clearly marked with stakes accurately delineating the street proposed to be vacated. This action should be taken well in advance of the council meeting so that its members and all interested parties can view the site with an accurate understanding of its boundaries. The Parks Department should be willing to propose a reasonable, realistic plan for future usage of this "walkway". This plan should include privacy consideration for the abutting private property, safety of the users, and preservation of the nature and wildlife area. A compromise is not proposed; however, if the Parks Department needed a walkway, would it be necessary to utilize a 30 foot strip? The correct name of the property to be vacated should be established and used in all correspondence and hearings. It is incumbent on the city to remove immediately tree stumps and debris left after their cutting a year or more ago. Carl Glister of 5008 Wren Road, spoke on behalf of himself and his neighbors who would like to keep the property public. Applicant, Scott Boettcher, asked that if the right-of-way is developed into a walkway he would appreciate advance notification. He is not in favor of a walkway on this property. The Parks Director clarified that it is the applicant's responsibility to locate the property irons. Casey cited Minnesota State Statute 412.851 relating to the vacation of streets, and questioned if it is not the applicant's responsibility to show that it is in the interest of the public to vacate this street. He does not believe it is the City's responsibility to provide a plan or a reason not to vacate. Darling stated that regardless of the future intention for this land, it is the Park Commission's charge to preserve open spaces for all to enjoy. The issue' relating to the deck encroachment was briefly discussed. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 11, 1994 MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Steinbring to recommend denial of the requested street vacation and that all private encroachments either be removed from public property or the applicant should submit an "after the fact' application for improvements on public lands. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Steinbring, Byrnes, Geffre, Schmidt and Casey. Ahrens abstained. Schmidt confirmed with the applicant that staff will investigate the proper street name, and will address the tree stump. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 14, 1994. WINTER DQCK STORAGE ! REMOVAL: REVIEW OF "NOTICE" The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the proposed "notice" to be mailed to dock holders this fall. He noted the cost of the mailing to be $90 to $130. He suggested that this notice could be utilized to enforce the existing ordinance, and if a problem was found to exist this winter when the Dock Inspector does his rounds, he can then be given a second notice and then a third, and if compliance is not accomplished, their dock license can be revoked. The Commission acknowledged that the notice refers to a "policy", and that there is not actual written policy. The Parks Director noted that the language should be amended to read "ordinance". MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend approval of the "notice", as amended, for mailing this fall. Darling noted that it is his opinion that it would be discriminatory to require removal of commons docks, when the removal of private docks is not required. Ahrens disagreed, and noted that if someone wants to have a skating rink on the shoreline, docks interfere, and she believes they should be required to be removed. The Parks Director suggested that staff work with the notice this year, and monitor the number of problem docks to determine the necessity of an ordinance amendment. It was proposed that the results be reviewed in June of 1995. The number of how many docks were left in, how many were damaged, and how many notices were sent out should be provided. MOTION carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Darling, Geffre, Schmidt, and Casey. Those opposed were: Ahrens, Byrnes, and Steinbring. Schmidt clarified that staff will report on this issue at their February 1995 meeting. (~UIDELINES FQR pLANTINGS ON THE COMMON~ The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the report prepared by Mark Koegler, City Planner, and referred to the amended guidelines as prepared by staff. The following changes were suggested: 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 11, 1994 The commission agreed that the verbiage used within the guidelines should be "shall" verses "will" or "should". The. "Goal" be: To maintain and restore the natural look of the commons by the use of more native vegetation. //2. The word "either" should be deleted. //3.b. Typo: "or" should be "for". //3.d. amend as follows: "No species should be authorized that are classified as noxious weeds, fruit/vegetable bearing plants, or species that would attract unusally excessive amounts of harmful insects to the area. //3.e. amend as follows: "Naturally occurring native species are the preferred choice on the commons, such as ~'-".~..,,.. ,,. //5. amend as follows: "Non-native plant species are discouraged, but in any event, shall ;"*'"'~...,. ,,,,,,,,,,~'~ *",,, *~'",..,, cc,..m..m¢-'s., shou!d not be closer than *,..,,. ., ,*,. (20) forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water elevation (929.4 for Lake Minnetonka)." MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the "Guidelines for allowing Plantings on Commons/Public Lands', as amended, for the Public Lands Procedure Manual. Motion carried unanimously. WINTERFEST The proposed date is January 22, 1994. Schmidt questioned if the Park Commission was willing to take on this task, and indicated that Jim Glasoe at Community Services has resigned and she is not sure how much help they will be able to get from the school. The Commission agreed they could handle the event. Issues that need to be addressed, include: Approval from the LMCD Check with the Lions on their winterfest date and possible help. Funding - possible donations. Advertising. It was suggested that each Commission be assigned an activity. Suggested activities include: Skating rink. Ice scuba diving. Hay rides. Snowmobile rides. Food: hot dogs and hot chocolate. Music. Bonfire. Schmidt will bring a list of duties and activities to the next meeting. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 11, 1994 FYI: Around Mound Thank You Letter, The letter was acknowledged and the Commission expressed appreciation for the $100 donation. Celebrate Summer Byrnes updated the Commission on the next Celebrate Summer event scheduled for August 25th. The entertainment will be the Riverboat Ramblers. City Council Representative's Report,.. Ahrens did not have any specific items to report, however, raised an issue she wanted the Park Commission to be aware of relating to the Parks and Beach Programs administered by Community Service. She expressed a concern about how the program is being run, the high rate of lifeguards who have resigned, and a concern about the lifeguard's pay and how it relates to' the budgets reviewed by the Park Commission. Park Director's Report.. The Parks Director informed the Commission that the City Manager has reviewed his budget, and the $2,000 proposed for the Celebrate Summer series was eliminated. Fackler suggested that Schmidt contact the City Manager directly to discuss. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Darling to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:28 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 5 ~ , -I, I, ,il ECEIVED AUG 2 2 l jt' LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, August 24, 1994 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone READING OF MINUTES - 7/27/94 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 8/6/94 meeting * B. Sailors World Marina, Smiths Bay, Orono, new multiple dock license application for minor change; recommending approval of changes to Slips 77-79, conditioned on it having no affect on the removal of the 10 slips required under the 4/27/88 Variance Order and that no boats are being stored in slip #79 beyond the extended property line Ce Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures; recommending approval of first reading De "Dolphin" poles; recommending a moratorium be placed on the installation of new dolphin poles at multiple dock facilities * E. Variance Application Deposit Refunds: 1) Kent & Mary Carlson 2) Colson Construction Co. F. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 8/15/94 meeting * B. Methodology for interaction among agencies involved with reviewing new public access ramps on Lake Minnetonka; recommending approval of the methodology outlined in the executive director's 8/9/94 memo Ce Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 3.07 Watercraft for Hire, adding Coast Guard safety standards; recommending approval of first reading with minor change suggested by Water Patrol LMCD Board of Directors, 8/24/94 Agenda, Page 2 D. Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 3.09 Special Events, with changes recommended by committee taking the LMCD out of regulating special events; recommending approval of the first reading * E. Special Events - Deposit Refunds @ $100 each; recommending approval of deposit refunds to the following: 1) Brighter Light Bass Open, 7/24/94 2) IN Bass Tournament, 8/6/94 & 8/7/94 * F. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report G. Additional business 1) Addition of Slow Buoys at Cedar Point, Wayzata Bay; recommending a public hearing be held to establish a quiet waters area in the channel off Cedar Point in Wayzata Bay · 2) 1994 Shoreline Boat Count, aerial survey by Clear Air, Inc. · 3) Shore Fishing Improvements at North Arm Access and Narrows Channel; recommending staff continue to work with the DNR per 8/2/94 letter from Mike McDonough, DNR Trails & Waterways $. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet · A. Approval of 8/11/94 minutes and meeting report 1) Presentation of resolution with amended reserve balance, corrected from beginning balance of $84,427 to ending balance of $88,513 2) Proposal to establish a subcommittee to develop a Save the Lake Reserve Fund vision statement B. Progress to date on private fund solicitation 4. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn (No meeting was held) A. Cooperative agreement with DNR for 1994 program partial matching funds 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone · A. Approval of minutes, 7/27/94 meeting B. Report of 8/24/94 meeting FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. July Balance Sheet B. Year to Date Financial Summary C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout) D. Adjustments to 1994 & 1995 salary and professional services budgets following change to contract bookkeeping service EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ,,' RECEIVED AUG 2 2 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:50 P.H., Wednesday, Juiy 27, 1994 Tonka Bay City HaII DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Penn at 7:45 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; James Grath- wol, Excelsior; Ocs. Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director-. Orono not repr'esented. Members Absent: Bert Foster-, Oeephaven; Wm. .Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Duane Markus, Wayzata. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS Penn, serving as Chair- in Johnstone's absence, had no ~trl-. ri o u ri c e ITl e n t S. READING OF MINUTES - Reese moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the minutes of tile 6/22/94 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments from per'sons in a~tendance on subjects riot on the agenda. Gabriel 5abbour, Orono, said the Or'oho Cfty Council, at its 7/25 meetfng, dfscussed trash befng left at 'the publfc accesses. The City Council is aware tha't placing dumpsters at 'the accesses encourages the use by persons other than the boating public and therefore it was decided not to service the accesses ~ith dump- steps. gabbour volunteered a truck and driver to p~ck up trash at accesses over the weekends and return it to the dumpster at h~s Tonka Bay Marina. He sa~d this 'type of program is something that the lake community should par't$c~pate in. gabbour asked that the LMCD contact Hennepin County and the HnDNR for information on the areas most needing attention. The executive director sa~d the DNR does not furnish refuse containers at the accesses. The DNR Conservation Off~cer-s moni- tor the accesses. Hennepin County removed the large dumpsters and replaced them w~th sm~11 trash containers at Spr~ng Park and Nor-th Arm accesses. The, LMCD has been removing trash from ac- cesses when clean~ng up milfo~1. He said the C~ty of Minnetonka removed the dumpster at Gray's Bay and the 101 causeway. The c~ty found the trash drop off became m~nimal in comparison. The executive director recommended coordinating a ~rash clean up program with 5abbour and the Lake M~nnetonka Lakeshor-e Owners Association (LMLOA) as a positive act:Lon r'esponse. 1 LNCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 27, 1994 NOTION: Grathwol moved, Zwak seconded, that there be an immedi- ate response 'to Gabriel Jabbour's suggestion by a letter to the LMLOf% asking for assistance in developing a cooperative, volun- 'leer effort to monitor- a~ld clean up trash from the accesses. DISCUSSION: Rascop said the letter to the LHLO~ should be given to the local newspapers so the public is aware of the p~oblem and cooperative effort. Babcock said ti]is goes back to 'the "What you take to the Lake take it back" campaign. The public should be responsible · for its actions- Partyka said the City of Hinnetrista found that 50 gallon drums were useful in handling the trash at its Phelps Bay access. Ti]is is a quiet neighborhood street. Babcock suggested put'ting in ~e-cycling containers. Rascop discouraged -that because the City of Sho~ewood had a bad expe~i- ence with ~ecycling and found it unmanageable due to trash being also left. 3abbou~ said that ur]til everyone becomes educated to the problem, 'ti]ere has to be coordination between the private, public: and business sectors. Rascop suggested a plan for access clean--up similar 'to the "Adopt a Highway" plan of HnDo't. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously- CONSENT AGENDA - Reese moved, Zwak seconded, to approve the ..... Notion Consent Agenda items iden'tif led by on the agenda. car-r/ed unanimously- COMMITTEE REPORTS I. ~iATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock D. Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12 Dock Dimensions and Sect. 2.05, Subd. 11 Service Consoles- MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, 'to approve an Or-di- nance amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12 Dock Dimerisions and Sect. 2.05, Subd. 11 Service Consoles, as amended by the committee, waiving the second arid third readings and adopting. VOLE: Motion carried unanimously- 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Reese for Chair Foster. B. Draft ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. 5.04, subd. 7 MOTION: Zwak moved, Partyka seconded, to approve the third reading of an Ordinance r-elating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. ~.04, Subd. 7 as submitted and 'to adopt. VOTE: Motion car-tied unanimously- D. "Hush Kit" Campaign MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded, to approve a "Hush Kit" campaign to bring loud boats into compliance, approving support of a cooperative program with interested marinas to install "Hush LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 27, 1994 Kits" on boats that exceed the 80dba noise limit, starting in September 1994, allocating up to $500 from the 1994 Contract Services Public Information budget to fund promotional bulletins and/or paid newspaper adver'tisinw. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. Additional Business 1) Minimum Hake/Quiet Haters Area Suerth said, following calls from Clinton Morrison, 2400 Cedar Point Drive, Wayzata, regarding Morrison's request for a minimum wake/quiet waters area in the channel between Cedar Point and the reef just to the north of the point in Wayzata Bay, he feels the District should re-think its position on slo~, buoys. Suerth said in certain areas off the Lake, there is a pr'oblem of damage to the shoreline as well as a safety problem. He believes the District has a r'esponsfbflfty to see that ~safety arid personal property are protected. Suer'th believes that telling people to rfp-rap fs wrong as many people cannot al'ford 'to rip--rap. Suer'th said the channel buoys are within 75' of the stlor-e- line which is INSIDE the minimum wake shorezone. Suerth said Morrison has, in the past, personally paid for harvesting milfoil on the ~est side of hfs property. He no longer does because he has found that the milfoil is a natur-al barrier to w~kes. Suerth suggested going back to 'the Lake Use and Recreation Committee 'to r-evJew the District's policy state-- merit on the placement of slow buoys. Babcock said there is an alternate route 'to the cha~nel at the Morrison location. There could be a study of accidents that area. If there fs any change f n the District policy, he would want 'to address it as a safety issue rather than pr'operty Suerth suggested putting in 'temporary slow buoy~, at a couple loca'tfons to see if ~t improves the safety aspect. ReoardJ. n9 Babcock's suggestion about the use of an alternate channel Suerth said he does not see why he should have to take an alter- nate course to accommodate someone who is driving a fast boat. Partyka, said at the Cedar Point fn Mfnnetris'ta, there was r'elief when the buoys were moved out. The Lake level also has an effeot on ero~s]on. MOTION: Suerth moved, Reese seconded, that the board return the discussion of the District policy on slow buoys to 'the Lake Usse and Recreation Committee. The committee is to review 'the Dis- tr]ct policy statement for es'tabl]shing slow buoy/quiet waters area~, obtain data from the Sheriff's Water Patrol on accidents ~n 'the channels where there are no slow buoys, and deter'mine whether the channel buoys can be moved out to 150' at 'the Cedar Point location. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. $. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet A. Minutes - Zwak moved, Rascop seconded, 'to approve the 7/7/94 minutes of the Save the Lake Advisory Committee, as sub- mitred. Mot:ion carried unanimoc~sly. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 27, 1994 B. Private Fund Solicitation Mollet reported $15,000 has be. eh received from Save the Lake donations to date. The executive director said the response is .-.'similar to previous years. C. LMLOA "Minnetonka Memories" The executive director reported that the LMLOA will have its 5rd annual "Minnetonka Memories" exhibits and programs on ~:~/16/94, 'from 5:~0 P.M. 'to 10 P.M. at the Old Log Theater, Green- wood. LMLOA has offered the District complimentary display space. There is a charge 'for 'the dinner. The executive director believes it is an opportunity 'to network with people the District: has not already reached. He said the LMCD staff is willing to set up the exhibit with br, ochures and other information on hand. He said it would be to the Board's advantage if Board members could arrange to spend some time at the exhibit- The executive director will attend. Babcock said he would also attend. "Treasure Your Lake" T-Shirt Sales The 7/7/94 minutes o'f the Save the Lake Advisory Committee detailed the financial ,.~.rrangements made for the 500 T--Shirts ordered 'for' the Divers Clean-up event, which resulted in a bal- ance due of $1,981.50 to the T-shirt vendor-. Sales of the shirts will continue at several outlets in the area, and it is possible the individual who contracted for the T-shirts will contribute to the cost. The T-shirts are not dated and will be available for next year .~ scuba diving program Penn suggested 'they could be offered for sale at the "Minnetonka Memories display. The information was offered to explain the payment to the vendor, Initially Yours, listed in the bills to be paid. 4. EURASIAN ~TER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Reese for- Chair Penn A. Minutes Reese moved, Penn seconded, to approve the 7/~5/94 minutes of the Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force as submitted. Motion carried unanimously- Reese commented on .filamentous algae (Dutch Moss) which has appeared on milfoil. This does inhibit Milfoil growth- Reese said 188 acres of mi lfoil have been harvested as of 7/15. He said there is mo're surface matting than last year. Garlon testing continues at Phelps Bay and Carsons Bay soui;h o'f Minnetonka Blvd. So far there have been good results in the test Sonar treatments on Parkers Lake and Lake Zumbra. As of the 7/15 meeting 'there were no new milfoil infesta-- lions reported. The e><ec:utive director said he heard Milfoil found in Sauk Lake near St. Cloud. The weed puller being developed by Cob Burandt has problems as detailed in the minutes of the Task Force. B. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee The minutes o'f 7/20/94 meeting of the Zebra Mus~sel Action Plan Subcommittee will be sent 'to the Board. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3uly 27, 1994 The executive director said it is hoped the MnDNR's state wide plan for Zebra Husse] control will address, Lake Hinnetonka. Tile executive d[r-ector said there have been ¢tuest[ons about the DNR developing more accesses on tile Mississippi River', a source of Zebra Mussel. He said of the three sites under con- struction only one is a new site, the others are being rebuilt. He said they have been ~n the plannSng stage for several years prior to the Zebra Mussel threat. Babcock suggested the DNR study developing a site for hot ~ater flushing of boats. He said hot water treatment has proven effec~ive on Zebra mussel velgers. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Penn for Johnstone B. Report of 7/27/94 Meeting 1) Planned Usage Development for Wayzata Lakewaik MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to accept tile first draft of the Ordinance to Establish Planned Usage Development Procedures and refer ~t to tile Water" Structures Committee 'for- · study. VOTE: Mot:ion canr-ied unanimously. 2) Proposal on Reserve Level for Save the Lake Fund Balance At 'tile 7/15/94 meeting of the Save tile Lake Advisory Commit- tee the committee rec:ommended that the 12/51/95 a. ud~ted balance of $84,427 be held as a minimum reserve level for" the Save the Lake Fund, with half of the interest earned each year- added to 'this fund reserve. MOTION: Zwa. k moved, Holler seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 92 establislling $84,427. as 'the minimum r'eserve fund ha. lance for- th(!: Save 'the Lake Fund. DISCUSSION: Partyka said it was his understanding that half of the inter-est earned in the previous year would be added to the reserve level until tile fund reached $100,000. Babcock asked for- an explanation of the Advisory Committee spending policy. The executive director explained that the Advisory Committee establishes a budget for Board approval. Ther! a plan for spending is approved and any expenditures are subject to Board approval. Babcock asked how any funds accumulated when tile expendi- tures come in under budget will be allocated. Rascop said tile $84,427 is the .m_.~.n..~.m...~.~ amount the Save 'the Lake Fund Balance would be at any time. MOTION AMENDMENT: Penn move. d, Rees¢e seconded, ~o arnerld Resolu- tion No. 92 to include a provision that half oF tile investment interest earned each year' ~s to be added to the fund balance. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Motion car-tied unanimously. 5) Administrative Overhead The Board received a proposal for calculating hourly admin- istrative overhead with a comparison of tile 1995 actual adminis- trative overhead and tile 1994 budgeted overhead. It shows $55 per hour total overhead 'flor- the services of the Executive Direc- tor, ~dministrative Technician and Bookkeeper using the 1994 budgeted amounts. 5 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 27, I994 MOTION: Reese moved, Zwak seconded, to approve using $33 total per hour, witll $17/hour for the executive director and $9/hour for the admin:istrative technician, to calculate overhead costs ill determining the cost of issuing licenses and variances. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4) Proposed Workers Compensation Managed Care Service The executive director explained a proposed agreement with CorVel Corporation, a private service connected with the League of Minnesota cities Insurance lrust. CorVel will serve as an advisory service for the purpose of l-eviewing Workers Con,pensa- tion ratings and will provide a service for making recommenda- tions for worker safety issues. /here is no additional cost to 'tile District. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded, to approve an agreement between the District and CorVel Corporation for a Worker's Compen .... sation managed care service, as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously- 5) Personnel Realignment The executive director reported the Secretary/Bookkeeper has tendered her resignation as of 8/5/95 to take other employment. The position job description is planned 'to separate the secre- tarial and bookkeeping responsibilities, according to the execu- 'tire director. The executive director submitted an evaluation of the fir, an- cial needs if the bookkeeping service is shifted to an indel)end- ent contractor and a secretary or administrative assistant hired. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to authorize the executive director and chair to contract with a bookkeeping service at a rate of up to $25/hour to be funded by adjustments in the 1994 and 1995 ~alary, employer benefits contributions arid professional services budget items. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. L~KE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop secol'lded, to proceed to add the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report as ail amendmen't to the Marlage-' ment Plan for Lake Minnetonka. DISCUSSION: Grathwol said it is his belief 'that the Lake Access Task Force Report should be an amendment to the LMCD Management Plan. This would i>rovide for Metropolitan Council comment and would refer the report to 'the legislature and other agencies. lhe executive director raised the question as to whether that action is needed as the access report serves as an action plan 'to meet tile objectives identified iii the Management Plan. He questioned whether this same amendment procedure would have to be followed as other objectives of the Management Plan aFe met. 6 L~CD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 27, 1994 Rascop said if this is an implementation and not an actual amendmen't there should be Ilo need to change the Management Plan. Partyka asked if it would, be a case of amendirmg or supplementing the Hanagement Plan. The executive director said it is a matter of fulfilling an ol)jective of the Hanagement Plan. Babcock said the Management Plan is not a Compr'eher~sive ~lan un,er the statutes, even though the Metropolitan Cou,cil t~eated it similarly in its review. LeFeve~e said ther~ is a section un,er th~ Metropolitan Government chap'te~ of the statutes that calls fo~ a ~eview of certain plans in the me't~opolitan area. The LMCD does not have the same technical requirements as those of the Le~eve~e said it would be politic to send the Lake ~ccess Task Force Report to the Metropolitan Council stating tllJs is a method of implementing the Management Plan. I..eFevere said updating the Code, is a method of implementing the Hanagement Plan. If the Management Plan says the District sllould do a Lake Access Study, the report is an imtalementation and not an amendment to the Pla~l. He does not believe the publ[c hearing process called ~or ~n amending 'the Plan [:s necessary. Babcock said there is rloth~ng in the Lake Access Report that changed the Management Plan. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION: Grathwol aFid Rascop withdrew the motion on the f 1ocr. MOTION: Grathwol moved~ Rascop seconded, to consider the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report a sm.]pplement to the Harlagement for purposes of implementin9 an objective of the Management Plan. VOTE: Hotion carried unanimously. FINANCIAL REPORTS A. June Dalance Sheet Year to Date Financial Summary C. Audit of Voucher-s for" Payn~ent Gra'thwol asked for an explanation of check 98~0 ($1,564.77) to Lester Sawyer and check 9860 ($6,069..50) to Marsh Gabr'[el. Ttle executive director expla:lned that these charges were for mechani .... ca1 wo~'k done on ttle har'.vesters since ~pr-il. MOTION: Grath~ol moved, Z~ak seconded, to approve the June Balance Sheet, the Year 'to Date Financ:ial Summary [:~nd payroll checks 1225 through 1263 and checks for' pa. yables 9805 thFough 9865 in 'the total amount of $65,458.71. VOTE: Motion carried t]nanimously Rascop Fepor'ted the payments ar'e within 'ttle budget allow- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen The meeting schedule for August wa.<.``, distributed. There will not be a Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee meet- ing in August. The 8/16 Hinnetonka Memori. es exhibit will be added to the meeting schedule. 7 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 27, 1994 Hayzata Lakewal k Reese reported the City of Hound council favors the Wayzata Lakewalk. He asked board members to meet with their respective councils for reactions. Partyka said h11nnetrista would like to wait to see what happens. The Hinnetr~sta Council favors the suggested Planned Usage Development ordinance idea. Rascop said there was little reaction from Shorewood. He will keep them informed. Babcock suggested the developers appr-oach ttme cities with their plan. There was little reaction from the Spring Park counci 1. Penn said time Tonka Bay council was non-committal. Zwak said there was some negative and some positive reactior~ f:l-om the Greenwood council. Suer'th said he had one negative call. When he explained · there were no LMCD funds involved the caller ~as saris'fled. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Penn declared the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Wm. Johnstorle, Chair 8 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, July 27, 1994 Tonka Bay city Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone READING OF MINUTES - 6/22/94 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 7/9/94 meeting * B. Rockvam Boat Yards, Spring Park, West Arm, as-built surveys of Site 1 & Site 2; 1) recommending approval of the as-built survey for Site 2 as submitted, noting the two foot discrepancy on the length is not a variance, but because of its minimal impact on the lake, it will be accepted with the condition that if the docks are rebuilt at any time, the dock is to be brought into conformance, 2) recommending approval of two make-ready docks added to the Site i dock plan * C. Temporary Structures, Sect. 2.07; recommending an ordinance be drafted to change the distance from 200' to 150' and delegating permitting authority to the Sheriff's Water Patrol. De * E. Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12 Dock Dimensions and Sect. 2.03, Subd. 11 Service Consoles; recommending approval of the first reading of the draft ordinance as amended by the committee DNR proposal to delegate dock permits to the LMCD; recommending the executive director be authorized to proceed with developing a cooperative agreement between the LMCD and the DNR, authorizing the LMCD to issue multiple and permanent dock permits in lieu of the DNR F. Additional Business LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 7/18/94 meeting Be Draft ordinance relating to Marine Toilets, amending Sect. 3.04, Subd. 7; recommending approval of the third reading LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 7/27/94, Page 2 * C. Shore fishing site improvements; recommending that the LMCD support the DNR plans for improvement of existing shore fishing sites at the Narrows Channel and the North Arm access D. "Hush Kit" Campaign to bring loud boats into compliance; recommending support of a cooperative program with interested marinas to install "hush kits" on boats that exceed the 80dbA noise limit, starting in September 1994, allocating up to $500 from the 1994 Contract Services Public Information budget * E. Special Events - Deposit Refunds @ $100 each; recommending approval of deposit refunds to the following: 1) Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/4/94 2) IN Bass Tournament, 6/11/94 & 6/12/94 3) Mound city Days Water Ski Show & Fireworks, 6/19/94 4) MS Walleye Contest, 6/25/94 5) Morrison Fireworks, 7/4/94 * F. Hennepin county Sheriff's Water Patrol Report G. Additional business 3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, chair Mollet A. Approval of 7/7/94 minutes and meeting report B. Progress to date on private fund solicitation C. LMLOA ,,Minnetonka Memories", 8/16/94; LMCD booth display proposal 4. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, chair Penn A. Approval of 7/15/94 minutes and meeting report B. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee Report, 7/20/94 meeting 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, chair Johnstone * A. Approval of minutes, 6/~2/94 meeting B. Report of 7/27/94 meeting 1) Proposal on reserve level for Save the Lake Fund Balance 2) Planned Usage Development for Wayzata Lakewalk 3) Payment advance for Save the Lake T-shirts 4) Proposed Workers Compensation Managed Care service agreement with CorVel Corp. C. Additional business FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. June Balance Sheet B. Year to Date Financial Summary C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (meeting handout) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen NEW BUSINESS A~URNMENT RECEIVED AUG 2 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 7:30 A.M., Saturday, August 6, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Tech- nician. The meeting was called to order by Grathwol at 7:35 A.M. 1. Boyer Building Corp., Multiple Dock License application for Pelican Point Development, Mound, Spring Park Bay. The applicant has requested the application be held until the September 10, 1994 Water Structures Committee meeting. The committee acknowledged the applicant's request and took no ac- tion. Babcock arrived and assumed the Chair. 2. Wayzata Lakewalk: Review of draft Planned Usage Development (PUD) ordinance as presented by Scott Richards, Northwest Associ- ated Consultants, Inc. Scott Richards and James Robin, Landscape Architect, pre- sented the draft PUD ordinance. Richards distributed copies of a 7/21/94 memo to Allan Orsen detailing the background of the City of Wayzata's alternative plans for gaining public access across the Burlington Northern {BN) tracks to get to the Lake, dating back to 1964. Until the late 1970's the city tried to develop its lakefront on land. BN always objected to the use of its right of way, forcing a plan using dock structures over the water. Richards proceeded to review the draft PUD ordinance with the committee. Section 1. Definition of "Lakewalk" Designed to be gener- ic as to the type of dock structure. Section 2. PUD Regulations. The purpose, Subd. 1, addresses only Lakewalks. The ordinance could be adapted to address other uses. Subd. 2, General Standards: Item i) Length into the Lake The 150' maximum exten- sion into the Lake was established as a minimum for docking the charter boat Minnehaha, with tie-ohs at the bow and the stern. Richards said there would be an effort to make adjustments in the Lakewalk to keep it within 100', depending on water depths. They want to avoid dredging. Item e) 20' Width The Wayzata Lakewalk is planned to be 16' wide. Subd. 4.Concept Plan, Procedures An application for concept approval calls for a Public Hearing at the Water Structures Committee (WSC) level followed by Board action within 60 days. The purpose of the Concept Plan is to avoid the cost of preparing detailed items if the concept is denied. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 Subd. 5 General Plan of Development. Upon concept approval the developer shall submit a general plan of development for a Public Hearing before the WSC, followed by Board action within 60 days. Richards said Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel, has reviewed the draft ordinance. DISCUSSION: (Lakewalk in the following discussion shall refer to the Wayzata Lakewalk) Rascop believes the structure and procedures in the ordi- nance will work. He questioned the BN position on prohibiting the use of its right-of-way. Robin said BN wants to isolate its tracks from Broadway to Barry with a 5' high, unclimbable steel fence. BN is concerned about the crossing at Broadway. The developer is willing to put in a signalized crossing gate at Broadway tied into the other BN crossing gates. That would improve the safety factor as there are no controls now. Robin said BN's concern is preserving the sight lines of the train crews. According to Robin the project will need BN's concurrence for the street grade crossing. Babcock asked about how the General Standards addressed advertising and signs on the Lakewalk. Richards said Subd. 3,m) of the ordinance covers signage. There will be no advertising signs on the Lakewalk itself. The City of Wayzata sign ordinance will apply to land-based signs. Babcock observed that a business directory would not be prohibited by the Subd. 3,m) language. Richards responded that Wayzata does not allow commercial signs on public property. · Setbacks Babcock said that because of the size of the project, consideration should be given to larger side setbacks. The current 10' to 20' side setbacks are not adequate. Babcock suggested the setbacks could be a percentage of the project length. It was noted that the west end of the Lakewalk adjoins a marina. Boat Storage Rascop noted that the rental of boat storage ,space will mean there is a new marina on the Lake. Grathwol said the Board can say no to a new marina. Grathwol suggested trying to fit marinas into this ordinance to see how that would work. Partyka agreed that the ordinance could be used for the Lakewalk, marinas and other lake projects. Richards said that could be done easily. Grathwol asked for an explanation of the need for the boat storage. Richards responded there would be about 20 new rental slips available through the city to cover Lakewalk maintenance costs. Grathwol could see some justification for the income, but not to produce general revenue for the city. Grathwol indicated that boat storage at this project may be a problem for the Board, which Richards acknowledged. It will have to be reviewed. Wetlands Babcock asked for a discussion of "lakewalks' in wetlands or emerging vegetation. Richards said lakewalks could be banned from wetland areas. Robin observed that lakewalks in wetlands, under certain conditions, could serve an educational purpose. Grathwol suggested it may not be wise to prohibit docks in wetlands, but conditions for docks in wetlands can be de- veloped. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 Shelters Grathwol believes shelters on the Lakewalk will be a sensitive issue. The LMCD has not favored structures on docks. The definition for a minimal shelter would have to be developed. Approvals Required. The ordinance should address accessing the lake over the railroad right of way. The approvals required from BN and others, both private and governmental, will be need- ed. Grathwol said he would like the local government to be limited to review and comment. He said the LMCD should not give up its prerogative to make the final decision. This should be specific in the ordinance so each agency knows its limitations. Amenities Babcock suggested a provision, similar to a Spe- cial Density License, to show what public amenities are being provided. Rascop said the gains to the Lake are minor compared to what is being given up. Care and Maintenance of the PUD. The ordinance or a sepa- rate agreement should contain a commitment that any funds gener- ated by the slip rental be dedicated to the care and maintenance of the facility. Grathwol asked for some alternative beyond slip rentals to ensure the facility will be maintained, as well as provisions that would cover non-maintenance. A renewable surety bond was mentioned. Rascop asked who would be responsible for removing the structure at some future date.Richards said there could be a provision that the agency responsible for the original development, in this case the City of Wayzata, could provide for levying the cost of removal against the developer if the Lakewalk would have to be removed. Grathwol said the DNR may have had experience in the removal of poured concrete docks. Timing for Committee and Board Action: Babcock said it is possible that the 60 day turn around may not be practical in some cases due to the LMCD meeting schedules. There may be a need for an increase in the time frame due to November and December meet- ings being combined. Partyka said there has to be a reasonable time frame reference to avoid the process continuing for a long time. Voting: Babcock would prefer a 2/3 majority vote of the Board for approval rather than a majority vote. Grathwol recom- mended staying with the majority vote of 8, to be consistent. Lakewalk Name: Grathwol had some concerns about the Lake- walk name. Lakewalk is suitable for the Wayzata project, but in other instances he would prefer the PUD refer to a public pier. Emergency Vehicles: The prohibition of motorized equipment on the Lakewalk raised the question of emergency vehicle access and the use of motorized, handicapped equipment. Richards said the city attorney's opinion is that emergency and maintenance vehicle would be allowed even with this definition. Robin said the Lakewalk is built to handle the weight of maintenance and emergency equipment. Babcock raised the question of liability since the Lakewalk is over the water. Rascop wondered who will patrol the Lakewalk, the police or the Water Patrol. This has to be addressed. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 Winter Use: Rascop asked if the Lakewalk would be closed in winter. Robin said there may be a need for de-icing but year round use has not been discussed. Babcock said the District would rather not have de-icing done at this facility. Robin said the surface of the Lakewalk could be plowed but salt will not be used for environmental reasons. Refuse: Removal of refuse and refuse containers has to be addressed more specifically. Richards said the city will be responsible for refuse maintenance. He will address it in the ordinance. MOTION: Partyka moved, Rascop seconded, to have the consultant and the staff review the committee's comments and return the ordinance to the committee in September with answers and amend- ments. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. Sailors World Marina, Smiths Bay, Orono; New Multiple Dock License Application for Minor Change Thibault submitted a memo dated 7/28/94 covering the appli- cation of Gary DeSantis, sailors World Marina, 1955 Shoreline Drive, Orono on Smith's Bay, for a new Multiple Dock License application for a minor change. The application calls for changing slips #77, 78 and 79, so slips 78 and 79 open lakeward instead of toward the side site line. This is a slight increase in slip size. Thibault said these slips do not have any relation to the Sailors World agree- ment with the LMCD required under the Variance Order of 4/27/88 regarding removal of ten slips between 100' and 200' after the 1997 boating season. Babcock explained that the boats in these slips will now exit into the marina cor.ridor rather than the adjacent public landing DUA. Babcock observed that slip #79 may be unusable because it encroaches on the side set back. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend approval of a new Multiple Dock License for Sailors Word Marina because the minor change has no affect on the removal of the 10 slips as required under the 4/27/88 Variance Order and with approval conditioned on no boats being stored in slip #79 beyond the extended property line. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Temporary Structures, Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 2.07 of the LMCD Code The proposed ordinance amendment changes the temporary structure distance from 200' from shore to 150' from shore and delegates permitting authority to the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Thibault reported that the Water Patrol has no objection to the ordinance other than the change in wording that the structure is to be reflectorized. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 MOTION: Grathwol moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend approval of the first reading of An Ordinance Relating to Temporary Struc- tures on Lake Minnetonka; Amending Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code Section 2.07, Subdivisions 2 and 3. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park, Minnetrista, Launch Ramp Permit The committee received a copy of an application to the MnDNR for a permit to place a launch ramp in the Lake Minnetonka Re- gional Park on West Upper Lake. The LMCD staff recommendation is to delegate LMCD authority for licensing launch ramps on Lake Minnetonka to the DNR, per a memo dated 7/29/94 from Thibault. Rascop said the authority to license launch ramps is a power the LMCD has in the Enabling Act. Grathwol suggested that the Board, in this one instance, could delegate the authority to the DNR, retaining the right to issue licenses in other instances. Babcock said the LMCD Code requires launch ramps to be licensed, so the District should require a license for the ramp at this site. Thibault explained, that in 1982, a launch ramp was proposed at Kings Point in Minnetrista. There was a court case which resulted in allowing the Kings Point ramp to be installed in 1985. She said, apparently, because the courts ordered the ramp, the Distri.ct never issued a license. There have been no applica- tions submitted for new ramps since then. Thibault said there are no protocols for licensing ramps, although they could be developed. The DNR has the staff and the expertise to review the technical and environmental aspects of constructing launch ramps, the LMCD does not. The LMCD has the right to comment on all DNR permits on the Lake. The DNR has the authority under State Statutes to regulate ramps. Babcock is concerned that the LMCD standards for ramps may not always be met by state-wide DNR standards. The Board has to determine whether the state-wide standards are acceptable to the LMCD. Rascop observed that the LMCD does not have any criteria for approving a ramp whereas the DNR has criteria. Grathwol ex- plained that the District could say it does not chose to issue a license. The Board could say the LMCD is satisfied with the DNR permit. Babcock did not agree. He said that licensing ramps is a method of controlling off-lake storage of boats. Delegating the authority for licensing launch ramps may have an effect on off-lake storage control. Grathwol said that raises the question whether the District should go back and license all other ramps. Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina, asked if a facility already has a Multiple Dock License, is a launch ramp license also required. Thibault agreed to review the Code requirement for an answer. Partyka and Babcock stated the LMCD should retain its licensing authority. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 Rascop noted there is a difference in the purposes for licensing ramps between the LMCD and the DNR. The DNR is more interested in the technical aspects of ramp construction while the LMCD is interested in controlling density on the Lake and the location of public access ramps. He suggested a dual or comple- mentary licensing procedure. MOTION: Partyka moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend that Henne- pin Parks be notified that it needs to apply for a license for the new launch ramp at Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. If the application is received in a timely manner, the Public Hearing will be scheduled for the September WSC meeting. The committee directed staff to determine if the Code requires multiple dock licensees to also have a license for their launch ramp. DISCUSSION: The committee received a copy of a letter dated 7/26/94 from Beth Kunkel, Wetland Specialist, BRW, Inc., ad- dressed to R. Michael Leek~ City of Minnetrista, regarding changes proposed for the ramp design at the Lake ~innetonka Regional Park, as required for the wetland permit application. Partyka said the new ramp will be in a wetland, requiring fill. Minnetrista has a "no loss" ordinance requiring that 2 acres of wetland be created for every one filled. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. Envelope Subcommittee Report Babcock reported that the envelope subcommittee will have one more meeting to review the draft of the envelope concept recommendations from the subcommittee. The main issue is how to measure what is there now and how to measure after a re- configuration. Babcock explained that most multiple dock licensees have site plans and slip size reports in place. One open issue is how to treat dolphin poles which are placed beyond the dock length. Also how LMCD should regulate boat over-hangs (extending beyond dock structure) in the future to avoid permitting larger slips based on the old slips being measured by dock length + over-hang + dolphin pole. Babcock suggested giving a 75% credit of current length to the dolphin pole. Rascop asked what length has been used to calculate the Watercraft Storage Units. Babcock said the dock length is being used. Babcock went on to explain that the subcommittee determined that the envelope concept would primarily affect non-conforming sites, as conforming sites already can change within the envelope of their Dock Use Area (DUA). Non-conforming sites would like the flexibility to reconfigure, without an increase in boat count. Consideration also has to be given to limiting growth in boat sizes. The subcommittee further wants to discourage narrow- ing of walkways and stern tying. To achieve a no-growth policy, the subcommittee proposal is to measure the square footage of existing slips and require the reconfigured square footage be equal to or less than the original total square footage. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 Rascop said the reason he would support the envelope concept would be to simplify administration of multiple docks. He said if the calculations mentioned are used that is not less government. Rascop envisioned taking the square footage of the existing footprint, and with safety and handicapped requirement met, allow re-configuration any way the licensee wants within that footprint or envelope. Babcock said the envelope concept also applies to Homeowner Associations (HO^), which in some cases are not using their entire available DU^. He does not believe there will be an in- crease in boat size in the grandfathered marinas. Rascop said HO^s could be a special class. 6rathwol said it is possible to not apply the envelope concept to HOA$. Rascop said a certified survey, before and after re- configuration, will have to be submitted. He is concerned that this proposal wi 11 be an endorsement of what is there now. Babcock said he will not support growth at non-conforming sites. Partyka said the "envelope" name may be misleading. It is more likely a reconstruction at non-conforming sites ordinance. Paul Pedersen, Grays'Bay btarina, said there is the percep- tion that the envelope concept would allow expansion. He said it might be appropriate to keep it simple, but there are differences between commercial marinas and HOAs. Pedersen believes most of the non-conforming sites have maximized the use of their area. The concept will not increase boat density but could increase boat sizes. In his case, Pedersen said, he would want wider slips and greater length, resulting in fewer boats. (This would result in an increase in boat sizes.) Rascop said reconfiguration within the 100' to 200' area has not been discussed. Babcock responded that that area would be included in the envelope. Rascop believes that would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. He said if the ordinance is not working at 100' it should be changed. Partyka does not believe the non-conforming marinas will ever go back to 100' He suggested there could be credit given in a re-configuration if the distance from beyond 100' is re- duced, even if gradually. Grathwol does not agree that the non-conforming dock struc- tures have to be reduced. He believes the marinas offer a public service. He would be willing to treat the private docks differ- ent from the marinas. Babcock said the basic recommendations of the envelope subcommittee are to allow reconfiguration within the existing envelope with 1) no expansion beyond the existing footprint, 2) no increase in the number of boats, and 3) no increase in the total square footage of the slips. Rascop said the City of Shorewood al lows a 100' length envelope. It allows 650 square feet of water for each boat. The configuration can be figured at that density as the applicant pleases, depending on front footage. Babcock said that would not be workable on all of Lake Minnetonka. Rascop would like to see safety, ADA requirements and fire protect ion addressed. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 6, 1994 Babcock said the subcommittee could recommend some changes in the LMCD ordinances over and beyond the envelope concept. He believes the envelope concept is a no-growth scenario. Babcock will prepare examples to clarify this discussion. A formal report will be brought back to the WSC. He would like more input from the committee members at the next subcommittee meeting. Dolphin Poles: Babcock reported the subcommittee recommended a moratorium on new dolphin pole installation. MOTION: Partyka moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend the LMCD staff prepare a Resolution placing a moratorium on new dolphin poles at multiple docks for consideration at the August Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. Refund of Variance Application Deposit Thibault submitted a memo dated 8/5/94 summarizing the expenses involved with Che Kent and Mary Carlson and Colson Construction Co. variance applications. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend a $9?.36 refund to Kent and Mary Carlson and $151.63 to Colson Construc- tion Co. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 10 A.M. FOR THE COMMITTEE; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair , RECEIVED AU8 2 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 5:30 P.M., Monday, August 15, 1995 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata, Room 160 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Sames Grathwol, Excelsior; Robert Rascop, Shozewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene $trommen, Executive Director. 1. Staff report proposing a methodology for interaction among representatives of the DNR, LMCD and cities or agencies responsi- ble for public access ramps on Lake Minnetonka in support of LMCD's lake access implementation. The committee received a report from the executive director, dated 8/9/94, on the titled subject. The memo calls for estab- lishing a method to handle lake access items. Foster said as soon as the District becomes aware of any lake access activity it should be on the Lake Use and Recreation Committee agenda for information purposes. Grathwol expressed his opinion that the District should not be the first one to make that information public. When the District is given notice from another public agency of access activity, then it should be presented to the committee. Grathwol said there are instances where the owner of the property has to be protected. The executive director called attention to the first item of the methodology which is sensitive to the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report Bill of Rights. A new access site would be evaluat- ed by staff members from the DNR, LMCD and city or agency in- volved only after it became public information. Bloom asked what authority the LMCD has to participate in a land issue. Foster responded that the District has no authority other than on docks or launch ramps. The District may otherwise comment. Partyka asked to what detail the District would get involved in access activity. As an example he mentioned re-arranging of parking spots or re-striping. The executive director said, in the case of Minnetrista, the District would get involved because there is a car/trailer parking agreement between the City and the District on its accesses. Partyka asked if there has been notification from the City of Minnetrista to the District about some access changes. The executive director said contact will be made with Minnetrista if the city does not contact the District. Foster explained the plan is to bring any access discussions directly to the Lake Use and Recreation Committee to avoid the necessity of a sub-committee. Reese called attention to the 7/27/94 letter from Lawrence M. Killien, Water Access Specialist, MnDNR Trails and Waterways, regarding a proposed development within the City of Mound. Reese said he would like to be involved in the discussions about this site. Foster said No. 2 of the Methodology refers to Board member participation. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 15, 1994 The executive director reported that the District has re- ceived a communication that the City of Minnetrista is investi- gating relocation of the Phelps Bay/Williams Street access at the property developer's request. It would be relocated a short distance away. The committee, without objection, recommends to the Board approval to continue lake access program implementation using the methodology in the 8/9/94 memo from the executive director. 2. "Hush Kit" campaign explorations with commercial marina service representatives to develop special labor and materials packages for muffler systems for boats with through-the-hull exhaust systems which significantly exceed the 80 dba levels. Foster said Gabriel Jabbour, Tonka Bay Marina, Jerry Rock- yam, Rockvam Boat Works and Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina are interested in the program. So far Minnetonka Boat Works has not made a commitment. Foster and the executive director will con- tinue to work with Minnetonka Boat Works and other interested marinas to determine interest in the program. 3. Draft Code amendment relating to Charter Boats, amending Sect. 3.07 Watercraft for Hire, adding Coast Guard safety stand- ards Thibault explained the purpose of the Code amendment is to include the requirements the Sheriff's Water Patrol needs when it inspects watercraft for hire. The amendment has been reviewed by the Water Patrol and approved with a change in Subd. 7 f. requir- ing the entir~ battery to be covered to eliminate sparking or arcing. Sgt. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol, said their attor- ney has reviewed the draft and there are no problems. Grathwol asked for information on what statute covers the change in Subd. 7f. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the first reading of the draft Code amendment relating to Charter Boats, as submitted. DISCUSSION: Larry Killien, DNR Trails and Waterways, Waters Access Specialist, said the State of Wisconsin requires battery cases on all boats. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Discuss Code amendment relating to Special Events, amending Sect. 3.09, to eliminate all references to LMCD issuing special event permits The committee received a memo dated 8/9/94 from Thibault explaining the simplified version of the draft ordinance taking the LMCD out of permitting special events, as recommended by Foster. Foster explained that the Sheriff's Water Patrol will use the LMCD ordinances in issuing permits. He said there may be occasions when the District adjusts its ordinances as they might relate to special events. The Sheriff still has the power to determine that he does not want to grant a permit under state law. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 15, 1994 Under the proposed Code change Section 3.09 would simply state that no person shall carry on a special event on the lake without first securing a permit from the Sheriff. Grathwol said he would like to preserve Subdivision 3 of the current Code. Subd. 3 lists thirteen criteria to be considered in determining whether to grant or deny the permit. Grathwol suggested adding the following to Subd. 3 items: n) Whether the time or place of the event will have an undue adverse effect on any other scheduled event. o) Whether the event complies with conditions of policy guidelines adopted by resolution of the LMCD Board. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Bloom seconded, to recommend to the Board the first reading of an amendment to LMCD Code Sect. 3.09, Special Events, rewording Subd. 1 and adding the original thir- teen items in Subd. 3 plus the two recommended by Grathwol, with the last sentence in paragraph one of Subd. 3 changed by substi- tuting "the Sheriff" for "the Board or Executive Director" may consider any or all of the following in issuing permits. A draft ordinance is to be prepared. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Special Events - Deposit Refunds MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of $100 deposit refunds to the following: A. Brighter Light Bass Open, 7/24/94 B. IN Bass Tournament, 8/6/94 and 8/7/94 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 6. ltennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol The committee received a report of significant activity on Lake Minnetonka since 6/22/94 showing 18 accidents, 11 criminal, 20 BWI's, a recovered drowning victim and 1 miscellaneous. The report will be forwarded to the Board. Foster said he has talked to Steven Tallen, LMCD Prosecuting Attorney, about the legal situation. Tallen said BWI's have increased significantly, partly because this has been the best boating season in years. Bloom said he believes the Sheriff's Water Patrol has been more aggressive than in the past. Foster said Tallen told him there is new State law that places both BWI's and DWI's on a violator's driving record. If the BWI is a second offense, it could be prosecuted under the State Statute as a gross misdemeanor. Under the new law, on gross misdemeanors, the MnDNR and Hennepin County split the fines. The District would not have to pay jail time in this case. This may be an advantage as violators are sentenced to longer jail time on gross misdemeanors. Foster has asked Tallen to do an analysis of the situation. Rascop said he has talked to State Representatives and Senators regarding the present situation and they are amenable to making changes at the next legislative session. Rascop said if the District gets the revenue it may also get the jail room and board charges. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 15, 1994 Rascop said he understands Wm. Johnstone, LMCD Chair, will contact Mike Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, to ask if Freeman would consider contracting the BWI prosecutions to Tallen. The executive director will talk to Johnstone about the prosecution situation and report back to the committee. 7. Additional Business A. Slow Buoy Placement Reese has observed the buoy and traffic situation at Cedar Point (at Morrison's) in Wayzata Bay. He said the channel buoys are out as far as they can go and are partially within the shore- zone - 150' from shore. He asked for reconsideration of the denial of slow buoys at that location. His request is based on LMCD policy as there are safety, erosion and noise hazards there. Last year, during high water, there were slow buoys at Cedar Point and it was helpful. Grathwol mentioned several other locations which requested slow buoys and suggested there is more information to be gathered before making a decision. Partyka said the experience at his Cedar Point, in West Upper Lake, when the channel buoys were moved out was a reduc- tion in speed and erosion. MOTION: Reese moved, Partyka seconded, to recommend to the Board placing two Slow Buoys at the Cedar Point location in Wayzata Bay, calling a public healing at the September meeting. VOTE: Motion carried, Grathwol voting nay. B. Speed Limits The committee addressed the possibility of limiting the speed of boats of a certain size. Foster suggested a size limitation on wakes. There was discussion that that would be difficult to enforce. Foster said, in his judgment, if the law is reasonable, the people will follow it. Grathwol suggested lower speed limitations for upper dis- placement boats, based on displacement and length, or tonnage and length. He said, as an example, a 30 foot boat could be reduced to a 20 mph speed. That could be a start in getting the public involved in the problem and awareness that the LMCD has the power to do so. Bloom asked how that idea could be pursued. Rascop said the starting point would be a discussion with the Sheriff's Water Patrol, as it would do the enforcing. Foster asked Grathwol to prepare something in writing for the next committee meeting covering his thoughts on the idea. Bloom and Foster could study it before the meeting. Killien said the committee should check with Kim Elverum, DNR Boat and Water Safety Coordinator, for comments. Grathwol asked for any information in the LMCD files on the subject. Foster expressed the opinion that wakes are the #1 problem on the Lake. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 15~ 1994 C. Lights on the Lake Reese said he met with the Mound Parks and Open Spaces Committee regarding lights on the Lake. He asked that the com- mittee be furnished with a copy of the Mound guidelines on light- ing on public land in the Mound zoning ordinances. Bloom said he believes the message from the mayors is that the LMCD should stay off of the land. Foster said he thinks there is a misunderstand- ing as to what the District is trying to accomplish. Partyka said he investigated the lights at Woodend Shores and found the lights belong to Northern States Power. With the assistance of the City of Minnetrista staff, the Woodend Shores Home Owners ,Association, and NSP, the lights were shielded. Foster asked for a letter of appreciation to the Minnetrista staff. D. Boat Counts Thibault presented the LMCD annual 1979-1994, shoreline boat count comparison. Reese asked for a progress report on the Lake Use Density Study. He believes some people are giving wrong information as to how dense the boat traffic is on the Lake. Reese does not believe the Lake is crowded, except on a few days each year. The executive director said the study is a composite of the whole summer. Thibault said Reese can be furnished with the number of active boats by weekend. The sources of the boats has not been completed as yet. Bloom believes thero has not been a significant change in the number of boats, but the change is in the type of boats using the Lake. Partyka said his personal experience has been the speed of boats is a problem. He mentioned a large watercraft creating a wake large enough to break his small boat loose from its mooring. Grathwol wondered if there could be a prosecution if a wake proved to be damaging. Foster mentioned a conversation he had with Deputy Sheriff LaBerge regarding creating a 17th position for a licensed deputy. This might be obtained through using bailiffs as Water Patrol deputies during the summer months when the court cases are low. Reese said he does not believe the personal watercraft {PWC) ordinance is being enforced. He mentioned the use of stacked, trailered PWCs using accesses which results in a concentration of the PWCs in one area. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to refer the boat storage count to the Board. The LMCD staff is to prepare a calculation on the acres of water per boat stored. (This is not relevant to the Management Plan objectives regarding boats in storage but is relevant to boats in use.) VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Reese asked that PWC ordinance enforcement be an agenda item for the next meeting, as it is an ongoing problem. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE August 15, 1994 E. Lake Use, Recreation vs. Fishing Foster reported a conversation with a Corps of Engineers (CofE) official who stated it is a tragedy that lake is being managed by the MnDNR for a few professional bass fishermen who want to catch trophy bass. Foster said the CofE member suggested the recreational users of the Lake should take a greater inter- est. Bloom believes the fishing lobby is a primary interest of the DNR. Grathwol said it is more than the bass fishermen. Rascop observed that if a lake is a good fishing lake, it is a healthy lake. Foster said this is something for the committee to think about. E. Trash Removal Bloom commented on a Letter to the Editor from the LMLOA in a local newspaper regarding agencies not furnishing trash recep- tacles at the accesses. The committee agreed that the executive director's explanation, adopted by the Board 7/22, and printed in the next newspaper edition was very good. The executive director said he will hand out his reply letter at the table the LMCD will have at the LMLOA "Minnetonka Memories" exhibit. The executive director asked for members to help at the exhibit. Foster said he would be there. F. Shore Fishing Improvements The committee received a copy of a letter, dated 8/2/94, from Michael McDonough, Water Recreation Program Coordinator, Trails and Waterways Unit, DNR, to Michael Brandt, Conservation/Protection Program Manager, Hennepin County, DEM, regarding the future development of shore fishing locations. The letter indicates a willingness to proceed with the North Arm Access and the Tonka Narrows Bridge areas for priority locations. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend to the Board that the LMCD staff continue to work with the DNR, per the 8/2/94 letter. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Adjournment Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair 6 RECEIVED AUG 2 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes 5:00 pm, Thursday, August 11, 1994 LMCD Conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Bldg.. Present: Co-Chair Bob Pillsbury; Stuart Frick, Len Kopp, Frank Mixa, Executive Director Gene Strommen; MINUTES. Minutes of 7/7/94 were accepted as presented. RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A POLICY ON A RESERVE BALANCE FOR THE SAVE THE LAKE FUND. Strommen advised the committee that the LMCD board accepted the committee's draft resolution, which at the time of presentation to the committee identified the reserve balance as $88,513. As the resolution was presented to the board, the reserve balance was inadvertently identified as the 1/31/93 opening balance of $84,427, rather than the 12/31/93. The committee confirmed that it supports the ending balance of $88~513. Strommen will advise the board of this adjustment. VISION STATEMENT TO GUIDE USE OF THE RESERVE FUND. The committee concurred with the concept of a vision statement to guide the LMCD board in future use of the reserve fund. It was agreed that the funds would be better invested in a lake improvement program which would have significantly lasting values, such as environmental improvements. The discussion identified possibilities of having the money serve as start- up or matching funds for a larger investment in cooperation with other local, regional, state and/or federal agencies. Candidates to serve on such a subcommittee were named. Persons associated with Lake Minnetonka over the years were proposed. Three to five persons is the suggested subcommittee size. Stuart Frick and Bob Pillsbury agreed to draft up a mission statement for the subcommittee. It will address the purpose and what is to be accomplished. "TREASURE YOUR LAKE" T-SHIRT SALES PROGRESS. Sales were reported at 265 shirts for $2,234. Pillsbury advised he plans to sell shirts at the August 13-14 Classic Boat Show, Excelsior Park Tavern. Strommen noted the August 16 LMLOA annual Lake Minnetonka Memories production at the Old Log Theater will also be a shirt sale opportunity. LMCD will have a booth for distributing educational material. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MAIL SOLICITATION. Response to date from the 1994 mailing is $15,942 plus $1,445 additional income from the S/L winter dinner program, or a total of $17,387, Strommen reported. The entire 1993 Save the Lake donor SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 8/11/94, P 2 response was $15,076, including dinner income, in comparison. However the Milfoil fund, which was identified in the solicitation card, did receive $7,702 through 1993. This compares with $1,109 received to date for 1994. The total 1994 income of mail contributions, milfoil and dinner payments of $18,577 compares to a total 1993 income for the same categories of $22,778. Save the Lake interest revenue for 1993 was an additional $3,828 for a total of $26,606. Save the lake interest to date for 1994 is $1,885. The committee agreed that the second mail solicitation letter should be sent out just ahead of the Labor Day weekend in September. COMMITTEE PRIORITIES REVIEW. The committee identified programs it had addressed earlier in the year that it wishes to continue for future planning: 1. Place Matts, to be developed for educational purposes, for advance sale to area restaurants. 2. Grocery bag promotion to promote spring lake clean-up, started with Super Value this year, to be confirmed for the spring of 1995. 3. Lake shoreline clean-up involving scouts and other volunteer groups, in spring and during the summer · A new item suggested was lake bottom mapping to identify historic sunken ships and other items including depth contours. The committee agreed that its members should bring more ideas to the next committee meeting. SHORE FISHING SITES. Strommen called attention to the~ completed coffee Cove shore fishing site done by the DNR Trails and Waterways Unit in cooperation with Hennepin County and City of Spring Park. The results of this installation has encouraged the DNR to look at improving two 'additional sites it had in mind when it first looked over the lake in 1993, namely the Narrows Channel shore fish area and North Arm channel. The LMCD board will be asked to support these two improvement programs. No funding is anticipated by the DNR to come from LMCD on these two programs which could be done in 1995, Strommen added. NEXT MEETING, ADJOURNMENT. The September meeting was set for 5:00 pm, Thursday the 8th. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 pm.  ectfull~ Eu~r ommen Executive Director ,', RECEIVED AUG 2 2 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report 6:30 PM, Wednesday, July 27, 1994 Tonka Bay city Hall Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Bob Rascop, Tom Reese, Joe Zwak, Jim Grathwol, Gene Partyka, Herb Suerth, Craig Mollet, Doug Babcock; staff members Rachel Thibault and Gene Strommen Tom Penn chaired the meeting for Chair Bill Johnstone who was absent. 1. 6/22/94 Meeting Report MOTION: Partyka moved, Zwak seconded to recommend approval of the minutes of the 6/22/94 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Draft Ordinance for Lakewalk Planned Usage Development Scott Richards, Northwest Associated Consultants, was present representing the City of Wayzata. Richards presented a draft copy of the Planned Usage Development ordinance for Lakewalks to the committee. He advised that LMCD Attorney Charlie LeFevere, the executive director and the administrative technician had met with Richards to review and revise his first draft. The copy presented at the meeting reflected the revisions recommended by LMCD staff. Strommen said that LeFevere commented that the ordinance was comprehensive and a good draft. He recommended that the committee refer the ordinance to the 8/6/94 Water Structures Committee meeting. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend that the Board receive and refer the draft ordinance for Planned Usage Development for Lakewalks to the 8/6/94 Water Structures committee. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Proposal for policy of the reserve level for the Save the Lake Fund balance Mollet reported that the Save the Lake Advisory Committee recommended that the fund balance at the end of fiscal 1993 be designated as the Save the Lake Fund balance, with half the investment interest added each year to increase the fund balance. Current lake needs are to be drawn from current Save the Lake Fund revenue. The committee also recommended that a panel be put together to write a vision statement outlining for what purposes the fund balance would be used. Mollet advised that the committee feels that if contributors do not see the funds being used productively, they will not continue to contribute. MOTION: Mollet moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend to the Board that the 12/31/93 Save the Lake Fund balance of $84,427 be the minimum balance for the fund, plus half the investment interest is .to be added each year. Motion carried unanimously. Administrative Committee, 7/27/94 Meeting Report, Page 2 4. Review of ,,Treasure Your Lake" T-shirt sales The committee received a 7/27/94 memo from the executive director outlining the Save the Lake T-Shirt sales and distribution. Strommen advised that there is an ongoing effort to sell the T-shirts. Target stores bought 50 to sell at its stores. The bill for the T-shirts was listed in the vouchers for payment for approval at the board meeting. Of the $3,031 in T-shirt costs, a $905 deficit exists from T- shirt sales/distribution. Future T-shirt sales are expected to cover this deficit. 5. Proposal for administrative overhead rate to be charged to variance and multiple dock license applications Staff submitted a summary of administrative expenses without salaries to determine the cost per hour of overhead. The hourly rates for the executive director and administrative technician were also outlined. The committee recommended that the 1994 budgeted administrative expenses be used to determine overhead for 1994 at a total rate of $33 per hour. The overhead for the executive director's time is to be calculated at $17 per hour and the administrative technician's time at $9 per hour. MOTION: Partyka moved, Babcock seconded to recommend the board approve the 1994 administrative overhead rate at $33 total per hour, with the executive director charged at $27 plus $17 overhead per hour and the administrative technician at $14 plus $9 overhead per hour. Motion carried unanimously. 6. CorVel Corporation Workers Compensation Managed Care Service proposal · e The executlv director explained a program offered by CorVel Corporation, in conjunction with the League of Minnesota cities, to help reduce workers compensation rates. CorVel Corporation works with the employer in training employees toward safe work practices. They also assist the medical agency to ensure an injured employee is getting proper treatment. CorVel services help the employee get back to work as soon as possible. There is no additional cost to the District. The District will receive a 5% reduction in workers compensation insurance fees when they enter into and qualify with an agreement with CorVel. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Zwak seconded to recommend that the District enter into an agreement with CorVel Corporation for the workers compensation managed care service. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Additional business -- resignation A. ~dministratxve Secretary/BooKKeeper ' e The executlv director reported that JoAnn Tyk, administrative secretary/bookkeeper resigned effective 8/5/94. Tyk commented that the deadlines for the secretarial and bookkeeping responsibilities frequently overlapped, causing difficulty in keeping up with the work load. Administrative Committee, 7/27/94 Meeting Report, Page 3 Strommen said that Tyk did a commendable job implementing the Peachtree accounting system and bringing the accounting records up to date. Her suggestion was that the bookkeeping and secretarial positions be separated. Strommen had checked into several bookkeeping services and located two good prospects. A bookkeeping service appears available at $25 per hour. Strommen recommended that in order to fund the bookkeeping service, the clerk position must be eliminated. With the secretarial position being full time, this position would handle the clerical responsibilities. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to recommend the Board authorize an adjustment in the 1994 and 1995 budgets as recommended in the executive directors 7/27/94 memo. (This memo has been revised to reflect the detailed 1994 and 1995 Budget adjustments.) Motion carried unanimously. B. Lake Access Committee, distribution of 6/22/94 minutes Grathwol asked the committee for direction on whether or not the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Report should be an amendment to the Management Plan or a supplement. Penn suggested this question be added to the Board Agenda under New Business. C. LMLOA 7/13/94 letter regarding trash at publio accesses It was agreed that this letter would also be discussed at the Board meeting under New Business. D. Public Officials Lake Inspection Tour 8/13/94 Strommen said some public officials have expressed concern that because of recently adopted legislation accepting the boat trip could be considered unethical. Therefore, the LMCD will ask for payment of $10 for the boat trip and $3.50 for the food. This may affect attendance. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. For the committee: Rachel Thibault Administrative Technician