1994-10-25 ~rovides at a
needs of all: citizens
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1994,
REGULAR MEETING AND THE OCTOBER 18, 1994,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CBD ASSESSMENT
B. UNPAID MOWING CHARGE
C. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
(THESE RESOLUTIONS WILL BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY
EVENING)
CASE_ //94-71: PATRICIA OSMONSON, 4784 WILSHIRE
BLVD. & 2745 TYRONE LANE, LOTS 10-16, BLOCK 28,
SETON, PID #19]'117-23 23 0101 & 0102.
REQUEST: MINOR SUBDIVISION.
REQUEST FOR MINOR REVISION TO FINAL PLAT FOR
PELICAN POINT, BOYER DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
RE: RIGHT-OF-WAY.
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT, N.W. TONKA
LIONS AT MOUND BAY PARK - SLED DOG RACE
(WINTERFEST), JANUARY 13, 14 & 15, 1995.
APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 4,
SCHLUMBERGER INDUSTRIES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$106,378.15.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
PG. 4043-4050
PG. 4051-4065
PG. 4066-4068
PG. 4069-4070
PG. 4071
4040
10.
11.
12.
13.
10.
DISCUS.__~SION: CSAH 110 (COMMERCE BLVD.,) AND
THREE POINTS BLVD. - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS.
PG. 4072-4075
BID AWARD: CBD SNOWPLOWING BIDS - 1994-95.
PG. 4076-4077
BID AWARD: RECYCLING CONTRACT 1995-1997.
PG. 4078-4079
CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 27, 1994, CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
PG. 4080-4100
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Financial Report for September 1994 as
prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance
Director.
PG. 4101-4102
B. LMCD mailings.
PG. 4103
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of
October 10, 1994.
PG. 4104-4106
Do
Planning Commission Minutes of
September 10, 1994.
PG. 4107-4112
Letter from St. Olaf's Catholic Church,
Minneapolis, RE: special meeting to discuss
the growing disparity between the cities
and the suburbs. Meeting is November 3, 1994,
7:00 - 9:30 P.M. at St. Olaf's.
PG. 4113
Changes to proposed 1995 Legislative
Policies and Priorities - AMM.
PG. 4114-4115
G. REMINDERS:
Tree Lighting Ceremony, Tuesday, November 8, 1994, 6:30 P.M.
AMM Annual Policy Adoption Meeting, Thursday, November 3, 1994, Royal
Cliff Conference Center, Eagan, 5:30-9:00 P.M.
City Council Meeting - Rescheduled from November 8 to November 9 due to
General Election.
Veteran's Day Holiday, Friday, November 11, 1994, City Offices closed.
COW Meeting - Tuesday, November 15, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
4041
Economic Development Commission Minutes of September 15, 1994.
LMC Policy Adoption Meeting, Friday, November 18, 1994, Best Western N.W.
Inn, Brooklyn Park - 8:30 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
Budget Hearing - Tuesday, November 29, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
NLC Conference, December 1-4, 1994, Minneapolis Convention Center.
Continued Budget Heating (if necessary), Tuesday, December 6, 1994, 7:30
P.M.
Annual Christmas Party, Friday, December 9, 1994, American Legion.
PG. 4116-4117
4042
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 11, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
October 11, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and
Ken Smith. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City
Planners Mark Koegler and Bruce Chamberlain, City Engineer John Cameron and the following
interested citizens: Alex Bussey, Brian Cathers, Dana McVay, Becky McVay, Andy Shulde,
Tom Cathers, Stacy Cathers, Sue & Steve Cathers, Mark Locken, Jackie Locken, Sarah Locken,
Tony Locken, Mark & Meaghan Bussey, Tom Reese, John Boyer, John Blumentritt, Judd
Broyer, Ron Johnson, Trude Turnquist, and Everett Junge.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 PRESENTATION TO BRIAN CATHERS
Sergeant John McKinley stated that because of eleven year old Brian Cather's quick thinking and
calm response, a catastrophe was avoided when seven year old Tony Locken fell from a tree and
became impaled four feet off the ground on a post.
The City Council commended Brian Cathers and presented him with a Certificate of
Recognition.
1.1 INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICE OFFICER
Sergeant John McKinley introduced the newest Police Officer, Sam Nelson.
1.2 MINUTES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the
September 27, 1994, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.3 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 350:645, RELATING TO THE RECENT CHANGES IN
THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Mark Koegler, City Planner, explained that when minor changes were made in the Shoreland
Management Ordinance there was a change in impervious cover. Impervious cover restrictions
are also found in Section 350:645 of the Zoning Code and this provisions needs to be modified
for consistency with the Shoreland Management Ordinance (Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1.
Current language reads as follows:
Subd. 1. Lot Coverage. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent
of the lot area. Open patterned decks and stairways shall be counted as 50 percent
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 percent impervious cover.
The above would be omitted and replaced with the following:
Subd. 1. LOt Coverage. 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 to up to a maximum of 40 percent consistent with the provisions
identified in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6 (B) 1.
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following:
ORDINANCE//71-1994
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:646,
SUBD. 1, RELATING TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE
SHORELAND PROVISIONS IN SECTION 350:1225,
SUBD. 6 (B) 1
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4 CASE//94- : APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR PELICAN POINT, BOYER
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
City Planner, Bruce Chamberlain, reviewed his report and recommendations, dated October 5,
1994.
Alan Kretman, from RLK Associates representativing Boyer Building Corp., spoke about study
on the two wetlands and stated that a professional wetland consultant has investigated the site
and prepared a report which will be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for
the review.
John Blumentritt, representative of Boyer Building Corp., spoke about the boat dockage issue
with the LMCD. He presented 5 different plans for the 40 docks they are requesting. He stated
this was done for the LMCD as options. The Council stated they would continue to support the
Developer in his request for 40 docks off the mainland.
The Council asked that the City Attorney and the Developer take some time tonight and redo
parts of the final plat resolution to include some of the options for the dockage so that the
LMCD has a clear picture of what is being approved.
The Council moved on to the next item on the Agenda and will return to this item later in the
meeting.
COMMENTS & SUGGEgTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.5
RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON GENERAL OBLIGATION
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1978 IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,633.00.
The City Manager explained that there are sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due
in 1995 so this levy can be cancelled.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-137
RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS
OF 1978 IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,633.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL EI.ECTION JUDGE~.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-138
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL
ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 8, 1994
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $67,180.27, when funds are available. A
roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS,
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1994.
B. L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for September 1994.
C. LMCD mailings.
Do
LMCD - Ordinance Relating to Shoreline Requirements and Calculations of Boat Storage
Density on Lake Minnetonka.
E. Final Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force - LMCD.
Fe
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, October 18, 1994, 7:30
P.M.
1.4
CASE //94- : APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR PELICAN POINT, BOYER
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
The City Attorney and returned and presented the amendments to the final plat resolution for
Pelican Point. The NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED portion of the resolution will now
read as follows:
A. Final plat approval is hereby granted for Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential
Subdivision under PDA requirements, 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 the conditions of the preliminary
plat approval (Resolution t/94-78) set forth and incorporated herein as part of the document and
the following conditions;
The Developer shall secure all applicable permits as defined by the City Engineer from
all entities with jurisdiction over this project.
Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD for the construction of 40
docks to serve the development. The City strongly favors Plan "A" which has been
presented to this City Council and which results in the construction of 40 dock slips off
the mainland, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. It
is understood that dock density is being used from that part of Outlot C which is called,
"the island", to complete the 40 dock slips. In the event the DNR or the LMCD do not
approve Plan "A", the Council approves Plan "B", a copy of which is attached. This
would result in 28 docks being constructed off the mainland and would allow the
construction of 12 dock slips off the most northerly part of that part of Outlot C, referred
to as "the island". In either event, a Conservation Easement shall be prepared and
dedicated to the public which keeps that part of Outlot C, which is referred to as "the
island", in a natural state and will prevent all construction of any structures on that part
of Outlot C, called "the island", except the limited area necessary to access the 12 dock
slips if Plan B is necessary.
The Council is approving 40 dock slips and strongly requests the DNR and the LMCD
to approve Plan A. The applicant has argued that the land would allow 57 dock sites off
the mainland and the island and the Council is not precluding an application for more
than 40 dock sites if Plan A or Plan B are not approved by the DNR and the LMCD.
Park dedication fees shall be collected in the amount of $124,000 prior to filing of the
final plat.
o
No construction activity shall occur on the site until all applicable provisional or final
permits have been issued by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other
applicable agencies.
Il ~1,
October 11, 1994
e
10.
11.
12.
The Developer shall provide the City Attorney with Homeowner's Documents and
Declaration of Covenants for his review and approval. The Developer shall also provide
the City Attorney with information necessary to conduct a title search and make a clear
title opinion, all prior to filing of the final plat with blennepln County.
Lot 8, Block 2 on the final plat shall reflect a modification to the utility easement as
defined by the City Engineer.
13.
Prior to any work on the site, 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 and shall
require compliance with all City Codes not modified by this resolution. As part of the
development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond, an
irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in
the amount of 125 % of the cost of all applicable public improvements necessary to be
completed prior to filing the final plat. The Developer shall also provide the necessary
escrow funds required in Section 330:30 of the City Code.
The Declaration of Covenants shall be amended to include a description of bluff area
limitations as stated in the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Covenants
shall also include a map showing designated bluff areas.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 240 days of the City Council
approving the final plat (October 11, 1994).
Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities
and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and
Building Official.
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.
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 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.
October 11, 1994
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.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g94-13~ RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
FOR PELICAN POINT MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) REQUIREMENTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 9:05 P.M.
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The vote
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - OCTOBER 18, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Johnson,
Councilmembers Ken Smith, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, Andrea Ahrens. Absent:
none. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle.
An ordinance amending Section 350:760. Subd. 4 of the City Code relating to truck
parking in residential areas was discussed. The City Manager explained that this item
had been on the August 23, 1994 regular City Council meeting agenda and was sent
to the Committee of the Whole for further discussion to clarify the direction that the
City Council was to give to the Planning Commission. The Council consensus was to
have the Planning Commission review the photos that had been submitted as part of
the packet material for August 23rd, giving the examples of the different types of
truck vehicles, and to run through those and determine which types of vehicles were
acceptable. Discussion also focused on garaging of commercial vehicles in residential
areas, looking at no more than one vehicle per property. Councilmember Jensen was
directed to bring this matter to the Planning Commission for further discussion.
Guidelines for allowing plantings on commons/public lands were briefly discussed.
Direction to Councilmember Ahrens to take to the Park and Open Space Commission
was that the commission ought to take into account all of the commons areas and
that the word "shall" really means "must". Guidelines would mean "should" which
softens these standards into guidelines.
Ed Shukle, City Manager, reported on the Westonka Community Center Task Force.
The purpose of the task force, as defined by the Westonka School District Board of
Education is: "...shall be to determine the best use of the Westonka Community
Center and the wisest expenditure of funds to provide for the required code upgrades,
necessary maintenance and desired building modifications to meet school district and
community needs." He informed the Council that the task force would be meeting
between now and January 9, 1995 to come up with recommendations to the school
board on whether the present facility be retained and upgraded according to the
direction of voters on the 1993 referendum, demolish the building and build a new
community center or modify the existing building to accommodate programs and
activities along with the facilities being brought up to proper code as defined by the
Uniform Building Code and the State Fire Marshal. The City Manager wanted to
inform the City Council of the task force and its purpose and to solicit any input from
the City Council as to their thoughts and ideas on this matter. The City Council
suggested that the cities of Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach be invited to sit on the
committee as well. There was some interest by the Council in eliminating the pods
that exist within the community center facility presently, and also to consider
demolishing the building. The City Manager will keep the Council informed as to the
task force's work.
Goal Setting was discussed and briefly reviewed.
Minutes - Committee of the Who~e - October 18, 1994- Page 2
The old SuperAmerica update was given by the City Manager. He indicated that he
was told by Norwest Bank, Wayzata, that plans were to sell the facility to a local
resident who is interested in purchasing the property for a commercial purpose. The
City Manager reported that he was told that the property would close within the next
30 to 45 days. He also explained to the City Council that he had informed Norwest
Bank, Wayzata, that if this particular sale did not come about, that the City of Mound
may be interested in purchasing the property.
The City Manager also reported on the speed reduction that was issued by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for County Road 110 between 350 feet north
of Three Points Blvd. and County Road 151. Authorizes a speed limit of 45 miles per
hour between 350 feet north of Three Points Blvd. and Eastview Avenue, which is a
reduction from the present 45 mile per hour speed limit. The authorization of 45 miles
per hour between Eastview Avenue and County Road 151 represents no change in the
existing speed limit. The City Manager also reported that traffic signal warrants have
been met at the intersection of Commerce Blvd. (County Road 110) and Three Points
Blvd. He explained that a traffic signal estimated cost is $80,000. Hennepin County's
policy is now to only pay 25%, with the remainder of 75% being paid for by the City.
The City Council asked that this item be placed on the October 25, 1994 regular
meeting agenda for direction by the Council. The City Manager explained that any
construction of a traffic signal in this area would not take place until at least 1996,
since Hennepin County has not budgeted for it in 1995, but would consider it in 1996.
A list of reminders was reviewed by the Manager and the City Council. Also
discussed was whether the City Council should have a City Council meeting on
Tuesday, December 27, 1994. The consensus was to cancel it. Other business
included a report from the City Manager that the Minneapolis Star Tribune Home
Section will be doing a spotlight on the City of Mound in the October 22, 1994 issue.
Other discussion focused on domestic shelters and whether the city planner has
discussed this matter any further with the Planning Commission. The City Manager
will follow up on this. Also discussed was Teal Pointe and its status. The City
Manager will follow up on this matter item as well. There being no other business,
it was noted that the next meeting of the COW is scheduled for Tuesday, November
15, 1994 at 7:30 pm at Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by
Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting adiourned at 10 PM.
ctfully submitted,
Ed Shukle
City Manager
ES:Is
I ~ II
October 25, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1994 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,384.94 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY//13228
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
1994 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1993 TO JUNE 30, 1994 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $11,384.94.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows:
INT.
LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS
13228 1994 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8%
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 29, 1994) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 29, 1994), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1994.
ge
October 25, 1994
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 29, 1994 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1994, and all of 1995).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
October 25, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,526.47 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
~ LEVY//13229
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows:
PID//
IMPROVEMENT
INT.
AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY
12-117-24 43 0038
13-117-24 21 0092
13-117-24 12 0123
13-117-24 12 0052
13-117-24 12 0220
13-117-24 12 0119
13-117-24 12 0103
13-117-24 11 0131
13-117-24 11 0056
13-117-24 14 0040
13-117-24 12 0106
13-117-24 11 0076
13-117-24 11 0139
18-117-23 23 0004
18-117-23 23 0012
13-117-24 11 0122
13-117-24 11 0102
Del. Sewer & Water 153.62 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 338.47 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 156.99 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 318.72 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 226.60 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 237.44 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 216.11 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 126.80 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 142.60 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 296.39 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 228.04 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 161.74 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 408.85 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 446.73 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 279.83 1 8 % 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 262.96 1 8% 13229
Del. Sewer & Water 217.74 1 8% 13229
13-117-24 11 0039
13-117-24 11 0053
13-117-24 22 0246
14-117-24 42 O110
14-117-24 41 0025
14-117-24 42 0095
14-117-24 42 0016
14-117-24 42 0028
14-117-24 42 0041
14-117-24 31 0058
14-117-24 31 0031
14-117-24 34 0041
14-117-24 44 0007
14-117-24 44 0031
14-117-24 42 0002
14-117-24 42 0043
14-117-24 32 0054
13-117-24 32 0056
13-117-24 32 0016
13-117-24 32 0108
13-117-24 32 0107
13-117-24 32 O115
13-117-24 32 0155
13-117-24 32 0152
13-117-24 32 0153
13-117-24 31 0052
13 - ! 17-24 310040
13-117-24 43 0068
13-117-24 43 0121
13-117-24 43 0052
13-117-24 43 0060
13-117-24 43 0090
13-117-24 41 0042
13-117-24 41 0011
13-117-24 42 0014
13-117-24 43 O118
13 - 117-24 42 0022
13 - 117-24 44 0090
18-117-23 33 0027
18-117-23 33 0026
13-117-24 43 0038
24-117-24 12 0046
23-117-24 41 0018
23-117-24 44 0008
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Sewer &
Water 145.08
Water 219.82
Water 233.77
Water 158.80
Water 394.86
Water 273.45
Water 484.21
Water 291.64
Water 330.53
Water 191.64
Water 508.28
Water 324.27
Water 200.75
Water 277.75
Water 252.50
Water 344.48
Water 336.26
Water 265.91
Water 220.70
Water 353.83
Water 409.56
Water 262.50
Water 203.44
Water 549.93
Water 261.56
Water 136.22
Water 117.02
Water 305.42
Water 130.91
Water 89.15
Water 194.05
Water 653.93
Water 308.35
Water 172.30
Water 205.68
Water 144.74
Water 127.56
Water 206.96
Water 254.29
Water 164.28
Water 133.91
Water 106.13
Water 132.88
Water 359.39
October 25, 1994
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-11%24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
23-117-24
22-117-24
14-117~24
23-117-24
23-117-24
24-11%24
13-117-24
24-117-24
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
24-117-24
24-11%24
24-117-24
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
24-117-24
24-117-24
24-117-24
24-117-24
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
19-117-23
43 0004
42 0073
41 0020
42 0018
42 0020
42 0045
43 0008
42 0044
34 0090
34 0101
23 0012
34 0066
34 0065
23 0095
23 0056
32 0043
44 0018
31 0050
11 0026
14 0047
21 0006
43 0022
12 0020
23 0082
31 0125
31 003O
41 0064
14 0044
13 0032
24 0024
24 0008
24 0053
31 0004
31 0017
41 0042
41 0095
41 0098
41 0148
31 0093
32 0101
31 0062
32 0076
32 0077
32 0086
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Del.
Sewer & Water 142.60
Sewer & Water 632.10
Sewer & Water 258.52
Sewer & Water 219.89
Sewer & Water 375.93
Sewer & Water 137.42
Sewer & Water 319.89
Sewer & Water 145.77
Sewer & Water 283.91
Sewer & Water 152.05
Sewer & Water 277.36
Sewer & Water 414.42
Sewer & Water 162.83
Sewer & Water 458.63
Sewer & Water 304.93
Sewer & Water 256.01
Sewer & Water 245.65
Sewer & Water 183.79
Sewer & Water 212.42
Sewer & Water 156.86
Sewer & Water 267.96
Sewer & Water 270.49
Sewer & Water 305.37
Sewer & Water 342.97
Sewer & Water 189.68
Sewer & Water 262.29
Sewer & Water 174.84
Sewer & Water 239.82
Sewer & Water 331.34
Sewer & Water 268.32
Sewer & Water 192.81
Sewer & Water 258.61
Sewer & Water 211.09
Sewer & Water 220.24
Sewer & Water 205.79
Sewer & Water 228.75
Sewer & Water 246.71
Sewer & Water 307.94
Sewer & Water 424.87
Sewer & Water 506.13
Sewer & Water 185.72
Sewer & Water 283.21
Sewer & Water 312.77
Sewer & Water 345.44
October 26, 1993
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
8% 13229
October 26, 1993
19-117-23 32 0110
24-117-24 41 0162
19-117-23 34 0064
25-117-24 11 0133
25-117-24 ll 0068
25-117-24 11 0125
24-117-24 44 0021
19-117-23 33 0220
19-117-23 33 0184
19-117-23 33 0129
24-117-24 44 0081
24-117-24 44 0038
24-117-24 44 0050
24-117-24 44 0061
24-117-24 44 0062
24-117-24 44 0182
24-117-24 44 0146
25-117-24 11 0014
24-117-24 41 0022
24-117-24 41 0102
24-117-24 42 0016
24-117-24 42 0007
24-117-24 43 0015
25-117-24 12 O112
25-117-24 21 0025
25-117-24 11 0152
25-117-24 12 0102
30-117-23 22 0036
25-117-24 12 0219
25-117-24 11 0023
30-117-23 21 0007
30-117-23 22 0049
25-117-24 11 0028
25-117-24 11 0115
25-117-24 21 0012
25-117-24 12 0134
25-117-24 21 0142
25-117-24 21 0078
25-117-24 21 0077
25-117-24 21 0080
13-117-24 44 0051
13-117-24 33 0024
13-117-24 33 0076
13-117-24 33 0014
Del. Sewer & Water 194.91
Del. Sewer & Water 305.25
Del. Sewer & Water 624.07
Del. Sewer & Water 246.66
Del. Sewer & Water 196.59
Del. Sewer & Water 300.06
Del. Sewer & Water 296.52
Del. Sewer & Water 474.06
Del. Sewer & Water 351.85
Del. Sewer & Water 372.98
Del. Sewer & Water 258.72
Del. Sewer & Water 300.43
Del. Sewer & Water 182.09
Del. Sewer & Water 493.86
Del. Sewer & Water 218.28
Del. Sewer & Water 192.38
Del. Sewer & Water 259.48
Del. Sewer & Water 136.91
Del. Sewer & Water 208.95
Del. Sewer & Water 219.76
Del. Sewer & Water 293.89
Del. Sewer & Water 231.71
Del. Sewer & Water 285.16
Del. Sewer & Water 275.29
Del. Sewer & Water 159.32
Del. Sewer & Water 98.26
Del. Sewer & Water 209.23
Del. Sewer & Water 211.02
Del. Sewer & Water 249.79
Del. Sewer & Water 266.28
Del. Sewer & Water 297.95
Del. Sewer & Water 516.60
Del. Sewer & Water 231.14
Del. Sewer & Water 367.69
Del. Sewer & Water 443.47
Del. Sewer & Water 251.42
Del. Sewer & Water 85.41
Del. Sewer & Water 179.17
Del. Sewer & Water 211.13
Del. Sewer & Water 201.11
Del. Sewer & Water 199.92
Del. Sewer & Water 186.53
Del. Sewer & Water 543.04
Del. Sewer & Water 115.67
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
13229
October 26, 1993
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 29, 1994) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 29, 1994), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1994.
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 29, 1994 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1994, and all of 1995).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
illlJllJJl~...--..J,,~, ~, , I~, I ~1 J i Il
' ::r-'JctZ - 3 t5
October 25, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 9~
RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID MOWING
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $65.00 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY//13230
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
UNPAID MOWING CHARGES
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOUND:
1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows:
PID// IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT
13-117-24 12 0176 UNPAID MOWING
CHARGES $65.00
INT.
YEARS RATE LEVY
1 8% 13230
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 29, 1994) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hail.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 29, 1994), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1994.
o
o
October 12, 1993
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 29, 1994 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1994, and ail of 1995).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 4784 WILSHIRE BLVD. AND 2745 TYRONE LANE,
LOTS 10 - 16, BLOCK 28, SETON,
PID #19-117-24 23 0101 & 0102
P&Z CASE #94-71 /
WHEREAS, the owner of 4784 Wilshire Blvd., Pat Osmonson, has submitted
a request for a Minor SubdivisiOn in the menner required by the Mound CiW Code,
Section 320 and Minnesota State S~atute, Chapter 462, and all proc~dings heve been
duly c~nducted.thereu~der~"~and;
WHEREAS, property i~ located w~th~n the R-2 One and Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for two family
dwellings (duplexes) a minimum lot area of 14,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard
setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard
setback, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel A has a lot area of 12,804 square feet,
resulting in a lot area variance of 1,196, and the proposed Parcel B has a lot area of
10,257, resulting in a lot area variance of 3,743 square feet, and;
WHEREAS, the following variances to setbacks also need to be recognized:
Parcel A (2745 Tyrone Lane)
Duplex: Side Yard Setback 6.3' Required 10' Variance 2.7'
Garage: S. Side Setback 3.3' Required 4' Variance .7'
Parcel B (4784 Wilshire Blvd.)
Duplex: N. Side Setback 4.2' Required 6'
Garage: N. Side Setback 2.1' Required 4'
Variance 1.8'
Variance 1.9'
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval, with conditions
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and
B from Lots 10 - 16, Block 28, Seton, as shown on the attached Exhibit A,
subj CtTo'"t i.
Proposed Resolution
Case//94-71, Osmonson Subd.
Page 2 of 2
The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A:
Parcel A (2745 Tyrone Lane): Lots 10 and 16; That part of Lots 11 and
15 lying north of the south 13,00 feet of said lots; And the east half of
that part of Devon Road originally dedicated on the recorded plat of
"SETON" and now vacated which lies between the westerly extension
of the north line of said Lot 16 and the southerly line of Lot 14, Block
28; All in Block 28, "SETON," according tot he recorded plat thereof,
Parcel 2 (4784 Wilshire Blvd.): Lots 12, 13 and 14; And the south
13.00 feet of Lot 11 and 15; All in Block 28, "SETON" according to the
recorded plat thereof.
The City does hereby approved recognition of the following setback variances:
Parcel A (2745 Tyrone Lane)
Duplex:
Garage:
Side Yard Setback 6.3' Required 10'
S. Side Setback 3.3' Required 4'
Variance 2.7'
Variance. 7'
Parcel B (4784 Wilshire Blvd.)
Duplex: N. Side Setback 4.2' Required 6'
Garage: N. Side Setback 2.1' Required 4'
Variance 1.8'
Variance 1.9'
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and
stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the
applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant
shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register
of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with
the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the
responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption
date of this resolution.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 4784 WlLSHIRE BLVD. AND 2745 TYRONE LANE,
LOTS 10 - 16, BLOCK 28, SETON,
PID//19-117-24 23 0101 & 0102
P&Z CASE//94-71
WHEREAS, the owner of 4784 Wilshire Blvd., Pat Osmonson, has submitted
a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by the Mound City Code,
Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been
duly conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for two family
dwellings (duplexes) a minimum lot area of 14,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard
setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard
setback, and; ". ,~. ^,~~
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel A has a lot area of 12,804 square feet,
resulting in a lot area variance of 1,196, and the proposed Parcel B has a lot area of
10,257, resulting in a lot area variance of 3,743 square feet, and;
WHEREAS, the following variances to setbacks also need to be recognized:
Parcel A (2745 Tyrone Lane)
Duplex:
Garage:
Side Yard Setback 6.3' Required 10'
S. Side Setback 3.3' Required 4'
Variance 2.7'
Variance .7'
Parcel B (4784 Wilshire Blvd.)
Duplex: N. Side Setback 4.2' Required 6'
Garage: N. Side Setback 2.1' Required 4'
Variance 1.8'
Variance 1.9'
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval, with conditions
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and
B from Lots 10 - 16, Block 28, Seton, as shown on the attached Exhibit A~
u ' e folio 'n ''
Proposed Resolution
Case #94-71, Osmonson Subd.
Page 2 of 2
The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A:
Parcel A (2745 Tyrone Lane): Lots 10 and 16; That part of Lots 11 and
15 lying north of the south 13.00 feet of said lots; And the east half of
that part of Devon Road originally dedicated on the recorded plat of
"SETON" and now vacated which lies between the westerly extension
of the north line of said Lot 16 and the southerly line of Lot 14, Block
28; All in Block 28, "SETON," according tot he recorded plat thereof.
Parcel 2 (4784 Wilshire Blvd.): Lots 12, 13 and 14; And the south
13.00 feet of Lot 11 and 15; All in Block 28, "SETON" according to the
recorded plat thereof.
The City does hereby approved recognition of the following setback variances:
Parcel A (2745 Tyrone Lane)
Duplex:
Garage:
Side Yard Setback 6.3' Required 10'
S. Side Setback 3.3' Required 4'
Variance 2.7'
Variance. 7'
Parcel B (4784 Wilshire Blvd.)
Duplex: N. Side Setback 4.2' Required 6'
Garage: N. Side Setback 2.1' Required 4'
Variance 1.8'
Variance 1.9'
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and
stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the
applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant
shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register
of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with
the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the
responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption
date of this resolution.
0ST--21--94 FR I
9:38 ·
P. 02
GCHOELL & MAnSON, INC.
ENGINEEi~ · SURVEYORS · I=LANNERS
~)IL TESTING · ENVlRONM~NTAL SERVICES
October 21, 1994
Ms. Patricia Osmonson
5100 Edgewater Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Subject:
Boundary Survey and Division in
Block 28, Seton
Our File No. 52360-001
Dear Ms. Osmonson:
At the request of the City of Mound, we submitted this letter prior to the
completion of the survey.
The area of your property, which is Parcel B, is 10,257 square feet, and the
area of Parcel A is 12,804 square feet.
The descriptions of the parcels will be as follows:
PARCEL A
Lots 10 and 16;
That part of Lots 11 and 15 lying north of the south 13.00 feet of said lots;
And the east half of that part of Devon Road originally dedicated on the
recorded plat of "SETON" and now vacated which lies between the
westerly extension of the north line of said Lot 16 and the southerly line
of Lot 14, Block 28;
All in Block 28,"SETON," according to the recorded plat thereof.
~ARCEL B.
Lots 12, 13 and 14;
And the south 13,00 feet of Lot 11 and 15;
Ail on Block 28, "SETON" according to the recorded plat thereof,
OST--2 I --~4 FR I 9 : $$ - P . 05
~CHOELI. & MADSON~ INC,
Ms. Patricia Osmonson
2
October 21, 1994
The survey will be sent to you as soon as it is completed, but there are a
couple of setbacks which may be of interest to the City of Mound. The duplex at
4800 to the west is 6.3 feet from the property line. The garage on your property,
Parcel B, is 2.1 feet from the newly created division line, and the garage on Parcel A
is 3.3 feet from the newly created division line. The house on Parcel B is 4.2 feet
from the newly created division line and the house on Parcel A is 11,9 feet from the
newly created division line.
Should you have any questions, please give us a call.
Very truly yours,
$CHOELL & MADSONLII~,
Theodore D, Kemna
TDK/cj
cc: Peggy James
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 10, 1994
CASE #94-71: PATRICIA OSMONSON, 4784WILSHIRE BLVD. & 2745TYRONE LANE,
LOTS 10- 16, BLOCK 28, SETON, PID #19-117-23230101 & 0102. MINOR SUBDIVISION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's report. In 1972 the subject
division was proposed by an Attorney for Ms. Osmonson who also sold her the property. The
Attorney sent the division to the County, and the County sent the division to the City for
approval, however, the City apparently never responded to the request. The County sent a
Title to Ms. Osmonson and she thought the issue was settled. Subsequently, during the
recent sale of her property, it was realized that the division was never recorded. Basically, the
subdivision is the only reasonable way to resolve the problem.
It may be possible that the lot line between parcels 1 and 2. could possibly be shifted to
provide a conforming setback to one of the detached garages. It is evident that variances will
need to be granted. The applicant is in the process of getting an updated survey.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
The lot line separating Parcels 1 and 2 shall be located in a manner that results in
conforming setbacks for the lot containing the two family home and detached garage
(Parcel 2).
Variances are hereby approved for the required side yard setback for the single family
home and garage on Parcel 1.
The applicant clarified that the house on Parcel 1 is also a duplex.
The location of the line separating Parcels 1 and 2 was discussed. It was suggested that it
may be better to have an equal amount of space between the lot line and the garages, such
as 3' and 3', versus one garage having a conforming 4' setback, and the other garage having
only a 2' setback. It was clarified that each parcel will probably be nonconforming regardless,
due to lot area. The Building Official suggested that the statement "If possible" be added to
the beginning of condition #1 in the staff recommendation. Jensen commented that she
would like to see Parcel 2 without variances, if possible.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions:
If possible, the lot line separating Parcels 1 and 2 shall be located
in a manner that results in conforming setbacks for the lot
containing the two family home and detached garage (Parcel 2).
e
Variances are hereby approved for the required side yard setback
for the two family home and garage on Parcel 1.
Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be reviewed by the City Council on October 25, 1994.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: October 5, 1994
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
APPLICANT: Patricia Osmonson
CASE NUMBER: 94-71
HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-5z
LOCATION: 4784 Wilshire Boulevard and 2745 Tyrone Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to correct an
existing lot configuration problem. At the time of the preparation of this report, the only survey
information available is from a photocopy of a 1972 survey. The survey shows that the single
family home and detached garage at 4784 Wilshire Boulevard substantially encroach onto the
property to the north which contains a two family dwelling and detached garage. Both properties
were expanded in the past as a result of the vacation of Devon Road which abutted the original
lots on the west end. To further complicate matters, the driveway that serves the garage for the
two family home uses the old Devon Road right-of-way to gain access to Wilshire Boulevard.
In doing so, it passes over the property to the south owned by Ms. Osmonson.
COMMENT: The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to establish a new lot line which
places the single family home and garage on one parcel and the two family home, garage and
driveway on the other parcel. In order to accomplish this goal, the existing northern lot line of
the applicant's parcel will be shifted 13 feet to the north. Additionally, the entire eastern half
of the vacated Devon Road right-of-way will become part of the parcel to the north.
Approval of the proposed minor subdivision will need to encompass a number of variance
approvals. Hardcover calculations were not available at the time of the preparation of this report.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160
[I I , IliJ, Il il
Osmonson Minor Subdivision Planning Report
October 5, 1994
Page 2
Variances that are required are based on scaled dimensions from the 1972 survey. Prior to
adoption of a final resolution on this case by the City Council, the variance dimensions should
be verified by a more accurate survey. For the purposes of discussion, the southern parcel
containing the applicant's single family home will be referred to as Parcel 1. The parcel to the
north containing the two family home will be referred to as Parcel 2. Location of the lot line as
proposed separating Parcels 1 and 2 will result in the following setbacks and variances:
Parcel 1' The existing home is required to observe a 10 foot side yard setback (north
side) because as a result of this subdivision, it is no longer a lot of record. The setback
resulting from the lot line placement is approximately 4 feet requiring a 6 foot variance.
The existing detached garage on Parcel 1 is required to have a side yard setback of 4 feet.
As a result of the relocation of the line, it has a setback of approximately 2 feet resulting
in a 2 foot variance.
Parcel 2: The existing two family dwelling on Parcel 2 meets setback requirements. The
detached garage is required to have a 4 foot setback. From information scaled from the
survey, it appears that the resulting setback will be 3.5 feet resulting in a .5 foot setback
variance.
The proposed subdivision is the only reasonable way to solve current problems related to these
two lots. The placement of the new lot line separating Parcels 1 and 2 could be shifted in such
a manner as to make all of the structures on Parcel 2 conforming. This would result in only
Parcel 1 being non-conforming and in need of variances.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions:
The lot line separating Parcels 1 and 2 shall be located in a manner that results in
conforming setbacks for the lot containing the two family home and detached garage
(Parcel 2).
Variances are hereby approved for the required side yard setback for the single family
home and garage on Parcel 1.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 3, 1994
Ms. Patricia Osmonson
5100 Edgewater Drive
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT:
Minor Subdivision Request by Pat Osmonson
4784 Wilshire Blvd./2745 Tyrone Lane
Dear Ms. Osmonson'
Please find enclosed a reduced copy of the survey you submitted for the subject
subdivision. I have highlighted the proposed dividing lines as I understand them to be.
If the proposed parcels are shown incorrectly, please let me know as soon as possible.
I felt it was important to clarify what the City needs on the survey in order to process
this subdivision in a timely manner. Please find enclosed a list of the survey
requirements.
This request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday, October 10,
1994. If possible, we would appreciate receiving the revised survey before this
meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Jon Sutherland,
Building Official, or myself.
Planning & Inspections Secretary
pJ
Enclosures
cc:
aOn. Ted Kemma, Schoell & Madson Inc., 10580 Wayzata Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55343
Sutherland, Building Officialj ~; t~
k Koegler, City Planner
prtnte~ff on ,ecycled paper
L;.i
.76/,o w3'7..y /x-ox.
/ C 1/4 0 S Ad 0~4 ~ 0 h4
NORTH..
....
09/22/94 16:33 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF MOUND
Application for
SI~ 2 31JIM
/~ O.gO. o o /~
.}H-IN, OR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0(R)0, Fax: 472-0~20
[~004
Pl&nning Commission Datel
city council cate,
Public Works
City Engineer
DNR
Other
Application Fee:
Escrow Deposit I
Deficient Unit Charges?
$~0.00
Delinquent Taxes? /~
VARIANCE REQUIRED? /~O
!~ type or print the followinf inform~iou:
Address Of Subject Property
.ot '/% -
Zoning District Use of Property
Applicant ' s Name (ifotherthan owt~r).
Block
Day Phone
Day Phone
Day Phone
conditional
y- ~'~ - 7do I
use permit, or other
Address
Name of Engineer '~J '/~f/"'/,,",,r,,,
r~l C.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance,
zoning procedure for thi~ property? ( ) yes, ~_ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application,
action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by a~ owners of the subject property, or an
explanation given why this is not the case.
Signature of Owner
Signature of Owner Date
MTNOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
city of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600~ F~X: 472-6020
55364
Any division of land creating not more than three residential lots. Such lots must conform to all the following:
Have frontage on an existing public road.
Not require the construction of any new public facilities or public improvements.
There will be no advers~ effect on remaining or adjoining properly.
There is no conflict with the Compreheasive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Official Map.
The relocation of the boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of proper~y; such relocation not causing the creation
of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to submitting a formal application, a sketch plan of the proposed subdivision and a drainage plan may
be submitted for review by the Building Official and/or Planning Staff in order to be made fully aware of all
applicable ordinances, regulations and plans in the area to be subdivided. The following information must be
included with your formal application for a minor subdivision:
Accurately completed application form, including name, address and day phone of applicant and
owners.
Verify correct address and existing legal description of subject property.
Certificate'of Survey showing:
a) Existing and provosed dividing lines showing all dimensions and area of each new parcel
measured ~bove the Ordinary High Water Mark, and ex~st~ng and orovosed legal descnpUo s.
__-- · I ~- I -
b) Drainage plan with existing and proposed elevations·
c)
d)
~ and proposed ~ ~, and off-street parking space_rt.
Distance b,etween existing and proposed structures to all propert~ lines including the OHW.
~'he distafice between principal building ~d principaWouildings on adjacent lots must also be
shown.
Location of signs, ~ underground utilities, existing _sew_e_r and water.., location~, etc.
Any additional information as may be reasonably required by the Administrator and applicable
sections of City Code Section 330.
Hardcover Calculations for each proposed parcel.
If scaled plans or survey are larger than 11" x 17", then 16 copies must be submitted with application.
One 8-1/2" x 11" size copy of plans and survey must be submitted with application (may be reduced).
Fees: $50 application fee and $;t,000 escrow deposii to be collected at time of application. Park
Dedication fee of $500 for each new lot created to be paid after City Council approval.
If any of the above mateda_! ks not submitted by the deadline date, you will not be placed on the agenda
.for that month. ~0~/
_/9r"a, poract
/ C/,~ 0 S/~'7 0
_~CHO~L t
NORTH,,
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation
of a survey of the boundaries of:
~A,~CEL A
Lots 12, 13 and lZ*, t~iock 28, "$eton", occord~n9 to the plat
thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar
of TitLes in and for said County, excluding any part of the
adjoining vacated Devon Road.
The South 13.00 feet of Lots 11 ~znd 15~ 3Lock 28, "$eton",
according to the plat thereof on file or of recurd in the
office of the hegistrar of l~t~es ~n ~nd for s~id County,
exc~ud~n9 any part of the adjotnin9 vacated Dewn Road.
r-,'u~t.L. C
~hat part of the East fla~f of vacated Devon Noad iy~ng
bet~en ~he north i[ne of ~itsh~re BouLevard and the westerly
extension of the north Line uf Lot ?¢, 3Lock 28, "$eton",
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
off,ce of the Registrar of lilies in and for Nennep~n County,
~innesota.
And of the Location of aLL buildings, thereon, and ail visible
encroachments, if any, fro~ or on said Land. As surveyed by ~e
this ?5th day o! December, 1~72.
Land .Surveyor, Hinn. Reg. Ira. ~37~,
GENEItaL ZONING IA'FORMATION SIIEET
2--~ ~'~'"~ ...............................................
Required Lot W~dth., ~ -- (frontage on an.improved p~blic s~ree~) ~
SETBACKS REQUIRED:
PRINCIPAL BUILDINg
;:::;--'
~$HO~= 50' Imeasure~ fro~ O.H.w, )
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS=
)FRONT: N $ E W
J.~ONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE{ N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE 1
ACCESSORY BUILDING
4' Or
4' or 9'
· $0' tmeasured~rom O.H.W,}
[~ PRINCIPAl, BUILDING { ACCESSORy BUILD N~
SIDE: N S g W
TY CONFO~ING? YES, NO WILL THE PR~SED IMPROVE~TS ~NFO~?YES, NO .
¢{4o 4~,{
( "'"'
S'JF F,:'L'~ 5 5 ~D __
GOVT LOTS 3 & 4
~(~)i
(~)
-..
/
/
/
Required Lot Width:
Existing Lot Width
SETBACKS REQUIRED:
FRONT ~ N S ~ W
SIDE~
SIDE: N
PEAR ~ N S E
~SHO~
50' Imeasured from o.H,w.]
Lot of Record? yes
(frontage on an improved pubXlc etreet)
, Depth
FRONT: N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
PEAR: N S E W
LAKESROPE ~
ACCESSORY BUILDING
4' Or
50' (measur~ from
~0
10
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDIN~
FRONT: N S
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
i LA~SHO~EI
IS T~PERTY CONFORRI NG ?
YES NO
ACCESSORY BUILDIN~
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE
NO
GOVT LOTS 5 & 4
~1~-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 87~ P02 OCT ~1 '94 08:0~
Ho'~ington Koegler Group Inc.
MEMORANDUM
October 20, 1994
To; Mound City Council
From: Bruce Chamberlain, Planning Consultant
Re: Pelican Point final plat modification.
Upon field staking at Pelican Point, the developer has determined that several
significant trees can be saved with slight alterations to the street alignment.
Alterations of this nature require City approval and a formal change to the final plat.
Therefore, the developer is requesting modifications to the final plat at this time.
The modifications are relatively minor. No lots are impacted. The entry drive off of
Tuxedo Blvd. would be shifted approximately 8 feet to the south and the intersection
of Pelican Point Circle and Pelican Point Court would be shifted roughly 20 feet
northwest. The Developer has provided a modified final plat showing the proposed
changes.
The City Engineer and City Planner have reviewed the proposed alterations and
recommend approval of final plat modifications. Enclosed is a resolution to this
effect. If you have any questions, staff will be available at the meeting.
PELMOD~EM
Land Use/Environmental ~ Planning/12~ign
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 * Minneapolis, Minneuata 55439 · (6123 835-9960 * Fax: (6123 83%3160
61~-8~5-~160
I I,
HO I S I NGTON KOEGLER
i
8?3 PO~
OCT 21 '94 08:03
RESOL~ON ~94-~..
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
MODIFYING THE FINAL PLAT FOR PELICAN POINT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPM'F..NT
WHEREAS, approval of the final plat of Pelican Point has been granted by the
City Council with conditions under Resolution 94-136; and
WHEREAS, upon field staking of thc project, the developer has determined that
the alteration of street alignment will allow several significant trees to be preserved; and
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit has been issued for the project to create a
Planned Development Area (PDA) and one of the benefits of a PDA is to allow the development
flexibility to preserve vegetation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
The final plat drawing for Pelican Point Residential Development shall be
amended from tha~ originally approved by Resolution 94-136 to conform with
Exhibit A attached.
The Developer shall modify construction documents and the site plan to be in
accordance with the changes made in Exhibit A.
Thc modified plans shall replace the previous ones as the legal documentation of
project approval.
Z
Z
I.U
~ 0
0 ~
U 0
0
H
C)
0 I~
0 ~] ~.
~ 0
i 11,
u 0
0 ~ ~
~ o
!
t
I /~
, ~'
/'%
t
!
I-.-, I-h 0 I-hi:
0 ~ ~o~o
~'~0~0~
~0~
~-D 0 D
~ 0
0 ~
~ 0
0
0
Lr ..... ~'] ..........
- -19
/
t
Lot
/ Lot
26
Lot 2
ot 23
1
/
!
u,,xAI Nt--',~,- AND
UTIL~ EASEMENT
LITY
AND
·
)SS
,EME~
/.,. ~, ,~
.,--,'.'? ',
i
October 11, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-136
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
PELICAN POINT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
UNDER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) REQUIREMENTS
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 Statutes 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.
281
October 11, 1994
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 a 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;
282
FT-T- i"T T Tlr
October 11, 1994
A. Final plat approval is hereby granted for Pelican Point Multi-Family Residential
Subdivision under PDA requirements, 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 the conditions of the preliminary
plat approval (Resolution ~4-78) set forth and incorporated herein as part of the document and
the following conditions;
The Developer shall secure all applicable permits as defined by the City Engineer from
all entities with jurisdiction over this project.
Permits for docks shall be obtained from the DNR and LMCD for the construction of 40
docks to serve the development. The City strongly favors Plan "A" which has been
presented to this City Council and which results in the construction of 40 dock slips off
the mainland, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. It
is understood that dock density is being used from that part of Outlot C which is called,
"the island", to complete the 40 dock slips. In the event the DNR or the LMCD do not
approve Plan "A", the Council approves Plan "B", a copy of which is attached. This
would result in 28 docks being constructed off the mainland and would allow the
construction of 12 dock slips off the most northerly part of that part of Outlot C, referred
to as "the island". In either event, a Conservation Easement shall be prepared and
dedicated to the public which keeps that part of Outlot C, which is referred to as "the
island", in a natural state and will prevent all construction of any structures on that part
of Outlot C, called "the island", except the limited area necessary to access the 12 dock
slips if Plan B is necessary.
The Council is approving 40 dock slips and strongly requests the DNR and the LMCD
to approve Plan A. The applicant has argued that the land would allow 57 dock sites off
the mainland and the island and the Council is not precluding an application for more
than 40 dock sites if Plan A or Plan B are not approved by the DNR and the LMCD.
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 until all applicable provisional or final
permits have been issued by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other
applicable agencies.
The Developer shall provide the City Attorney with Homeowner's Documents and
Declaration of Covenants for his review and approval. The Developer shall also provide
the City Attorney with information necessary to conduct a title search and make a clear
title opinion, all prior to filing of the final plat with Hennepin County.
283
I- [11-
October 11, 1994
e
Lot 8, Block 2 on the final plat shall reflect a modification to the utility easement as
defined by the City Engineer.
Prior to any work on the site, 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 and shall
require compliance with all City Codes not modified by this resolution. As part of the
development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond, an
irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in
the amount of 125 % of the cost of all applicable public improvements necessary to be
completed prior to filing the final plat. The Developer shall also provide the necessary
escrow funds required in Section 330:30 of the City Code.
The Declaration of Covenants shall be amended to include a description of bluff area
limitations as stated in the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Covenants
shall also include a map showing designated bluff areas.
o
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 240 days of the City Council
approving the final plat (October 11, 1994).
10.
Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities
and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and
Building Official.
11.
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.
12.
Construction and maintenance of the site shall adhere to MPCA Best Management
Practices. Construction documents submitted to the City Engineer shall reflect said
BMPs.
13.
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.
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.
284
October 11, 1994
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by
Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused.
SS/SKIP JOHNSON
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
285
U'T-T- ¥1-T ............ r Tll
PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT
Use of a public park or commons by any group consisting of 15 or
more ,individuals.
Use is not to interfere wi~h traffic and general use of the park or
commons or to be beyond.the ability of the police in maintaining
order.
NO LIQUOR MAY BE USED IN ANY OF THE CITY PARKS OR BUILDINGS ~.¢~,'¢,~
Group is to remove all litter and trash 'and provide a<desopi~to
insure cleaning up of the park area. ~
Deposit
Date of Use ~- /'~,, //~l J'~// jE~ ~,.~-
Area to be Used ~ICiA~ ~(~o~ ¢~
Time Frame V,' ~3 ,~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~'
Intended Use ~~ ~)~ ~~
Expected Attendance ~ ~ ~
Organization ~~ ~f¢[¢~ ~ ~;' ~' ~~
Representatives Name ~'~ ~'~
Address ~ ~V ~~~~ ~
Telephone No. Home: ~'~ -~ ~ Work.:
Drivers Lic. No.
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
City Manager
Police Dept.
Park Dept.
Section 615 - Clt~ Parks
Section 615:00. Park Hours. To protect the peace and quiet of persons residing
near public parks and to protect public property fro,, vandalism, all public
parks shall be closed to public use from 10:00 o'clock p.m. until $:00 o'clock a.m.
the next day. Public parks shall be open for public use from 5:00 o'clock a.~.
until 10:00 o'clock p.m. of each day. Any person convicted of violating this
Section 615:00 shall be guilty of.a ~tsdemeanor.
Section 615:05. Public Catherinls - Permit Required. Use of a public park or
co-,mona by any group consisting of 15 or ~ore indiv~duals gathering together or by
any organization which brings 15 or more persons on to public lands to meect
picnic, or conduct a group activity shall ~'eouire a p.ermit from the Clt~ Manager.
The City ~lanager may issue said permit if he or she determines that the area
be used for said meeting or group activity is available and that its collective
use will not interfere with traffic and general use of the park or commons, and
that said activity is not beyond the ability Of the police in maintaining order.
The City Hanager may impose other reasonable' conditions including a require~ent
that said group remove all litter and trash and provide a cash deposit to
up the park area, and he or she ~ay obtain the advice of the Police Chief and other
staff personnel before issui.n.g said permits.. The City Hanager ~ay deny said permit
or refer it to the City Council for consideration. Any per,its issued by the
City Beringer or the City Council shall be subject to reasonable conditions to protect
the publicts investment in its public parks and to protect the general public's '
use of their park and con,on areas.
Section 810:50. Restrictions on Purchase and Consu~ptio~.
Subd. 1. Age Ktsrepresentation. No ~lnor shall misrepresent his or her
age for the purpose of obtaining beer.
Subd. 2. Inducing Purchase. No person shall induce a per'sin under age
19 to purchase or procure beer.
Subd. 3. P~rocure=ent. No person other than the parent or legal guardian.shall
~rocure beer for any person under the mini~u~ age allowed by Chapter 340A of
Minnesota Statutes.
Subd. 4. Possession. No person under the mini~ta age allowed by Chapter 340A
of Minnesota Statutes shall have beer in his or her possession with the intent
to consume it at a place other than the household of his or her parent or
guardian,
Subd. 5. Consu=ptio~n. No minor shall'consume beer on any licensed prenises.
Subd. 6. Consumption Prohibited - ~her~. Except as provided in Section
Subd. 3, no beer shall be consumed in any theater~ recreation hall or center~
dance ha11~ ball park, or other place of public ~athering used for the purpose
of entertainment, amusement~ or playing of games~ except bowlin$ alleys.
Except as.provided in Section 810:05~ Subd. 3, no person shall consume beer
on a public highway, public park~ or other public pl&ce.
Subd. 7. Liquor Consumption and Display. No person shall consmne or display
any intoxicating liquor on the premises-of a licensee who is not also
licensed to sell intoxicating liquors or who does not hold a consu~tion
and display permit.
-H
Z
0
U
0 0
0 0 0
,,~ ' .
0
~ 0 0
00~
O0
O~
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0~
0 ~J~
0
~)
E
{0
0
E
0
0
:>
0
0
~ 0
~ 0
O~
0
Z
Z
d
d
RESOLUTION #94 -
RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY
TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT
COUNTY ROAD 110 (COMMERCE BLVD.) AND
THREE POINTS BLVD. IN THE CITY OF MOUND
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is concerned with the
health, safety and welfare of the City; and
WHEREAS, the housing density and traffic has increased on Hennepin
County Road 110 North and Three Points Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, traffic studies have been conducted by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MNDOT) which indicate that the amount of traffic at
this location has increased over the years; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County's traffic signal ranking system, which
reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity, has indicated that the
intersection has a priority factor of 37; and
WHEREAS, the County will not normally install, or allow to be installed,
traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30; and
WHEREAS, this location does meet Hennepin County's traffic signal
criteria for a traffic signal; and
WHEREAS, it is the City of Mound's understanding that the earliest
Hennepin County could have the traffic signal installed would be 1996; and
WHEREAS, design work by Hennepin County would have to be done in
1995; and
WHEREAS, it is the City of Mound's understanding that Hennepin County
would pay ,.,,
WHEREAS, the City of Mound would pay for'75% of this estimated cost.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, hereby requests that Hennepin County install a traffic signal at the
intersection of County Road 110 (Commerce Boulevard) and Three Points Boulevard
in 1996.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Hennepin County include this project in
its 1996 transportation budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mound will set aside the
appropriate monies in 1995 and 1996 to pay for its share of the cost for the traffic
signal, to be constructed in 1996.
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
FI 'O'D S£P 1_ 9 '94
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
September 15, 1994
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: CSAH 110 (Commerce Boulevard) at Three Points Boulevard
Cities of Mound and Minnetrista
Dear Mr. Shukle:
As per our conversation on September 14, 1994, I am forwarding a copy of
correspondence pertaining to the referenced location.
In addition, a review was made of the traffic accident history at this
intersection for the three year period from 1990 through 1992. There have
been a total of 17 motor vehicle accidents during this period, of which
seven were right angle crashes. This results in a 1990-92 three year
accident rate of 1.57 accidents per million vehicles (ACC/MV) entering the
intersection. The three year (1990-92) county average for a tee
intersection is 0.48 ACC/MV.
In accordance with Hennepin County's Traffic Signal Ranking System, which
reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity, this
intersection has a priority factor of 37. As a general policy, the County
will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at
intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. This location does
meet our criteria.
If you have any questions, please call me at 930-2680.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Johnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ/DAL:gk
Attachment
Department of Public Works
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
(612) 930-2670 FAX:(612) 930-2513 TDD:(612) 930-2696
Recycled P,
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 5, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Patrick B. Murphy
Dennis L. Hansen
CSAH ilo at Three Points Boulevard
City of Mound
A traffic study taken at the intersection of CSAH 110 and Three Points Boulevard
on February 11 and 13, 1992, has identified a traffic signal warrant. The
intersection exceeded the requirements of Warrant Number 9, Four Hour Volume.
Copies of the signal warrant review and 16 hour turning movement study are
attached.
Accidents have not presented a pressing problem at this intersection although the
frequency and rate are somewhat higher than one would normally expect. Seven
accidents occurred in 1988, four in 1989, four in 1990 and three in the first six
months of 1991. This results in a 1988-90 three year accident rate of 1.47
accidents per million {Acc/MV} entering the intersection. County average for a
tee intersection with similar traffic contact is 0.55 Acc/MV. Ten of the 18
accidents that occurred during the three and one half year study period were
right angle crashes. Copies of the accident diagrams and summary are attached.
On March 3, 1992 I spoke with Mr. Ed Shukle, Mound City Manager, concerning the
city's interest in a traffic signal at CSAH ilo and Three Points Boulevard. Ed
indicted that the city had received a few complaints about traffic conditions at
this location. However, his opinion was that the city does not consider more
stringent control as a pressing need. If a traffic signal is to be installed he
does not know where the city will find the money to participate (city obligation
would be 75% of the estimated cost of $80,000). He is not certain what the city
council's position would be.
This location will be included in the traffic signal priority listing currently
being developed by the Transportation Planning Section. 'We anticipate the
priority list will be available within two weeks.
The traffic study was prompted by an inquiry from Commissioner Tad Jude as to the
feasibility of traffic signal installation at this intersection.
DLH:gk
Attachments
WlDMER INC.
P.O. Box 219
ST. BONIFACIUS, MINNESOTA 55375
Phone 446-1495
FAX 446-1836
Page No.
1
of
Pages
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
City of Mound
STREET
5341 Maywood
CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
Mound, MN 55364
ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS
PHONE I DATE
472-1251 9-27-94
JOB NAME
snowplowinq
JOB LOCATION
JOB
PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
966E Cat (5 yd) -$95.00 per hr.
66...Ka~asaki..(4 yd) $85..00 per hr.
950 Cat (3-3.5 yd) $82.OO per hr.
309 Komatsu (3.. yd.) :$8.2~00 per .hr,
140G Cat .......... ---$85.00 per hr.
99E cat::::::'-:::,, :-:::r~.73.00 per hr,
Trucks with plow & spin sanders --$60.00 per hr.
4...X 4 Pickups ,:$53.00 per hr.
1845 Case Skid Loaders with or w/o broom ...... $65.00 per hr,
Tandem DUmps ( fqr hau!in.g.) ,$53. 00 per hr.
Salt-Sand Delivered ---$40.00 per ton
We reserve the. right to file a' Mechanics Lien-if bill is not paid' within the length of tinle' prescribed bylaw;You agree to" pay-ell-cost
incu~.red .l~.rtaining t° lien. we wi!l not be responsible ~Or any underg~0und utilities that can.r~0t be 10ca~ed...by th.e...~t!!!ty..~0nlpa!~!es
or the homeowner. Normal clean-up is included in this proposal. There is no sod figured in this proposal. We will not assume the
responsibility for water pipes, trees, tree roots, sprinkler systems, etc. unless notified to exact location prior to excavating. Frost
ripping extra charge; it'is expressly stipulated and agreed that the undersigned shall not be held liable for damages to grass, trees,
shrubs and any underground obstructions, including pipes, electrica w r ng and etc In bidd ng job we figure soil to be dry. If wet,
there will be extra charges based on time and material.
~lle ~Iropose hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
PER HOUR RATES dollars ($ ).
Payment to be made as follows:
WITHIN 30 DAYS UPON BILLING
A finance charge of 1.5% per month (18% annual rate) will be charged on past due accounts.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices, Any alteration or deviation from above specifica-
tions involving extra costs will be executed only uDon written orders, and will become an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. tornado and other necessary insurance.
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
Authorized
Signature
Note: This proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
15
days
ro osa,-,heabove prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance: Signature
J 41,
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS
IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
The City of Mound will receive bids at 5341Maywood Road,
Mound, Minnesota until 11:00 AM on Monday, October 17, 1994
for snow removal from the Central Business District parking
lots and other areas as designated.
The successful bidder will be required to post a Performance
Bond or Certified Check in the amount of $500.00.
The successful bidder must furnish liability of not less than
$200,000 for each individual, $600,000 for each occurrence,
and against liability for property damage of not less than
$50,000 for each occurrence.
The City reserves the right to reject any' and all bids and
waive any informalities.
Bid forms may be obtained from Public Works, 5341Maywood Rd.
Mound, Mn.
Francene C. Clark
City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 20, 199/4
TO;
FROM;
Ed Shukle
City Manager
Joyce Nelson ~'
Recycling Coordinator
SUBJECT; Curbsi¢le Recycling Bids
Request for Proposal for curbside pickup of recyclables were
received on October 11, 1994. Listed below are the companies
that sent in proposals with charges per household per month.
BFI - $2.71 per household
Randy's Sanitation - $2.85 per household
Waste Management - $2.00 per household
E-Z Recycling - $1.85 per household
As of the present we ate paying Knutson Recycling $1.90 per
household per month, but they did not submit a proposal.
These bids are for 3 years and after that time we can extend
the contract or go out for new proposals.
It was decided by the Lake Minnetonka Solid Waste Management
Group (Cities of Mound, Wayzata, Shorewood, Excelsior, Spring
Park and Minnetonka Beach) that we would recommend E-Z
Recyclir, g's proposal. E-Z Recycling has the contract for
the cites of Long Lake, Maple Plain, Medina, 6reenfield,
Independence and Orono. E-Z Recycling does recycling only
and no garbage pickup.
The City of Wayzata accepted E-Z Recycling's proposal on
Tuesday, October 18.
printed on recycled paper
,..~, Jl l... IJJ, I ~I. I ~ hi
'~'474,.0128 I~E oct. 20, 1994 G10:09AM L32/2
[.;{ty ol ~5~orewoocl
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor and City Council
James c. ~urm, city Administrator
October 19, 1994
Recycling Contract
Please find enclosed a copy of a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for recycling services. Paragraph one of page one will
detail our purposes.
The Lake Minnetonka Recycling Group (LMRG) has met on several
occasions to consider the need for and the scope of a new
contract for recycling services. A comprehensive proposal
was developed after meetings with five separate service
providers to advise us of collection methodology and market
availability for various products. We received four (4)
proposals. Listed on the following page are the costs for
services and costs for revenue sharing for each proposal.
At our last meeting on October 12, the consensus of the L~RG
was to recommend to the various City Councils that contracts
be awarded to E-Z Recycling Inc.
E-Z currently has contracts with New Brighton, Arden Hills,
St. Paul NEC, Orono, Medina, Maple Plain, N. St. Paul, Spring
Lake Park, Loretto, Independence, Long Lake, Dayton,
Corcoran, Falcon Heights, and the West Hennepin Recycling
Group. The coordinators for 9 of their programs have been
called. We received glowing reports from each one.
enclosed: RFP
E-Z Recycling Proposal
BILLS
.October 25, 1994
Batch 4093
Batch 4102
Total Bills
$244,912.96
153,447.76
$398,360.72
oo '= o° ~
-_j
° ~ °
Z
Z
Z
J
~ 0
t.,- Z
On-,
u
r~
~.~
0
I Ill
I
CD
,0 .o
× ~
I
t~
IIII
I IIIIII I I
C3
U
i
--J
13.
--.I
0
u.J ,"'~
I I
CD.._;
U ~
..JO.
J
U~
t,kJ
I I I tllllll I I II
CZ)
~ ~oo
,
! 111
October 25, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 9~
RESOL~ION APPROVING THE SUBi~IITTAL OF THE
1995 MI3NICIPAL RECYCLINNG GRANT APPLICATION
TO HENNEPIN COUNTY
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the submittal of the 1995 Municipal Recycling Grant
Application to Hennepin County. This grant application will be in effect from January 1, 1995
to December 31, 1999.
MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program
January 1, 1995 - December 31, 1999
MOUND
City"-'~
Please provide a brief description of your city's recycling program within the space below. Include information on
promotional and waste reduction activities, material collected, special collections, etc. Note any major program
changes planned or anticipated during this Period. A resolution passed by your Council/Board/Commission approving
submittal of this application must be attached.
The City of Mound will continue with the
newsprint, gia&s, metal, ma azin Curbside pick-up of recycles, to include
will also co ' g es, phone boo ncentiv~ for recycling.
ntznue the Westo ~: n_~_ ks, plastzcs with a n
n .... v~-ars as an i-- - eck. The City
also continue the have the Special Recycling Day. We will
~:~: "~'"'"/~ "::~:"'""':'"'""~'~-" ....... "~"~'. ............. ~-..~'-~& :~' ' &~%' ~'~- · ~---~-x - - .
..................................................
General Fund: ~ Yes
~. Curbside ~lle~ion ~ntr~ior: ~_Z Rec~l~n~ C. Cont~ Date~e~: ~995-~997
o. Coll~ion ~ HH/MO: $. 1.8S E. Retie and Rec?cling ~ll~ed ~me D8~: ~ Yes ~ No
F. Collection Frequency: j~ Weekly 0 Bi-weekly ~ Twice Monthly
G, No. of Households with Curbside Collection ~ ~ ? ?
H. Method Used to Determine # of Householda Served (check all that apply):
Property Tax Records E] Utility Billing Records'Sll Building Permits i~ Other(specify)
.... · ................................................... <.-..-.'-, :~<:~.--'~...~::.-: < ~...:.:-.:..-::'.'.<~:
A. Program Administration $
B. Proi~otional Activities ~n_ nnn
· $ 3,000
C. Collection
Curbside
Drop-Off $ 360,000
$ so,ooo
D. Curbside Collection Containers $ ~$,000
i/:::.?:: :i .::':.' :....!: .i:: :::'~::i::::i'!:?.i:ii.::.::.. Total Exbenditures
: iiii ¥.:.: ' : ': Sale: of RecYClableS 0~0:
~. ;i :!' ." ': .. Anticipated.RevenUeS from ~:.... :
i:":
A. Residential Source-Separated Collections Curbside Drop-Off I Multi-Housing
¢Ootlonal) Total Tons
PAPER: 3,000 160 3,160
METAL: 400 500 20 920
GLASS: 800 40 840
PLASTIC: 150 10 160
OTHER: Corrugated 180 25 205
80 80
: ReCycling %1. :: (Total Tons divided bY Res: Waste:Genii:; ;? iiiili ;; ! ii i !: i :: :::i ~ii i:
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Sept. 1994
75.00%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Charges to Other
Departments
Sept. 1994 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,231,780 0 611,71 0 (620,070) 49.66%
9,450 20 7,789 (1,661) 82.42%
59,850 9,828 80,753 20,903 134.93%
884,960 2,600 501,41 4 (383,546) 56.66%
49,500 950 9,905 (39,595) 20.01%
65,000 3,913 39,403 (25,597) 60.62%
60,800 632 26,966 (33,834) 44.35%
15,000 162 8,701 ¢6,299) 58.01%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,376,340 18,105 1,286,641 ¢1.089,699) 54.14%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
308,817 28,838 237,819 (70,998) 77.01%
1 08,000 3,267 87,808 (20,192) 81.30%
1,300,000 113,153 1,003,459 (296,541) 77.19%
380,000 35,109 258,563 (121,437) 68.04%
680,000 58,015 505,602 (174,398) 74.35%
5,650 600 1,905 (3,745) 33.72%
72,000 1 O0 72,678 678 100.94%
10/16/94
rev94
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
Sept. 1994
75.00%
Sept. 1994 YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Council 63,130 7,647
Promotions 2,000 0
Cable TV 1,380 0
City Manager/Clerk 1 80,330 19,544
Elections 11,320 4,464
Assessing 48,350 17
Finance 1 51,080 16,048
Computer 24,200 2,007
Legal 81,500 11,778
Police 795,240 76,503
Civil Defense 5,400 (86)
Planning/Inspections 157,850 16,124
Streets 397,520 35,380
City Property 102,860 6,110
Parks 136,620 14,993
Sum mer Recreation 33,930 0
Contingencies 40,000 1,313
Transfers 134,240 10,026
43,710
0
621
131,215
8,222
50,180
110,213
15,783
70 485
557 373
I 302
108 539
265 739
67 804
1 O0 630
475
5,187
90,240
VARIANCE
1 9,420
2,000
759
49,115
3,098
(1,830)
4O 867
8 417
11 015
237 867
4 098
49.311
1 31 781
35 056
35 990
33,455
34,813
44,000
PERCENT
EXPENDED
69.24%
0.00%
45.00%
72.76%
72.63%
I O3.78%
72.95%
65.22%
86.48%
70.09%
24.11%
68.76%
66.85%
65.92%
73.66%
1.40%
12.97%
67.22%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~366~950 221~868 1~627~718 739~232 68.77%
Area Fire
Service Fund 240,190 26,859 158,841 81,349 66.13%
Recycling Fund 104,330 10,197 102,641 1,689 98.38%
Liquor Fund 190,840 19,017 145,775 45,065 76.39%
Water Fund 834,990 109,376 554,472 280,518 66.40%
Sewer Fund 1,390,280 87,932 922,362 467,918 66.34%
Cemetery Fund 5,240 0 3,038 2,202 57.98%
Docks Fund 53,680 6,848 45,204 8,476 84.21%
exp94
10/17/94
G.B.
RECEIVED 1 3 JJJ
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
Agenda
8:30 am, Friday, October 21, 1994
Norwest Bank Bldg., Conference Rm 135,
Wayzata
1. Introductions, temporary chair Gene Stron~nen
2. Review, accept/amend minutes of 8/16/94 as mailed;
o
LMCD operations report, Gene Strommen:
a. 1994 Lake Minnetonka milfoil harvest closing report,
per advance copy;
b. Introduction to LMCD explorations to contract the
harvest program to an independent contractor for 1995
o
MN DNR report:
a. Minnesota Conservation Corps report on inspection of
watercraft and equipment at infested lakes,
Tom Hagle;
b. DNR update on Eurasian water milfoil monitoring,
control, Chip Welling;
c. Additional DNR milfoil priorities;
Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee report
per meeting of 10/19/94 (preceding this meeting);
6. Hennepin Parks update, John Barren;
7. Lake association reports;
8. Additional business;
Discussion of priorities, further Task Force direction,
next meeting;
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
OCTOBER 13, 1994
Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, David
Steinbring, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, and Bill Darling, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and
Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Tom Casey was absent and excused. Council
Representative Andrea Ahrens was absent.
The following persons were also in attendance: none.
MINUTES
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Geffre to approve the Park and Open
Space Commission Minutes of September 8, 1994 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Schmidt added the following items to the agenda for discussion:
Bluebird Recovery Program Report
Community Education Task Force Report
Economic Development Commission, Promotions Task Force,
Report by Carolyn Schmidt
It was determined that Winter Dock Storage and the Planting Policy will be discussed at the
November meeting.
Schmidt noted that the September Minutes indicated that Ahrens requested a list of the
locations where the stairways are to be constructed on the commons. Fackler stated that he
mailed Ahrens a copy of the list. For their information, Fackler distributed copies of the list
of locations to the Commission.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO DOCK LOCATION MAP - DISCUSSIOH
The Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the recommended changes to the 1995 Dock
Location Map. A public hearing will be held at the November Park Commission Meeting. The
Council must consider the proposed changes by January 15 of each year.
1. REMOVAL OF DOCK SITE//33120.
Dock Site #33120 at 4536 Denbigh Road has reverted to private lakeshore due to erosion of
the shoreline, as indicated on the survey dated August 16, 1994. This survey shows the
corner stakes of 4536 Denbigh Road are in the water. It is recommended Dock Site #33120
be deleted from the City of Mound Dock Location Map.
McCaffrey noted that there is one other site further down on this shoreline that has the same
situation and is now considered private shoreline.
c//oy
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
October 13, 1994
Fackler reviewed the possibility of reclaiming the land by filling and getting permission from
the DNR.
2. ADDITION OF ONE OR TWO DOCK SITES AT LOST LAKE PARK.
Several people from the Lost Lake area have requested that we add additional dock sites at
Lost Lake Park. Please note the Park Commission Minutes of December 15, 1987 in which
nine dock sites were originally recommended, and the City Council Minutes of January 26,
1988 when only six sites were approved.
McCaffrey stated that it appears there could be room for one addition dock at each end of the
existing docks. He suggested that the property irons will need to be located to verify the
available space. The Parks Director added that he thinks there will only be enough room for
one sided dockage on each dock, due to the cattails.
The rationale previously used by the Council to reduce the number of docks was reviewed to
be the amount of boat traffic, which was noted to be a moot point considering the proposed
dockage at the end of the Lost Lake channel.
The Commission requested that all the residents in the Lost Lake Addition, and the one house
on Bartlett, be notified that this will be reviewed at the November meeting. The secretary
noted that it will also be published in the paper.
RIPRAP: RED ROCK VS. FIELD STONE
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his memorandum to the Commission. The differences
between the two types of rock, red rock and field stone, were 'discussed.
It was determined that the Park Commission would look at the different types of riprap during
their annual parks tour scheduled for Spring of 1995, and they would compare the different
types of riprap and look at jobs done at different times to compare the amount of deterioration.
1996 PARK IMPROVEMENTS: 1) EDGEWATER PARK, & 2) DUNDEE PARK {TEMPORARY
NAME)
The Parks Director explained that these two parks have been earmarked in the proposed
budget to receive improvements in 1996, and at this time he is only looking for suggestions
for improvements. Fackler suggested that the neighbors of each park be notified and be given
the opportunity to express their feelings on the parks.
Fackler noted that surveys of each park will need to be completed. The parking issue at
Edgewater Park will need to be addressed.
Geffre suggested a sign be placed on the fence side, or Edgewater Drive side of the park, and
noted that the stairs are difficult to see.
Fackler explained that land restoration will be a first priority at Dundee; apparently there is an
old foundation from a house on this lot. Some tree trimming is also needed.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 13. 1994
If it is found that playground equipment is wanted at either park, Jim would like to be able to
order the equipment by January. He has already reserved the Minnesota Tree Trust to do any
playground installations.
The Commission determined that the neighbors of each park should be notified and this issue
can be brought back for discussion at the November meeting.
WlNTERFEST
Schmidt recalled that Bill Darling was going to send letters to the local organizations about a
sponsorship for the event. Darling reported that the letters were just sent and he has not had
a response yet.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) - LOST LAKE PROMOTIONS TASK FORCF
Carolyn Schmidt informed the Commission that she is a member of the Lost Lake Promotions
Task Force as a representative of the Park Commission. The development plan for Lost Lake
was displayed and she explained it. She indicated that the Task Force is seriously looking at
obtaining the adjacent land currently owned by Balboa. They initially plan to develop the land
for use by the Farmer's Market. There is no money for development, the only monies they
have is the grant for the dredge.
The Commission discussed ideas for development, use, and funding.
Park Director's Report.
Jim Fackler reported that the maintenance crew is getting prepared for winter. The skating
rink being developed by the hockey boosters by the pond arena was discussed. Fackler noted
that he has not been updated on the activities, and the last he heard, they wanted the City
to help with maintenance. It was noted that they are now proposing a bubble to be
constructed over the rink to help with weather issues.
Dock Inspector's Report.
Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, informed the Commission that he is getting ready to make
his rounds to inspect for dock removals.
Bluebird Recovery Pro.qram Report
Peter Meyer reported on the' results of the first year of the Bluebird Recovery Program in
Mound's Parks. Out of 14 total boxes, there were nine bluebird families, however, no babies
were hatched. The season went well and there was no vandalism. The swallows did better
than the bluebirds, but he is hopeful that next year will be better.
Community Education Task Force
Was not discussed.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Steinbring to adjourn the Park and Open
Space Commission Meeting at 9:03 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
3
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 10, 1994
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill
Voss, Mark Hanus, Lisa Crum, and Ed Surko, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City
Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jori Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James.
Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle was absent and excused.
The following people were also in attendance: Pat Osmonson and Gunnar Oas.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 1994 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of September 12, 1994 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE #94-70: HAPPY GARDEN RESTAURANT, SANG CAM KYt 2212 COMMERCE
BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, COMMERCE PLACE, PID #13-117-2333 0081. CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR CLASS IV RESTAURANT,NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR SERVICE RESTAt JRANT.
PUBLIC HEARING.
The applicants were not present.
Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's report. Happy Garden
Restaurant is moving to the space in Commerce Place previously occupied by Lovin Oven. The
restaurant requires a conditional use permit because they propose to serve "non-intoxicating
liquor" which includes wine and 3.2 beer. Building permits have been issued. The restaurant,
without the wine and beer, is a permitted use in the B-1 zone. The City Planner's report
addresses parking issues, and one of his suggestions is that the City and the JRW Properties,
owner of the center, may want to examine the possibility of either establishing two or three
parking spaces for short term parking near the restaurant. Sutherland explained that there is
a pull-in area at the rear of the building, however, the Fire Department designated a fire lane
surrounding the building and this may cause a conflict. This issue would need to be reviewed
with the pertinent departments, at a staff level.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use
permit to allow the operation of the Happy Garden Restaurant as a Class IV restaurant in
Commerce Place. The recommended approval is contingent on the following conditions:
Happy Garden Restaurant shall comply with all applicable building, health and fire code
requirements.
2. Garbage and waste from the restaurant shall be handled and disposed on in
conformance with applicable ordinance requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes October 10. 1994
The granting of this conditional use permit allows operation of the restaurant only,
liquor service shall be in conformance with the licensing requirements of the City of
Mound.
Mueller expressed a concern about how the wastes from the restaurant will be disposed of.
It was noted that the door at the back, off the kitchen area, leads to a hallway which leads
to an exit door at the rear of the building where the dumpster area is located. Concern about
the amount of waste was expressed. The Building Official stated that staff has worked with
the building owner on this issue in the past, and if additional pick-ups are needed in order to
maintain the dumpster area, then it will be done. In addition, if the enclosure area was
enlarged, this would reduce available parking.
The zoning district of the privately owned property located to the east of Commerce Place was
questioned.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being nobody present to speak on the issue.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for Happy Garden Restaurant, as recommended by staff,
including the listed conditions.
Hanus asked that the motion include the suggestion, as stated in the Staff Report, about the
City and JRW examining the possibility of establishing two or three short term parking spaces.
Hanus also asked for clarification on the zoning district of the property to the east.
Due to the fact that the applicants were not present, and nobody else was present to speak
on the issue, the Chair suspended discussion on this case in order to discuss the next case
on the agenda since those applicant's were present.
CASE #94-71: PATRICIA OSMONSON, 4784WILSHIRE BLVD. & 2745TYRONE LANE,
LOTS 10 - 16, BLOCK 28, SETON, PID #19-117-2323 0101 & 0102. MINOR SUBDIVISION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's report. In 1972 the subject
division was proposed by an Attorney for Ms. Osmonson who also sold her the property. The
Attorney sent the division to the County, and the County sent the division to the City for
approval, however, the City apparently never responded to the request. The County sent a
Title to Ms. Osmonson and she thought the issue was settled. Subsequently, during the
recent sale of her property, it was realized that the division was never recorded. Basically, the
subdivision is the only reasonable way to resolve the problem.
2
Planning Comrniss/on Minutes
October 10, 1994
It may be possible that the lot line between parcels 1 and 2 could possibly be shifted to
provide a conforming setback to one of the detached garages. It is evident that variances will
need to be granted. The applicant is in the process of getting an updated survey.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
The lot line separating Parcels 1 and 2 shall be located in a manner that results in
conforming setbacks for the lot containing the two family home and detached garage
(Parcel 2).
Variances are hereby approved for the required side yard setback for the single family
home and garage on Parcel 1.
The applicant clarified that the house on Parcel 1 is also a duplex.
The location of the line separating Parcels 1 and 2 was discussed. It was suggested that it
may be better to have an equal amount of space between the lot line and the garages, such
as 3' and 3', versus one garage having a conforming 4' setback, and the other garage having
only a 2' setback. It was clarified that each parcel will probably be nonconforming regardless,
due to lot area. The Building Official suggested that the statement "If possible" be added to
the beginning of condition #1 in the staff recommendation. Jensen commented that she
would like to see Parcel 2 without variances, if possible.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the
proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions:
If possible, the lot line separating Parcels 1 and 2 shall be located
in a manner that results in conforming setbacks for the lot
containing the two family home and detached garage (Parcel 2).
o
Variances are hereby approved for the required side yard setback
for the two family home and garage on Parcel 1.
Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be reviewed by the City Council on October 25, 1994.
3
Planning Commission Minutes October 10. 1994
CONTINUED .... CASE #94-70: HAPPY GARDEN RESTAURANT, SANG CAM KY, 2212
COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, COMMERCE PLACE, PID #13-117-23 33 0081.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLASS IV RESTAURANT, NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR
SERVICE RESTAURANT. PUBLIC HEARING.
Chair Michael re-opened discussion on this case. Michael reminded the Commission that a
motion was on the floor for staff recommendation.
Mueller suggested tabling this request in order to obtain more information. The Commission
discussed the fact that this request would not be in front of them except for the beer and wine
issue. Mueller compared this request to other similar requests and noted that parking was
always an issue. Mueller would like to see more figures on current parking and what the
proposed use will do to their parking situation. Sutherland commented that during
conversations with the City Planner, he stated that it is a non-issue, and that the parking for
Commerce Place was approved when it was developed.
Hanus questioned how many spaces would be required for Commerce Place today, based on
the current code. Sutherland noted that this would require research. Hanus noted that if there
proves to be enough spaces designated for the current uses, this is a non-issue, but if not,
then there is a problem. He also questioned if it is right to hold back a request to sell beer and
wine for a parking issue. Placing a condition on the conditional use permit regarding parking
was discussed.
It was noted that information relating to the hours of operation and the number of employees
was not provided by the applicant.
Mueller questioned how the parking would be addressed if a restaurant with full liquor service
was proposed, and the seating capacity was much greater. What is the difference from this
request? He believes parking issues should be addressed. The history of the parking lot
approval for Commerce Place was discussed. Sutherland noted that in the Zoning Code,
required off-street parking spaces for restaurants is "at least one (1) space for each three (3)
seats based on capacity design." Therefore, a seating capacity of 42 seats results in the
requirement of approximately 14 parking spaces, according to the Zoning Ordinance.
Overflow parking areas, such as the church parking lot located across the street, was
discussed. Weiland noted that it was his understanding the medical center employees have
an agreement for parking on the church property across the street.
Jensen recalled that the number of parking spaces was a concern when Commerce Place was
created. She believes there is a potential for existing downtown businesses to feel "put-out"
if the parking issue is not addressed, because the JRW Properties was a member of the CBD
Parking Program but did withdraw because they indicated that they were able to handle all of
their parking on their own property. It may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to
4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 10. 1994
consider additional language that would require JRW to expand their parking area should the
parking become a problem because of the success of this or any other business in the area.
An option may be to have them re-join the CBD Parking Program. Jensen summarized, that
even though Happy Garden could open their restaurant without a liquor license, when a
conditional use permit is applied for, the City is given the opportunity to address other issues
if there are negative aspects, and this is the City's chance to explore the need for conditions
on the approval.
Hanus asked the maker of the motion if they would accept an amendment
suggesting JRW to examine the possibility of establishing two or three short
term parking spaces to accommodate the take-out business for Happy Garden.
Weiland accepted the friendly amendment. MOTION FAILED 2 TO 6. Those
in favor were: Voss and Weiland. Those opposed were: Mueller, Surko,
Michael, Jensen, Hanus, and Bird.
Voss and Weiland requested that each commissioner list their reasons for opposition. Each
Commissioner stated their reasons, which included:
The opening of the restaurant will not be delayed as the
Council's Public Hearing is still scheduled for November 9, and
the Planning Commission can review the parking issues prior to
this scheduled hearing.
The restaurant can open without liquor service.
Parking has been an issue on other similar requests, and the
Commission needs to be consistent.
It appears that there may already be a parking problem, and it
should be investigated how the additional service of beer and
wine will affect the parking situation.
A conditional use permit should not be approved until the
ramifications of not addressing the parking issue can be
understood.
It was suggested the item be tabled.
Everyone was in favor of the restaurant.
The City needs to be sensitive about how parking needs will be
affected by this new use and future uses.
5
1111
Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1994
Jensen moved to reconsider. Mueller seconded the motion. Motion carried 6
to 2. Those in favor were: Mueller, Surko, Michael, Jensen, Hanus, and Bird.
Voss and Weiland opposed.
MOTION made by Hanus to table the request and direct staff to research and
determine what the current parking requirements are for the shopping center
based upon the current configuration, and bring it back for discussion at the
next possible meeting. Jensen seconded the Motion.
The Chair briefly reviewed the Roberts Rules.
Jensen withdrew her second to the motion. Motion failed due to lack of a
second.
Mueller stated that more information needs to be provided by staff on existing parking and on
the history of the Commerce Place parking. Weiland also requested information on Mound
Medical employees using the church parking lot, and the possibility of working with the
church.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to table the request. Motion
carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Mueller, Surko, Michael, Jensen, Hanus,
and Bird. Voss and Weiland opposed.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Liz Jensen reviewed the September Council Meeting Minutes.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting at 9:07
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
6
RECEIVED OCT I 3 1994,
October 11, 1994
Dear _~z~/0 (~ ~,
The Social Justice Committee has scheduled a special meeting to discuss one of the
most important and urgent issues facing our metropolitan area, the growing disparity
between the cities and suburbs. Joe Sullivan and Ronaid Krietemeyer from the Office
for Social Justice will convene the session at 7:00PM, Thursday, November 3, here at
Saint Olaf.
"Metro Future...Cities and Suburbs...Creating Common Ground" will focus on this
problem that involves issues of housing, economic development and race. You are
invited to come, learn more about this issue, find out how it affects our community and
help shape effective action that will keep social justice principles at the heart of the
debate.
We will examine questions such as...
Why does the Twin Cities rank so poorly with other cities in economic, social and racial
disparity between cities and suburbs? What happens when these trends are allowed to
continue?
How do some zoning laws keep Iow and moderate income families from living in certain
communities?
How do taxpayers in the central cities subsidize development in upper-income second-
tier suburbs?
VVhat public policy responses are needed? VVhat is being proposed? VVhat actions
can individuals and parishes take to get involved?
We urge you to set aside Thursday, the 3rd of November, from 7:00-9:30PM, and join
us for what promises to be a meaningful evening. For more information, please call the
Office for Social Justice (291-4477).
Sincerely,
F/ather John Forliti, Pastor
Saint Olaf Catholic Church
Vicki Costello, Jean'n_.,d Connelly, Co-Chairs
Saint Olaf Social Justice Committee
RECEIVED OCT 1 g 1.,gg4
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT
Craig R, Rapp
Brooklyn Park
VICE PRESIDENT
Joan Campbell
Minneapolis
PAST PRESIDENT
David M. Childs
Minnetonka
DIRECTORS
Bill Bamhart
Minneapolis
Jack Denzer
Cottage Grove
Tom Egan
Eagan
Ray Faricy
SL Paul
Marie Grimm
St. Paul
Coral Houle
Bloomington
Susan Hoyt
Falcon Heights
Jerry Unke
Mounds View
Joan Lynch
Shakopee
Gerald Otten
New Hope
Jim Prosser
Richfield
Mary Raymond
Deephaven
Kirk Schnitker
Champlin
Charlotte Shover
Burnsville
William Thompson
Coon Rapids
Elwyn Tinklenberg
Blaine
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Vern Peterson
as ociat!.on of
metro tan
· .po!..
mun apal hes
October 17, 1994
TO:
FROM:
Managers/Administrators
Roger Petersobi"Director of Legislative Affairs
RE:
Changes to proposed 1995 Legislative Policies and Priorities packet.
The Board of Directors at its October 13, 1994 meeting made policy change
recommendations for membership consideration as indicated below. Please make
copies of these changes for your Mayor and Council Members. Previously mailed
policy with these changes will be considered at the AMM Policy Adoption Meeting
November 3, 1994 at the Royal Cliff Banquet Facility in Eagan. If you have any
questions, please contact either Veto Peterson or Roger Peterson at 490-3301.
1. III-A-6
Metropolitan Housing Policy (pages 19 and 20)
Policy statement (C) 2) describing possible funding sources for the
metropolitan enterprise fund on page 20 was deleted in its entirety and
(C) 3) renumbered to (C) 2) and amended to read as follows:
"The Revenue Sources for this enterprise fund should consist of a
combination of state general fund appropriation and metropolitan raised
revenue. If the 1995 Legislature does move forward with the
metropolitan enterprise fund concept, the AMM Board will recommend
a preferred regional funding source (s)."
III-B-6
Other Development tools (page 28 and 29)
The fu'st bold face type policy statement dealing with property tax
abatements was deleted.
IV-H-4 (should be IV-G-4) WATER TESTING CONNECTION FEE (page 41 and
42)
The fu'st sentence of the background section on top of page 42 should
read as follows:
"The State's Safe Drinking Water Act contains a per hook-up fee of
$5.21 passed in Laws of Minnesota 1992, Chapter 513, Article 6,
Section 2 which is to be used to pay for water supply testing as
3490 lexington avenue north, st. paul, minnesota 55126 (612) 490-3301
mandated by Federal Law."
Transportation Policy (pages 50 and 56) - Typos
A. Policy V-A page 50. Bold paragraph, line 3, replace NW with
NEW to read NEW STREET..
B. Policy V-L page 55 and 56. Bold paragraph starting BUS
SYSTEMS AND ...... replace LAT in line 1,6, and 8 with LRT and
delete D in line 6.
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7 am. Members present: Paul Meisel, Ken Smith,
Stan Drahos, Jerry Longpre, Mark Brewer and Dave Willette. Absent and excused:
Jerry Pietrowski. Also present: Sharon Cook; Marge Friederichs of the Westonka
Chamber; Mayor Skip Johnson; John Cameron, City Engineer; Bruce Chamberlain,
Economic Development Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Carolyn
Schmidt, Chair of the Parks and Open Space Commission and Ed Shukle, City
Manager.
Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Smith, and carried unanimously, the Minutes
of the August 18, 1994 meeting were approved.
Discussion focused on the ISTEA grant award. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic
Development Coordinator, reviewed a proposed work program and schedule for the
Lost Lake Canal rehabilitation project. He indicated that John Cameron is completing
a similar work program for the Auditor's Road Improvement Project. With regard to
the public understanding and budgeting, it was stressed that the two projects be kept
separate. In regard to staff coordination, the projects can and should be carefully
coordinated as a single pursuit. Chamberlain went on to indicate that the work
program for the Lost Lake Project has been divided into "rounds" to help define tasks
which would be accomplished in a given block of time. A team meeting will be held
at the end of each round to determine project standing and coordinate the upcoming
round. Reports will also be given at these times to the Economic Development
Commission for their review and consideration. The work program and schedule
reflected the period August 1994 to December 1994, January 1995 to May 1995,
June 1995 to October 1995, November 1995 to July 1996, August 1996 to October
1997. Various tasks were reviewed within each of those time frames. Chamberlain
then entertained questions with regard to the proposed work program and schedule.
Following Chamberlain's presentation, John Cameron, City Engineer, presented a
similar work program as it pertained to the Auditor's Road Improvement. Cameron
entertained questions and then some discussion was held. Following that discussion,
it was moved by Smith and seconded by Brewer to accept the reports as presented
by the Economic Development Coordinator and City Engineer and to recommend that
the City Council approve the proposed work programs and schedules for both projects
so that they can be underway as soon as possible. A report from the Lost Lake
Promotions Committee was given by the City Manager. Shukle indicated that the
committee was very excited about moving forward and promoting the project. He said
that they discussed the Lost Lake property as it relates to a farmers market. The
Committee is interested in making a farmer's market a reality at the current and
present location of the city's public works materials. Carolyn Schmidt indicated that
she would be willing to sit in on these committee meetings as a representative of the
Parks and Open Space Commission. The Parks and Open Space Commission has
discussed several times over the past years the use of the Lost Lake property as it
relates to the Lost Lake Channel.
EDC Minutes of September 15, 1994,
Page 2
There being no other business, it was noted that the next meeting of the Commission
will be held on Thursday, October 20, 1994, 7 am, City Hall. Mark Brewer is
scheduled to bring the rolls. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Willette, and
carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 am.
City Manager
ES:Is
I
:, i _CEiVE3 OCT Z 4
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Action Report:
Lake Use and Recreation Committee
Meeting:
5:30 P.M., Monday, October 17, 1994
Members Present:
Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James
Grathwol, Excelsior; Joseph Zwak,
Greenwood; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka
Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista;
Tom Reese, Mound; Herb Suerth,
Woodland, Ross McGlasson, appointee,
Tonka Bay; Eugene Strommen, Executive
Director, Leann Fenske, Recorder.
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Joint Cooperative
Agreement with Hennepin County, consideration for renewal
on the same terms as initiated in 1992, with supplemental
recommendations per draft memorandum.
Chair Bert Foster recommended to the committee that no
changes in the Joint and Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin
County should be made at this time. He emphasized that all
of the points addressed in the agreement and supplemental
recommendations per the draft memorandum were thoroughly
discussed at the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol
Operational and Annual Contract Agreement Review meeting held
on Wednesday, October 5th, attended by Sergeant Bill
Chandler, Captain Larry Peterson and Inspector Mike Postle.
Reese expressed concern that the Water Patrol was not
represented at this Lake Use & Recreation Committee meeting.
Foster responded that sheriff representation was discussed
during the 10/5 meeting and following the Operational and
Contract Review meeting. Foster had informal discussions
with Inspector Postle about having the water patrol present
at the Lake Use and Recreation meetings. The Water Patrol
representative could be first on the agenda to present the
monthly activity report which could be followed by agenda
items in which the water patrol's input would be helpful to
the LMCD committee. The Water Patrol representative could
then leave and the committee could take up other agenda
items.
Bloom spoke of previous meetings that were represented by the
Water Patrol, observing that their attendance was not
applicable to many of the points of discussion.
Strommen called the committee's attention to Item 5 of the
-1-
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COIOfITTEE
October :1.7, :1.994
Draft Memorandum where "The Water Patrol agrees to continue
to provide the LMCD with monthly enforcement information
pertinent to Lake Minnetonka". In the meeting on October 5th
it was agreed that the LMCD staff and the Water Patrol staff
will coordinate Lake Use and Recreation Committee concerns
for scheduling Water Patrol attendance on an as needed basis
at the Lake Use and Recreation Committee in lieu of regular
attendance. It was further agreed that the Water Patrol and
the Prosecutor would attend two board meetings a year to
report in person on the boating season and then the winter
season.
Zwak suggested notifying the Water Patrol and including them
on certain meeting agenda's only when the issues being
discussed affect them directly versus mandatory attendance at
every scheduled LMCD committee and board meeting.
Bloom concurred with this procedure.
Reese stated he would prefer to see a verbal presentation on
Water Patrol activities. He expressed the need for committee
dialogue about this detailed, information.
Foster said he would speak further with Sheriff
representatives regarding this concern.
MOTION: Partyka moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend the
contract and draft memorandum to the board for approval.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Third reading of draft ordinance, 8.ct. 3.07, Watercraft
for Hire, adding Coast Guard Safety Standards in new
subdivision $ through 9.
MOTION: Zwak moved, Partyka seconded to recommend the third
reading of the subject draft ordinance to be forwarded to the
board at the October 26 meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Third reading of draft ordinance amending Sect. 3.09
Special Events, changing licensing authority for special
events to the Sheriff, providing Sheriff with criteria
which may be considered in determing whether or not a
special event license should be granted.
MOTION: Zwak moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend the third
-2-
LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
October 17, 1994
reading of the subject draft ordinance to be forwarded to the
board at the October 26 meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
4. Sheriff's Water Patrol Activity Report
The committee received the Water Patrol report of significant
activity from 9/13/94 to 10/16/94. A question was raised on
a vehicle recovered by the Dive Team 9/17 as to whether it
was a recent or previously sunken vehicle. Staff will
inquire. The report was accepted and will be forwarded to
the board.
5. Speci&l Events Refunds
MOTION: Reese moved, Zwak seconded, to recommend the
approval of the special event deposit refunds of $100.00 to
the following:
Denny Nelson Tournaments, ($100 for the combined events)
- Wednesday Evening Bassin', 6/1 through 8/17
- Denny's Super 30 Bass Tournament, 6/5, 7/23
- Denny's Super 30 Bass Tournament, 9/25
Bo
Limited Bass Predator Classic, Michael Fonseca, ($100 for
the combined events) 7/9, 8/14, 8/27, & 8/28.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
6. Additional Business
LMCD Code, Chapter III, Section 3.10, Water Skiing, Subd. 1,
Observers Required. Reese moved to recommend removal of the
observer requirement from sunrise on Monday's through noon on
Friday's during the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day
and removing the observer requirement prior to and following
Labor Day. He noted that state law does not require an
observer.
Zwak and Partyka were not in favor of the motion expressing
safety concerns involved in removing this observer
requirement.
Bloom concurred with Reese, noting this recommendation would
result in the elimination of weekend traffic on the lake by
water skiers who would practice during the week when no
observer would be required.
-3-
L~KE USE ~ND RECREATION COIOflTTEE
October L7s L994
Grathwol would favor the motion only on the condition that
more study be done as it related to the safety issue and also
to maintain compliance with the state law. He added also the
consideration that a public hearing be held on this matter.
Reese also favored a public hearing.
Suerth recommended procurring accident history reports from
the Water Patrol for an in depth study on the safety issues
being addressed. McGlasson commented that observer
requirements on Lake Minnetonka would not provide the
accident'comparison LMCD would be seeking. Instead, LMCD
should ask for accident records on lakes where observers are
not required.
Foster recommended that Reese and Bloom research the current
ordinance regarding observer requirements and report their
findings and recommendations to the committee at the next
lake use meeting. Staff was asked to gather state water ski
accident reports of the DNR and similar accidents in Hennepin
County recorded by the Water Patrol.
Following this discussion, Reese withdrew his previous motion
which did not receive a second.
6. Additional Business (continued)
THE ~992 LAKE MZNNETONKA LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE REPORT
~HPLEI~ENTAT~ON.
Grathwol invited the committee's attention to a further
review of the Lake Access Task Force Report implementation
which the Lake Use and Recreation Committee is now
responsible to assure takes place.
Foster commented that the Lake Access Task Force (LATF) study
results and report have been forwarded to this committee by
the board. He sees the need for a committee procedure to
accomplish the next steps.
LATF data on car/trailer parking spaces relating to all
public accesses on the lake are in the study files, Foster
and Strommen concurred. This data is the source from which
city and agency public access car/trailer parking spaces will
be identified, Strommen added.
Strommen pointed out that the City of Mound is ready to move
ahead with their car/trailer parking agreement for about 32
spaces. Additional cities or agencies with which car/trailer
-4-
L]~KE U~E ~ I:tE(~I:tF~T'T'ON COI~I,~TTTEE
OC~o~e= Z?, Z994
parking agreements are pending are Deephaven, Wayzata, and
Hennepin County. The Maxwell Bay/DNR access in Orono is
still under negotiation. Marinas are also a potential source
of future car/trailer parking availability, Grathwol added.
Foster' and Strommen agreed to develop a procedure which it
can present to the committee in dealing with the LATF report
recommendations.
7. &djourn~ent
Chair, Bert Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 6:30
P.M.
FOR THE COI41~ITTEE:
Eugene R. Strommen
Executive Director
Bert Foster
Chair
-5-
-- ' JI ,,I H I I iii, I JI,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:30 PM, Wednesday, October 26, 1994
Tonka Bay city Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CAL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone
READING OF MINUTES - 9/28/94 Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min)
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
WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock
* A. Approval of minutes, 10/8/94 meeting
Bo
Draft Ordinance to Establish a Special Rule for Continuous
Shoreline of Dock Use Areas in Close Proximity, recommending
review as amended;
Ce
Boyer Building Corp. new multiple dock license application for
Pelican Point Development, Spring Park Bay, City of Mound,
recommending approval based upon adoption of the ordinance
identified in Agenda Item 1.B and the following conditions:
1) Not requiring an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
unless the board etermines than an EAW is necessary;
2) Sufficient water depths for all dock slips;
3) Significant construction progress of buildings on land
to support installation of docks on the outlot;
4) Covenants dedicating all of the lakeshore by an easement.
5) Dock lighting meeting LMCD lighting requirements to
avoid offensive impacts on the lake;
De
Ee
Third Draft of an ordinance to Establish Planned Usage
Development (PUD) Procedures and Standards and a Definition for
Public Piers as amended 10/8/94 with consideration for holding
a public hearing of the draft as amended;
Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures;
recommending approval of second reading reading;
F. Additional Business
e
LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster
* A. Approval of minutes, 10/18/94 meeting
Be
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Joint and Cooperative
Agreement with Hennepin County, recommending approval of the
Joint and Cooperative Agreement and memorandum supplementing
the agreement as drafted to Sheriff's Inspector Michael Postle;
LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 10/26/94, P. 2
Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 3.07, Watercraft for Hire,
adding Coast Guard safety standards ink, new subdivision 5
through 9, recommending approval of the third reading for final
adoption and publication;
* D.
Draft Ordinance amending Sect. 3.09 Special Events recommending
approval of the third reading for final adoption and
publication;
* E.
Special Events - Deposit Refunds @ $100 each; recommending
approval of deposit refunds to the following:
1) Denny Nelson Tournaments, Wed. Eve Bassin',3 Super 30's
2) Limited Bass Predator Classic, M. Fonseca, 4 Tourn.
* F. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water P&trol Aotivity Report
G. Additional business
SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet
A. Progress report on mail solicitations compared to budget;
B. Progress on "Visions Statement" for reserve fund;
e
EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Executive Director Strommen
A. Approval of minutes of 10/21/94 meeting (handout)
B. Overview of Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Subcommittee;
C. Progress on drafting an RFP for contracting milfoil harvest;
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone
* A. Approval of minutes, 9/28/94 meeting
B. Report of 10/26/94 meeting
FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. September Balance Sheet
B. Year to Date Financial Summary
C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment
(meeting handout)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Progress on candidate selection for Administrative Technician
B. Review of combined November/December meeting calendar;
C. MN Lakes Assn. Annual Conference, 10/28-29, Alexandria
NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of board officer nominees, call for further
nominations or close nominations
B. Election of officers
C. Chair appointment of standing committee and subcommittee chairs
D. Additional business
ADJOURNMENT
RECEIVED Z 4 191 .
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Administrative Committee
Meeting Notice and Agenda
6:30 pm,. Wednesday, October 26, 1994
Tonka Bay City Hall
1. Review of 9/28/94 meeting report;
2. Comments on Mayor's Report of 9/30/94;
o
Review procedure for conducting a public hearing of the
Public Pier Ordinance to Establish Planned Usage
Development (PUD) Procedures and Standards and a
Definition for Public Piers;
o
Proposal to adjust Eurasian Water Milfoil budget line
item to transfer funds within the existing budget to
provide for surmner operating and preventive maintenance
mechanical repair for 1995;
STAFF MEMO: Preparation of a Request for Proposals to
contract milfoil harvesting is still under review;
Chair review of board member appointments as committee
and subcommittee chairs and invite board members to
select committee/subcommittee service for 1995 (starting
November)
Executive director's report on Administrative Technician
selection;
7. Additional business
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Administrative Committee
Minutes
6:30 pm, Wednesday, September 28, 1994
Tonka Bay City Hall
Present:
Chair Bill Johnstone, Bert Foster, Jim Grathwol,
Craig Mollet, Gene Partyka, Tom Penn, Tom Reese,
Herb Suerth, Joe Zwak, Executive Director Gene
Strom~nen, Adma%. Secretary Leann Fenske
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Minutes were accepted as mailed.
MAYOR'S REPORT AGENDA REVIEW. Agenda items were
discussed. A staff outline on board actions and progress
since May was suggested to be combined among like items.
Additional discussion items were proposed to include the
Wayzata "Lakewalk" and the Lake Access Task Force report.
Johnstone invited Foster to report on Lake Access
procedures as they now are assigned to the Lake Use and
Recreation committee, to which Foster agreed.
o
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. Administrative secretary
Leann Fenske was introduced and welcomed. Applications
for the vacant administrative technician position are now
being taken. An advertisement in the STAR-TRIBUNE is
being supplemented by a direct mail notice and position
information to select western Hennepin County suburban
city administrators, League of Minnesota Cites and MN
Planning and Zoning Administrators Assn. Applications
will be taken through October 14, Strommen concluded.
Administrative priorities are on target for key services
such as license renewals with the present reduced staff.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE. A Nominating Committee report for
new board officers is ready Chair Penn reported.
Candidates to be offered to the board were reported as
Johnstone for chair, Babcock for vice chair, Zwak for
secretary and Rascop for treasurer.
ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm.
~Re~%pectful 1 y~ubmi~ed,
'~uge~ R. Stromme~'
Exec~ive Director
? :30 P.M.,
RECEIVED
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Wednesday, September 28, 1994
Tonka Bay City Hall
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Johnstone called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Wm. Johnstone, Chair, Minnetonka; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Mike
Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom
Reese,Mound; Robert Rascop, Treasurer, Shorewood; Douglas
Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay;
Craig Mollet, Victoria, Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also Present:
Charles LeFevere, LMCD Council; Eugene Strommen, Executive
Director.
Members Absent: Duane Markus, Wayzata. Orono has no appointed
representative.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Johnstone reported he, Gene Partyka and Doug Babcock
attended the dedication of the Hennepin County Regional Park,
Minnetrista, on 9/17/94. He said the ceremony was a compliment
to this outstanding recreational facility.
READING OF MINUTES
Zwak moved, Penn seconded, to approve the minutes of the
8/24/94 board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Gabriel Jabbour, Orono City Council, reported on public
comments made at the Orono City Council meeting, 9/26/94 by the
owner of Deering Island. The owner reported he had requested a
quiet waters designation at the island from the LMCD and was
denied the request. The owner was angry with the City of Orono
for not having a representative on the LMCD Board to represent
him, and he was also angry with the LMCD for not understanding
his request. Jabbour said he told the island owner that he,
Jabbour, would have opposed the request.
Jabbour has looked into the LMCD Quiet Water Policy. He
said it is a comprehensive guideline which he feels has not been
followed. He believes it would be appropriate to give more
notice to all the affected property owners. The island borders
the cities of Spring Park and Mound. The neighboring property
owners in this case, should have an opportunity to offer input as
to what they would want to see in that area.
Jabbour also observed that if a property owner does not want
to riprap the shoreline the rest of the community should not have
to yield to them. The Orono Council decided not to take action
on the request.
1
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 28, 1994
Jabbour believes it is important for the Board to look into the
quiet waters guidelines and to adhere to them. He said it will
not be long before there will be many requests for the quiet
waters designation. ~abbour noted a comment from Tom Maple,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Chair, that high water will be
the rule rather than the exception in the future. Jabbour
observed, for example, that the wetlands in Orono are completely
saturated.
There were no other comments from the public.
CONSENT AGENDA
Babcock moved, Foster seconded, to approve the consent
agenda items identified by an "*" on the agenda, adding Item
2.A., approval of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee minutes
of 9/19/94.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock
B. Public Hearing Rnport for the Suburban Hennepin Regional
Park District, New Launch Ramp Application.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the new launch
ramp at the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park, subject to the ramp
being raised to at least the 931.5' flood plain elevation, and
the storm drain runoff from the lower vehicle-only parking area
be directed from direct runoff down the ramp into the lake.
The board received a letter, dated 9/26/94, from Don DeVeau,
Landscape Architect, Department of Planning & Engineering,
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, agreeing to an
elevation of 931.0' flood plain elevation at the ramp. DeVeau
said the Park District feels the amount of runoff from the ramp
and small parking area will be minimal.
Bloom asked about the water depth at the ramp.
it is about 6.5' at the ramp end.
Partyka said
MOTION A~f~ND~: Babcock and Reese accepted an amendment to the
motion to change the condition for approval from 931.5' flood
plain elevation at the ramp to 931.0'
Babcock addressed the subject of the storm water runoff. He
said the committee's concerns were with the ramp draining into
the lake. The committee would like to see a drainage area put
in. Partyka said, from a forward looking position, the district
should prohibit drainage from the ramp into the lake. The
executive director suggested working with park district officials
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
to continue the discussion with the LMCD and City of Minnetrista
officials to see how a drainage system for storm water runoff
could be implemented. He said this could be a model for other
access ramps. Rascop said the MArDNR has plans and designs to
slope ramp drainage away from the lake. The DNR information
could help on the parks ramp drainage design. Grathwol suggested
the minutes of this meeting should reflect the board's feeling
that the last paragraph of DeVeau's 9/26/94 letter, regarding
drainage at the ramp, does not satisfy the LMCD's concerns.
Babcock asked if the board wants to create a system to drain
away from the lake as condition of the ramp license. Reese said
he understands the water would drain and filter through the
adjacent wetlands. Babcock said the road is designed with a curb
and does not have catch basins. The road and lower parking lot
will all drain directly into the lake. Babcock added this is not
a concern about the last 20' of ramp draining into the lake.
Reese said he would not favor more ground construction to handle
the runoff. Partyka said the intent is to drain runoff into a
holding tank to filter out the oil accumulation. Babcock does
not feel the Park District has given enough information on why
they cannot do something to control the runoff. Reese favors
minimal disturbance to the area to contain the runoff.
Johnstone reviewed that the motion calls for the Park
District to be notified that they do not meet all of the
licensing conditions. Partyka said he does not believe there
will be any access construction before winter.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Wayzata Lakewalk
The board received a third draft of an Ordinance amending
the LMCD Code of Ordinances to establish Planned Usage
Development (PUD) procedures and standards and definition for
public piers from Northwest Associated Consultants. The
committee invited board review and comment on the ordinance
concept, the specifics of the draft ordinance to be deferred to
the next Water Structures meeting if that is the board's
recommendation.
Babcock explained that the board discussion should be on
whether or not the PUD concept is the way to handle projects such
as the Wayzata Lakewalk. He said some board members believe that
the Lakewalk project could be handled with code amendments and
some variances, and if not, why not.
Reese said he likes the PUD concept. He believes there
would have to be too much "tweaking" with the code which could
present problems.
Johnstone expressed concern as to whether or not the
district needs to have a PUD approach to address a particular
3
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 28, 1994
project or could it be apDroached under the current code with
amendments and granting waivers (variances). Johnstone would
like to know what specific changes would have to be made in the
code. Johnstone said, with respect to the Lakewalk, he has
rs~ervations about the objectives in the project, and to see if
t~ objectives can be accomplished in a way which is far less
i~'._rusive on the lake. It seems to Johnstone that the PUD is a
d~rivative of a land Planned Unit Development concept. This PUD
is before the board only because of the Lakewalk proposal.
Reese believes amending the code to meet the objectives of
this project creates more problems.
Bloom said he has talked to the Minnetonka Beach Mayor.
Bloom asked if the PUD proposal is being put ahead of the
decision as to whether there should be development such as a
Lakewalk. Babcock explained the PUD ordinance draft was
developed because the Lakewalk developer asked for concept
approval before proceeding with detailed plans. At that point,
the board was looking for criteria on "Lakewalks" in general.
The inclusion of an ordinance provision for concept approval and
final approval gives the district specific criteria and the
framework for projects of the magnitude of a "Lakewalk."
Babcock believes the ordinance could be used for a public pier,
large marina or park. Adjustments in the ordinance could be made
by the board. The next step would be to see a plan for the
project.
Rascop pointed out that the ordinance will call for public
hearings.
Foster said he supports the idea of the PUD concept. He
would be concerned about using the current ordinances for a
project such as a large public pier.
Grathwol thinks it remains an open question as to whether
there should be a Lakewalk at Wayzata. It seems to him there
should be a list of changes in the current code which would have
to be made by any kind of PUD which would be approved. Grathwol
said the district is at a point where the situation for the type
of projects coming to the board is changing radically. The board
will begin to face projects such as Lakewalk, dredging at Mound,
(for its Lost Lake Development) the Carlson property development
of 200 or more homes in Minnetrista, and a possible pier at
Excelsior. There will be projects which have never been faced
before. Grathwol said the Management Plan points out the
greatest challenge the district will face in the coming years
will be development and redevelopment around the lake. He does
not support the PUD ordinance for the Lakewalk necessarily. He
would support it in meeting these new challenges.
4
September 28, 1994
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Partyka does not believe the district ordinances have the
mechanism at this time to handle a project such as is being
proposed. He believes the Lakewalk is independent of the PUD
ordinance proposal. Approval of the ordinance does not mean the
district has to approve the Lakewalk. The ordinance is a tool to
determine whether the district wants the Lakewalk.
Johnstone urged the board to keep in mind that the ordinance
develops a procedure for approval of a major project, and part of
it develops standards for a public pier. He believes it is
important to look at what the current public policies are with
respect to putting a major structure in the lake, to see whether
we want to depart from those policies, relax or change them in
the context of the proposed public pier.
Bloom said he believes the proposed PUD ordinance is being
developed for the approval of the Wayzata Lakewalk. If it was
being drawn up to build water ski ramps or airplane strips, the
ordinance would appear substantially different.
Babcock said the question before the board is whether the
PUD approach should be used. If the board does not want the PUD
approach, the committee should not take more time discussing it.
If the board wants it, the specifics can be worked out at the
committee or board level.
Penn thinks the challenge to the board is to identify a
process to allow the board to look at the many issued which have
been publicly stated. He does not support a Lakewalk of this
size. The bigger challenge will be the requests coming to the
board in the next five years. He believes the board will need a
process to address them.
Rascop asked LeFevere to explain what the effect would be of
adopting the PUD. He asked if the PUD is adopted, should lake
zoning follow.
LeFevere said it appears the ordinance is either too little
or too much depending on how the individual board members feel
about public piers or other potential commercial developments on
the lake. If the board wants to allow the Lakewalk with a
minimum of bother, conditions can be drawn up to amend the code
for the dock width and building structure on the dock, and maybe
signage allowances. Special code amendments with public
amenities could take care of it. That would be the simplest way.
Rascop pointed out that the Lakewalk includes developing a
new marina. LeFevere said the proposed amendment does not go far
enough to regulate marinas as part of a public pier. It does not
give the board control over all Lakewalks or public piers and all
the rest of new major structures. Anyone could build this
structure under current LMCD ordinances if it remained six feet
wide with no structure on it. The proposed ordinance does not go
5
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 28, 1994
far enough in providing criteria to deal with new and innovative
ideas. The present draft ordinance provides an elaborate way,
with a lot of control, of dealing with a proposal that somebody
has to come to the LMCD, or because they do not comply with the
code. In this case they want more than six feet of width and
they want some structures on the dock and so they have to come to
t~~ LMCD. In those situations this PUD proposal would give LMCD
a ~.~eful and elaborate review process. That is the only
sa -~ation that it takes care of. If the board wants to go
further and deal with all of these other possible situations that
may come up in the future, like simply great big docks, then the
board needs more than this.
Johnstone asked if a application were received for a very
large marina, would the board have the option to say wait we want
to use a PUD approach. LeFevere said it would be possible to
respond that the application is beyond the scope of the existing
ordinance, that it is not sufficient for the proposal and the
board could declare a moratorium to take time to look at this.
The moratorium could be challenged, but people do not have vested
rights to use the lake, especially if they have not yet
constructed anything. A new regulatory plan could thus be
developed.
As an example, LeFevere said the code could include a
section that something that has more than "x" lineal feet of dock
is not a permitted type of dock. Then a PUD would have to be
developed.as the project would be prohibited by the code. If
the board wants to include more kinds of proposals into the PUD
process, what it has to do, once the PUD mechanism is in place,
is to prohibit them in some other part of the code. The
ordinance establishes a new set of rules that the PUD considers.
It is specific to the structures in the PUD.
Johnstone asked if, by adopting the PUD and the standards
for a public pier, does that have any effect on the district's
ability to be more restrictive in the future. LeFevere said it
would not.
Scott Richards, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.,
pointed out that the way the ordinance is set up now, it is only
for public piers constructed by a governmental agency
establishing a procedure and providing specific criteria. Rascop
asked if similar ordinances should be set up in advance for large
marinas and other structures. Richards responded that the board
may want to. Richards added that the City of Wayzata is
interested in keeping this process moving. The city has no
intention to provide consultant service for other types of
structures, however. Richards said the beauty of this process is
it works very well on land. It allows for the concept procedure
so all of the development information does not have to be
supplied in the initial steps. Currently the code does not have
that available. There are advantages to the PUD ordinance
process.
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
Foster asked if variances are granted under the code without
a PUD would that be setting a precedent as opposed to having the
PUD process.
LeFevere said the word precedent is used loosely as having a
quasi-binding effect on what is decided in the future. It is not
a precedent in the legal sense. When a variance is granted, a
precedent is not created. However, it could create a political
problem, a problem of trust in government. Although it is not a
precedent, it can be evidence that the board is acting
arbitrarily if it stops granting variances, unless it wants to
admit that it made a mistake previously in granting earlier
variances.
Babcock believes if the Lakewalk is considered under the
code, it could be subject to four licenses . a multiple dock,
special density, deicing and a permanent dock structure.
(Permanent dock license is not required when applying for a
multiple dock) It would also require two variances, one for
structure on the dock and one for dock width. There may not be a
hardship, the applicant may just want to do it that way. How do
you justify the variance under the current code in this case?
If dock width is the requirement in a dock such as the
Lakewalk, handicapped access is grounds for a variance, LeFevere
added. That would get this application over six feet requested
by the applicant.
LeFevere continued that one of the advantages of a PUD
process results in the adoption of an ordinance, which
establishes a new set of regulations for this development. One
of the advantages of doing it that way is that the courts are
most likely to defer to the decision of a legislative body acting
in a legislative capacity. That is, the court is much less
likely to second guess the board when it says it is not going to
amend its ordinances. If somebody comes to the LMCD under such a
concept as the Lakewalk and asks LMCD to amend the ordinances,
that is in the nature of a legislative decision. The courts are
much more likely to oppose the board's decision if the board says
no, we are not going to amend our ordinances.
Whereas if what the board is doing is acting under its
existing ordinances and simply issuing permits or licenses, it is
not really a legislative decision. It is administrative or
quasi-judicial. The court, as in the St. Alban's Bay Marina
case, is much more likely to substitute their judgement for that
of the board if they do not think the board acted reasonably.
That is one of the advantages of going to the PUD concept.
LeFevere offered another comment about the PUD concept.
is not sure where this leads as to whether this is the best
approach for doing what the board wants to do for the Wayzata
Lakewalk.
He
7
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
At least in the land use context, the PUD concept came out of a
history where we were all familiar with where lots were divided
up into squares of one kind or another, of a certain size, and
density was controlled by the size of the squares, and open space
was created by front yard and side yard setbacks, etc., that is
hew zoning worked and that is how room was left between houses
~ fire protection and other purposes were accomplished by that
s._'nple approach. The PUD concept was great for that because it
~ 3vided all kinds of flexibility.
LeFevere continued that a PUD has at times slipped into a
sloppy super variance process. If the design is not creative or
innovative, merely a standard design to secure a smaller front
yard or side yard setback, it serves as a way to get around a
variance requirement that there has to be a hardship. If no
hardship, let's try a PUD. Sometimes it is used that way. In
that sense, this PUD concept is not the best or most appropriate
for what is going on here. All it really amounts to, if this is
the only change that occurs to the code, is that LMCD has
established a very elaborate and time consuming and detailed
process to accomplish what the board would otherwise do by a
variance to allow a 12 foot dock with some building on it. You
have not really accomplished very much else. That gets back to
the comment that the chair was making. But if you think these
are going to come to you in the future, and there will be other
proposals or developments where people will need to have
variances, this does give the board a lot of control.
LeFevere stated he is not sure what the purpose of this PUD
is. On land use it serves to allow innovative designs to be
considered by the city council. The designs do not meet the
code, but the PUD provides protection to the public in some other
way. This Lakewalk is not particularly innovative. It is still
just a dock, with extra width and has some structures on it.
Those are really the only differences between what the code
allows and what Wayzata wants to do.
Babcock sees the PUD as having two benefits. One is that it
provides for a three-stage planning process. It allows certain
projects to be weeded out up front without a lot of cost on the
applicant's part. Secondly it allows one application to be
submitted to the board rather than one for each of the areas that
the code calls for today. It also puts all the regulations for a
public hearing in one place.
LeFevere responded that this PUD does not do that. It only
does that if the applicant needs a variance. You can put a
public pier all along the whole lakefront if it is only six feet
wide and does not have any structures on it. All they need is a
commercial dock license.
Babcock believes that particular situations could be handled
by saying something in the normal code that would restrict
structures to something of a certain size. That would cover that
loop hole. LMCD could move those kinds of applicants into a PUD
application. 8
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
LeFevere said that is correct. It would take the additional
step. Anything the board wants to force into the PUD, the board
would have to outlaw somewhere else in the code.
Babcock asked if there was any further comment. He
reiterated that the committee is not asking for approval tonight,
but to decide if it is worthwhile for the committee to continue
pursuing this PUD process.
Bloom said he is in favor that the committee go forward.
will want time to present the entire picture to his council.
He
Babcock asked the board for a vote of confidence for the
committee to continue considering the PUD process. A unanimous
consensus was made in support of the committee continuing.
D. Baycliffe Property Owners Association, South Upper Lake,
Minnetrista, New Multiple Dock License with Minor changes
MOTION: Babcock moved, Johnstone seconded the committee
recommendation to approve a new multiple dock license for the
Baycliffe Property Owners Association with minor changes,
providing setbacks are met and approval is received from the City
of Minnetrista.
Dennis Caslavka, Vice President, Baycliffe Property Owners
Association, 4716 Baycliffe Drive, said the Minnetrista Planning
Commission has reviewed the reconfiguration. It approved a side
lot line setback between the outlot and the Lawrence Hendrickson
property to the north. Slip # 11 in the lagoon encroaches on the
20' side lot line setback. A variance was required by the
Minnetrista Planning Commission and approved 9/27 for subsequent
City Council approval.
Caslavka continued that the Planning Commission approval was
subject to one condition. Currently the Association is licensed
for 14 slips and 2 moorings. One mooring is closer to the three
temporary slips than the Planning Commission found acceptable.
The approval is conditioned on giving up one more mooring. The
Association agreed to give up the mooring.
LeFevere asked if the new multiple dock license included an
adjustment of side setbacks. Babcock said the committee was
concerned about the setback at the Hedlund property, Lot 3 Block
1, the property to the south of the outlot. The application was
presented as a minor reconfiguration. Babcock asked if it is
necessary to re-address the side setbacks.
LeFevere said the double setback provision is a
grandfathered provision. A setback that is encroached which is
not lawful is not grandfathered. Babcock said the recommended
approval is based on code 2.03 Subd. 9 which allows minor changes
as long as there is no increase in slip sizes. LeFevere asked if
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 28, 1994
there is a double setback on the south side. Babcock said both
sides (south and north) are subject to double setbacks. LeFevere
noted that the northernmost slip in.the lagoon looks like it is
in the 20' setback. ~abcock said that the ~revious configuration
had the slip in the setback. Caslavka also agreed that this is a
continuation of that setback situation.
LeFevere suggested that it does not have to be handled as
part of this license application, but when it comes' up for annual
renewal. There is no provision for grandfathering a code
viOlation. There may be grounds for a variance. If that is an
illegal setback on the north side, it ought to be either forgiven
by variance or a code amendment or enforced some way..
Babcock .~responded that he does not' see this as a violation
of setback since it is in the dock use area. Storage slip # 11
is 20' away from where the dock use area starts which is where
the lot line extends out from the shoreline. Babcock is not
convinCed that'~it is a violation of the setback. It appears to
be closer to the lot line, but may not be a violation.of the-dock
use area. LeFevere acknowledged that is an interesting point
with the confilguration the way it is.
AMEND~ TO .MOTION: Babcock and Johnstone agreed to.'include in
the motion the'requirement to reduce the number of moorings to
one mooring by. eliminating buoy #15.
VOTE: Motion ilcarried unanimously.
2. LAKE USE!AND RECREATION, Chair Foster
B. Quiet:.Waters Area in the Channel North of Cedar Point,
Wayzata Bay,'Woodland.
MOTION: FOSter moved, Grathwol seconded, to extend the
channel north"of Cedar Point, Wayzata Bay, Woodland, by adding
another green<.and red buoy and narrowing the existing channel by
Foster .eXplained that a Public Hearing held on :9/19/94
considered the request of Clinton Morrison, 2400 Cedar Point
Drive, Woodlar~d, for establishment of a Quiet Waters.iArea, 5 mph
speed limit, in the channel north of Cedar Point, Wayzata Bay.
Denis Bailey,..Hennepin County Lakes Improvements, measured the
nearest buoy at 149.6' from shore, i~.
Foster Sa~d the committee considered that there'~are red and
green buoys 'at the west end of the point. Watercraft Passing
through the buoys tend to pass closer than 150' from Cedar Point
if their travel takes them to Grays Bay. This could be corrected
by extending the channel length and narrowing the channel width
by 25 feet.
10
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
Babcock observed that the applicant was requesting a quiet
waters designation because of the land erosion he is
experiencing. Zwak said the pictures he saw indicated erosion
along the entire shoreline of the Morrison property. Bloom
questioned whether the riprap in place is adequate to protect the
shoreline.
Foster said the committee did not consider erosion in making
its recommendation. The committee feels property owners should
take care of their own shoreline. Partyka observed that the
traffic is coming less than 50' from shore (at the end of the
point). The addition of the two channel markers was a good
solution.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Addition to Agenda
Report of the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force
Grathwol submitted the final report of the 1992 Lake Access
Task Force as accepted with minor editorial amendments June 22,
1994. Copies will be distributed to all interested parties.
3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet
Mollet reported $23,000 has been received in donations to
the Save the Lake Fund to date. That exceeds the amount budgeted
from donations. Mollet, Robert Pillsbury and the executive
director were commended for their work. The executive director
reported a list of 400 additional names was furnished by an
interested party for use in the campaign.
4. EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn
A. Approval of Minutes. Penn moved, Reese seconded, to
approve the minutes of the 9/16/94 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task
Force meeting and the 9/14/94 Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action
Plan Subcommittee, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Equipment
Penn reported the harvesting equipment has had many
breakdowns this year. Major repairs of wear and tear will have
to be made. Penn said consideration will be given to purchasing
an additional paddlewheel harvester. There is $175,000 in the
Milfoil Equipment Reserve.
Bloom asked about turning the work over to an outside
contractor. The executive director said this had been done in
1989, the first year. A contractor requires a minimum guarantee
of hours and during the season. In 1989 it was necessary to
"make work" to meet the contract hours. Johnstone recommended it
be looked at as an option. Reese said there is no one who
currently has the equipment.
11
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
Gabriel Jabbour suggested going out for bids by preparing
specifications based on acres to be cut. That would allow the
private sector to get involved in solving the problem. He said
there are faster units than the ones used by the district.
The executive director said the district could sell its equipment
to a contractor. He suggested the district must determine if it
wants to spend money on repairing its current equipment if it is
going to consider contracting for the work. Penn recommended a
decision should be made on the contracting strategy before
spending money on extensive repairs. The executive director said
he would put a hold on extensive equipment repairs for now.
Bloom said maybe it is not cost effective to contract.
Rascop said there should be a five year commitment from a
contractor. Reese said the contractor has to own the equipment
for the contractto work. To let someone use LMCD's equipment
doesn't work because of maintenance.
Penn said the EWM Task Force will return with a report.
Johnstone said the analysis should be available at the October
Board meeting. The executive director is interested in talking
to the Hennepin Parks operations personnel on the subject.
Penn described the 1994 harvesting concept. Because of the
quick growth this summer it was necessary to open channels to
private docks and keep the public channels open. This reduced
the amount of time spent on open water cutting. Penn said the
consensus of the Task Force is that the district should not be in
the open water harvesting business. Foster agreed with channel
cutting and not open bay cutting.
Rascop said he has received compliments on the harvesting
this year.
The executive director said there was open water cutting on
Phelps, Carmans, Browns and the northeast corner of Wayzata Bay.
Foster said there have been problems with the harvesters
leaving Milfoil fragments. He has seen newer style harvesters
with inboard propellers. He suggested moving the motors inboard
as an upgrade. (The LMCD harvesters hull design does not allow
the use of inboard propellers)
Babcock said he does not believe the harvesters are the only
reason for fragmentation. He does not believe it is worth
thousands of dollars a machine to eliminate it.
Penn reported Garlon 3A was tested in Phelps and Carsons Bay with
excellent results. The report will be made available to the
board as it is received from the Corps of Engineers. (The EWM
Task Force Minutes contain more information on the Garlon 3A test
treatment).
12
,ti J I Iii& J il, I ~ Il
A. Mayor's Meeting
Johnstone reported the quarterly Mayors Meeting will be held
7:30am, 9/30/94, in the Norwest Bank Building Board Room.
B. Nominating C~,m~ttee
Penn reported the Nominating Committee met on 9/21 and
presents the following slate of candidates for offices:
Chair
Vice Chair
Secretary
Treasurer
William Johnstone, Minnetonka
Douglas Babcock, Spring Park
Joseph Zwak, Greenwood
Robert Rascop, Shorewood
There were no nominations from the floor. Nominations will
remain open until the October 26 Board meeting.
FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop
The board received the August Balance Sheet, Year to Date
Financial Summary through 8/31/94, and List of Vouchers for
Payment.
The executive director reported only one city remains to pay
the 1994 levy. (Upon later review, all cities were identified as
fully paid through 12/31/94)
MOTION: Reese moved, Penn seconded, approval of the August
Balance Sheet, Year to Date Financial Summary through 8/31/94 and
payment of bills in the amount of $38,005.37, payroll checks #
1292 through 1300 and general fund checks # 9913 through 9954.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
A. Meeting Schedule
The meeting schedule for October was distributed. The
executive director noted the Save the Lake Advisory Committee
will not meet in October.
Johnstone, Foster, Babcock, and Grathwol, along with the
executive director, will meet on 10/5 to discuss the 1995
contract with the Water Patrol representatives. All board
members were invited.
13
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 28, 1994
B. Expiration of Terms
The executive director reported the terms for the board
members from Tonka Bay, Mound, Deephaven, Wayzata, Minnetonka
Beach and Minnetonka expire in 1994. All but Tonka Bay and
Deephaven have re-appointed their representatives.
C. LMCD Staff
1. The executive director reported several applications
have been received for the Administrative Technician position.
He has circulated the job description to the larger cities in the
western suburbs, the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota
Chapter of Planners and Zoning Administrators. Applications will
be received through 10/14, unless an extension of this due date
is needed. The executive director said there are several
qualified applicants. Rascop recommended interviewing several
applicants even though one may be more qualified than the others.
2. The executive director complimented Leann Fenske for the
manner in which she has approached the position of secretary.
She has shown a high degree of motivation.
3. The Lake Density Report will be available in October.
4. The staff is keeping up with major projects. Dock
renewal applications will be sent out on or before the 10/15
normal date, for example.
5. The recorder, Juliene Weidner, has submitted her
resignation as of 10/1/94. Leann Fenske will assume those
duties. The board thanked Weidner for her service.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Tom Penn - Comments on Leaving the Board
Penn said this is his last meeting as a member of the board.
He has resigned as of 10/1. He has informed Tonka Bay he cannot
continue to serve because of his business obligations.
Penn said he has seen many changes since he came on the
board and hopes the changes will continue. He believes the LMCD
is the right organization to manage Lake Minnetonka. He
expressed thanks to the board for its support.
Johnstone expressed the appreciation of the board for Penn's
good judgment and wise counsel.
14
1LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 28, 1994
B. Baycliffe Property Owners Association - Request for
Survey Waiver
Dennis Caslavka, representing the Baycliffe Property Owners
Association, requested a waiver of the survey requirements for
the new multiDle dock license granted earlier in the meeting.
said a survey would cost $500 to $600. The survey stakes are
visible from the last survey. The executive director said the
code provides for waiver of the survey on seasonal docks.
Caslavka said three new docks outside of the lagoon will be
seasonal. The docks within the lagoon are permanent docks.
He
Rascop said he would want to see an as-built survey. The
consensus of the board was to deny Caslavka's request for a
survey waiver.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnstone declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.
William Johnstone, Chair
Douglas Babcock, Secretary
15
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:30 pm, Wednesday, September 28, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone
READING OF MINUTES - 8/24/94 Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMRENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda
(5 minute limit)
CONSENT AGENDA - Consent agenda items identified by an "*" will be
approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of
any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda
and considered as a specific agenda item.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock
* A. Approval of minutes, 9/10/94 meeting
B. Public Hearing Report, with findings and recommendations, for
the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, New Launch Ramp
Application for Lake Minnetonka Regional Park, recommending
approval of the new launch ramp subject to the ramp being
raised to at least the 931.5' flood plain elevation and the
storm drain runoff from the lower vehicle-only parking area be
directed from direct runoff down the ramp into the lake.
C. Wayzata Lakewalk, second draft of An Ordinance Amending the
LMCD Code of Ordinances to Establish Planned Usage Development
(PUD) Procedures and Standards and a Definition for Public
Piers, inviting Board review and comment, the specifics of the
draft ordinance to be then deferred to the next Water
Structures Committee meeting. (Per draft sent to Board members
9/2/94. )
D. Baycliffe Property Owners Association, South Upper Lake,
Minnetrista, recommending approval of new multiple dock license
with minor changes providing setbacks are met and approval is
received from the City of Minnetrista.
E. Additional business
LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster
A. Approval of minutes, 9/19/94 meeting
LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 9/28/94, Page 2
B. Public Hearing RePort, with findings and recommendations, to
Establish a Quiet Waters Area, 5 mph Speed Limit in the Channel
North of Cedar Point, Wayzata Bay, Woodland, the committee
recommending the' channel be extended by adding another green
and red buoy and narrowing the existing channel by 25 feet.
* C. Second Reading of Draft Ordinance, Sect. 3.07 Watercraft for
Hire adding Coast Guard Safety Standards in new subdivision 5
through 9, recommending second reading approval.
* D. Second Reading of Draft Ordinance Amending Sect. 3.09 Special
Events, changing licensing authority for special events to the
Sheriff, providing Sheriff with criteria which may be
considered in determining whether or not a special event
license should be granted, recommending second reading approval
* E. Special Events - Deposit refunds @ $100 each, recommending
approval of deposit refunds to the following:
1) Antique & Classic Boat Parade, 8/14/94
2) Minnetonka Challenge 5 Mile Swim, 8/6/94
3) Limited Bass Predator Classic, Team and Individual Events,
7/9, 8/14 and 8/27-28/94
3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Mollet * A. Approval of 9/8/94 minutes
B. Additional business
EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Penn
A. Approval of minutes, 9/16/94 meeting, handout
So
B. Draft 1994 Eurasian Water Milfoil Harvest report, handout
C. Zebra Mussel Action Plan Subcommittee report 8/14/94 meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Johnstone
A. Approval of minutes, 8/24/94 meeting
B. Nominating Committee report, new officer nominations
C. Report of'9/28/94 meeting;
FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Rascop A. August Balance Sheet
B. Year to Date Financial Summary through 8/31/94
C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment, handout
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen
NL~ BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
RECEIVED F,T 2 4
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATIO~ DISTRICT
Action Report:
Water Structures Com~nittee
Meeting:
7:30 am, Saturday, October 8, 1994
Room 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata
Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; James Grathwol,
Excelsior; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also
present, Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director; Lee Ann Fenske,
Recorder;
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 am.
1. Draft ordinance to Establish a Special Rule for Continuous
Shoreline of Dock Use Areas in Close Proximity.
Babcock introduced the ordinance as a means to allow on a limited basis
the transfer of boat slip density from non-continuous shore lines, in
this case an island, to a mainland shore location. This ordinance is
being proposed due to a new multiple dock license application from
Boyer Building Corp. for a site at Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, City
of Mound. Babcock also stated that ordinance conditions under Subd. 5,
a) to f), are the result of Water Structures Committee comments made at
its 7/9/94 meeting.
Babcock offered his comments on Item c) which creates a new density of
one restricted watercraft (boat. storage unit -- BSU) for each 35 feet
of shoreline, compared to the general rule of one BSU per 50 feet. He
questioned whether or not the 1:35 is a suitable number, or if some
other number would be more appropriate. (ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE -- The
attorney proposed lowering the one BSU to 50 feet to one BSU to 35 feet
to meet the density necessary to accommodate the Boyer request, which
is to transfer 12 BSU from the island to the mainland. This increases
the mainland density eligible for 28 BSU on 1,387 feet of shoreline, to
40 BSU at one BSU to 35 feet.)
Babcock suggested he might favor one BSU to 25 feet of shoreline. He
realizes the 1:35 number is more restrictive. Babcock reviewed that
the applicant's proposal is to use the island shoreline footage to
justify a density greater than 1:50 on the mainland parcel. In this
instance it may be desirable to avoid disturbing the island.
Grathwol urged the committee to make a decision on the 1:35 ratio.
Partyka expressed favor with the 1:35 ratio. Rascop favors more than
1:50. Babcock pointed out that the applicant is currently entitled to
1:50 at both locations. Babcock questioned making it more restrictive.
Babcock commented on Item f) i) recommending an addition to i) shown in
capital letters, which would change it to read "the transferor sites
and the transferee site must be in common ownership, NO RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS AS TO DOCKAGE RIGHTS;
Strommen suggested "common" ownership be clarified with the attorney.
P. 2, Water Structures Conunittee Report October 8, 1994
St~-~men also pointed out that the applicant questioned Item a),
su ~sting the 150 feet distance be from one land parcel to another
r~ ~r than the dock use area, since dock use areas are apt to move.
H~ .~roposed the attorney be invited to review this provision.
Grathwol commented on Item e), stating his interest in protecting
emergent aquatic vegetation in the lake. He discussed the types of
wetlands identified in the Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39.
Grathwol interprets the various types and State of MN Subd. 18
definition of Public Waters Wetlands as meaning a lake is a wetland.
He also believes there are inconsistencies in definitions of types 3,
4 and 5. He does not believe they include a concern for emergent
vegetation in the water.
Rascop discussed types 3, 4 and 5 as meeting the definition for the
purpose of this ordinance.
Babcock pointed out that the attorney may have written item e) this way
intentionally to be broad in definition and to meet the current
application.
Applicant John Boyer stated that the site has no wetlands on the
mainland or on the island. It is not an issue for them.
Rascop said he would like to see the ordinance be sent to the board,
even if it fails in the committee. He stated he opposes the ordinance.
He does not support putting docks on undeveloped land without a primary
structure on it.
Babcock returned to item f) i), and his wording addition of "WITH NO
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AS TO DOCKAGE RIGHTS." He gave an example of an
island being created from dredging "tailings" which the DNR would say
to the adjacent property owner that the island can be used but not for
boat storage. The owner then might come in and ask to transfer the
shoreline BSU density from the island to a mainland location. The
restrictive covenant would prevent this in Babcock's opinion.
Rascop stated he believes some mainland shore was also created by
dredging "tailings" and should not be counted for shoreline storage.
Babcock asked for a motion on the committee's preference.
Grathwol moved to table. There was no second. Table failed.
Babcock pointed out that the con~nittee needs more time with the
ordinance, but also understands the applicant's interest to have some
action on his application today.
Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend the draft ordinance to
the board with the only change being to Subd. 5. f) i) adding "WITH NO
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AS TO DOCKAGE RIGHTS."
P. 3, Water Structures Committee
October 8, 1994
Babcock asked that this be considered a motion to refer the draft
ordinance to the board.
VOTE ON MOTION. Babcock in favor, Grathwol, Partyka and Rascop
opposed. Motion failed.
Upon further consideration, Rascop moved, Partyka seconded, that the
ordinance, as previously amended, be forwarded to the board for review.
VOTE ON MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Rascop left the meeting at this time.
Boyer Building Corp new multiple dock license application for
Pelican Point Development, Spring Park Bay, City of Mound.
Background on the license application was given by Babcock, stating
that it was withdrawn by the applicant from further review by the
committee in August due to a question of island ownership brought by
the MN DNR. A letter of 9/23/94 from the MN DNR Bureau of Real Estate
Management states that a transfer of the island to the state is void,
and therefore the DNR has withdrawn its claim to Pelican Point Island.
Babcock referred to the revised site plan presented by the applicant
showing the dock configuration and water depths. Babcock reiterated
the point that this site plan could only be allowed after the Code
amendment previously discussed is adopted by the board. He also asked
if LMCD needs its own EAW, since the City of Mound EAW did not contain
the specific dock plan now under consideration. He would like the
board to make the determination if LMCD should do its own EAW.
Strommen reported that the Environmental Quality Board staff advised
that since dock plans were identified in the EAW, unless a person or
agency disputes the docks, they would consider the EAW requirements as
having been satisfied. The LMCD is one of two agencies which deal with
the dock, the other being the DNR. The DNR fully reviewed the EAW and
commented on it to the City of Mound. (In a 10/13 review with the
DNR's hydroloqist for Lake Minnetonka, the hydrologist concurred that
the docks were appropriately identified with a concept dock plan
showinq 40 slips north of the island. It is not unusual to have a
concept plan in an EAW.--This satisfies ~he needs of the EAW.)
The water depths on the inside slips at 929.4' were pointed out as a
concern by Babcock. As the water level drops to 928.6' or less, the
inside slips could be a depth problem for some if not most boats.
(LMCD's temporary low water variance does not apply until the water
level falls to 928.0') Babcock is concerned with having adequate water
depths for all slips. He does not want to see the need for dock length
variances after the property is sold to the residents.
P. 4, Water Structures Committee October 8, 1994
Grathwol pointed out Rascop's concern that he would not want to see
dock construction before there are residences on the site. Grathwol
asked if this could be addressed in the application conditions.
Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded to approve the application for a new
multiple dock license for Boyer Building Corp., Pelican Point
Development, Spring Park Bay, City of Mound, with 40 BSU, subject to:
1. Adoption of an ordinance to allow the transfer of boat storage
density (by establishing a special rule for continuous
shoreline of dock use areas in close proximity, as proposed in
Code Sect. 2.02, Subd.5 with recommended committee amendments)
2. Not requiring an EAW unless the board determines that an EAW
is necessary, and
3.Subject to conditions of sufficient water depths for all
dock slips, and
4. Subject to requiring significant construction progress of
primary structure buildings on the land to support
installation of the docks on the outlot;
5. Subject to homeowner association covenants dedicating all
of the lakeshore by an easement;
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION:
Strommen proposed that the stipulations in the license approval for
installation of the docks provide for staff to work with the applicant
as residential unit construction proceeds. Initial boat storage should
be limited to residents of the site as properties are sold.
Strommen also called attention to the EAW comments, submitted to the
City of Mound, listed under 2.d of the agenda, which recommend:
> Lake protection from erosion during construction meeting LMCD
Runoff Management Plan Policy 4 affecting water runoff quality
and quantity;
> Control green area (lawn) runoff to the lake by use of natural
vegetation buffer strip and control use and types of lawn
fertilizers affecting quality of water runoff;
> Use of dock lighting which avoids offensive impacts on the
water surface;
Babcock again stated that the Code change (recommended at the beginning
of this meeting) is necessary to support the 40 slip site plan involved
in this motion. Babcock reminded the applicant that the difficulty
with this plan today is that it calls for 40 slips which the Code does
not allow. If the plan were for 28 slips, it could have been
recommended for approval to the board without some of the conditions
discussed here today. He also reminded the applicant that the
ordinance change could require up to three public readings before the
board might adopt it.
Babcock proposed including a 6th condition in the motion:
6. Require the dock lighting to meet LMCD lighting requirements
__ to avoid offensive imRacts on the lake. (per EAW .comments)
P. 5, Water Structures Committee
October 8, 1994
Babcock believes the other two LMCD staff comments on the EAW regarding
lake protection from erosion and control of green area should be left
for the city to administer under their shoreland ordinance,
notwithstanding LMCD's Management Plan policy on the subject.
John Blumentritt commented for the applicant that the builder intends
to keep a natural vegetation buffer strip throughout the entire outlot
for the development, from the Island identified as outlot C to the
mainland shoreline which is also part of the outlot. He notes this was
also a DNR recommendation.
The applicant offered the proposal to submit a revised site plan for
the board to consider which would show the 28 slips on the mainland and
12 slips on the island. Babcock finds this as frustrating the normal
procedure for changes in dock plans to be first submitted to the
committee and then to the board.
Partyka called for a vote on the motion with the five conditions of
Grathwol's motion and the sixth condition added concerning lighting.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Ayes two, nays one (Babcock). Motion carried.
Grathwol left the meeting at this time.
3. ADJOURNMENT. Lacking a quorum, the meeting was adjourned.
Third Draft of an Ordinance to Establish Planned Usage Development
(PUD) Procedures and Standards and a Definition for Public Piers.
Babcock invited James Robin, Wayzata representative for the "Lakewalk"
proposed public pier, to remain for an informal discussion with he and
Partyka, lacking a committee quorum at this point.
Robin called attention to a comment made in Scott Richards Memorandum
of 9/29/94, highlighting the previous draft revisions, with Subd. 3.3),
page 3, changing the word "minimum" to "maximum", referring to width of
the walkway.
Babcock and Partyka reached concenses with Robin upon the following
additional changes to the 9/29/94 draft:
> Subd. 2, add a new para. e) adding a condition that public
piers may not be installed where there are type 1-8 wetlands
(per U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39).
> Subd. 3, para e), revise to state that no part of a public pier
may exceed 16 feet.
> Subd. 3, new para. 1), adding a condition to require a boat
storage unit to be reserved for emergency purposes.
> Subd. 3, p) revise as indicated by CAPITAL letters, to read "In
no case shall a public pier setback be less than thirty (30)
feet from side site lines FROM A MULTIPLE DUA, AND 60 FEET FROM
A NON-MULTIPLE DUA.
P. 6,
Water Structures Committee
October 8, 1994
> Subd. 5, c) 1) c), revise to include'new language requiring
greater detail to scale for structures on the public pier,
Richards to work out specific language.
> Subd. 5, d), revise to repeat the procedure to follow for the
General Plan, rather than refer back to the Concept Plan
procedure. Richards will present the revised procedure.
> Subd. 6, d), revise to indicate that the professional must be
registered in the applicable field for which the drawings are
being prepared.
Partyka and Babcock concluded that these changes should prepare the
draft ordinance for the board so that the board may consider holding a
public hearing.
(The procedure for public hearings now calls for them to be held prior
to the appropriate committee meeting. The November Water Structures
Committee meeting is scheduled for Saturday, November 19. A public
hearing would be timed for 8:00 am. The board meeting following the
committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 7.)
There was additional discussion on issues relating to the sta% ~s of the
Burlington-Northern Railroad position for approving access to the
Lakewalk, and municipal parking capacity during peak use times. These
are being addressed by the city, Robin responded. Committee members
expressed interest in the Burlington-Northern's willingness to enter
into an agreement with the city for access to the Lakewalk over their
railroad right-of-way.
Robin agreed to pass the recommended changes on to Scott Richards,
Northwest Associated Consultants, for incorporating into a further
revised draft.
ENVELOPE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. Babcock agreed to schedule the next
subcommittee meeting for 4:30 pm, Tuesday, November 1 at the LMCD
conference room.
FOR THE COMMITTEE:
Eugene R. Strommen
Executive Director
Douglas Babcock
Chair
RECEIVE3 2
LAKE M~x~IETONK.A CONSF_~VATION DISTB. ICT
O~DINANCE NO.
ITEM
1.B
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SHORELINE
RE(~UIREMENTS AND CALCULATION OF BOAT STORAGE
DENSITY ON LAKE MINNETONKA; AMENDING LMCD
CODE SECTION 2.02 BY ADDING SUBDIVISION 5
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION
DISTRICT (LMCD) ORDAINS that the LMCD Code of Ordinances, Section 2.02 is
amended by adding new subdivision 5 as follows:
Subd. 5. Special Rule for Non-Continuous Shoreline of Dock Use
Areas in Close Proximity. The Board may authorize shoreline from one or
more sites (the "transferor sites") to be counted as part of another site (the
"transferee site") for the purpose of computing permissible boat storage
density. Applications for permission to transfer boat storage density shall be
made in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 2.03 and shall be
processed as a part of the applicant's multiple or commercial dock license
application. Criteria to be considered by the Board in evaluating whether to
approve such application shall include all criteria set forth in Section 2.03,
subd. 3a). No such permission to transfer boat storage density sh~]~ be
granted by the Board unless the following additional conditions are met:
a) The dock use areas of each transferor site and the transferee
site may be no more than 150 feet apart.
b)
The credit for boat storage density transferred from any
transferor site may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each
100 feet of shoreline of the transferor site (with fractional
watercraft counted in accordance with subdivision 1).
c)
The total boat storage at the transferee site may not exceed one
restricted watercraft for each 35 feet of shoreline of the
transferee site (with fractional watercraft counted in accordance
with subdivision 1).
d)
e)
f)
No variances, other than temporary low water variances, may be
granted for construction of docks at the transferee site.
Neither transferor site nor transferee site may have shoreline
comprised in whole or in part of wetlands.
As long as the transferee site is used for the storage of more
restricted watercraft than this Code would allow without the
transfer of boat storage density under this subdivision:
i)
the transferor sites and the transferee site must be in
common ownership; WITH NO RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS,
and
C~T,7&705
l~r~ lO-13
l~.O docks or boat storage is ~permitted on the t~nsfe~or
sites; and
the tm~nsferor sites must be m~fntained in essentially 'a
natural state and may not be used for residential dwelling
U~ts 01' commevcial uses.
This ordinance is in effect frem and after its passage and publication in
accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of
all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ord!~,nce.
Adopted by the LMCD Board this day of
, 1994.
William Johnstone,
ATTEST:
Douglas E. Babcock, Secretar~
C~76705
LE,I. IO-I3
Wetl and Tyg. es and Defi ni ti on.s
From Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No 39
T.ype & Deli ni ti on
TYPE I - Seasonally flooded basins or flats. Soil is covered
with water or is waterlogged during variable seasonal periods but
usually is well-drained during much of the growing season.
Vegetation varies greatly according to season and duration of
flooding: from bottom-land hardwoods as well as herbaceous
growths.
TYPE 2 - Inland fresh meadows. Soil is usually without standing
water during most of the growing season but is waterlogged within
at least a few inches of surface. Vegetation includes grasses,
sedges, rushes and various broadleaved plants. Meadows may fill
shallow basins, sloughs, or farmland sags, or these meadows may
border shallow marshes on the landward' side.
Type 3 - Inland shallow fresh marshes. Soil is usually
waterlogged early during growing season; often covered with as
much as 6 inches or more of water. Vegetation includes grasses,
bulrushes, spikerushes and various other marsh plants such as
cattails, arrowheads, pickerelweed and smartweeds. These marshes
may nearly fill shallow lake basins or sloughs, or may border
deep marshes on landward side.' Also co~on as seep areas on
irrigated lands.
Type 4 - Inland deep fresh marshes. Soil is usually covered with
6' to 3' or more of water during growing season. Vegetation
includes cattails, reeds, bulrushes, spikerushes and wildrice.
In open areas, pondweeds, nalads, coontail, watermilfoils,
waterweeds, duckweeds, waterlilies or spatterdocks may occur.
These deep marshes may completely fill shallow lake basins,
potholes, limestone sinks and sloughs, or they may border open
water in such depressions.
Type 5 - Inland open fresh water. Shallow ponds and reservoirs
are included in this type. Water is usually less than 10' deep
and fringed by a border of emergent vegetation similar to open
areas of Type 4.
Type 6 - Shrub swamps. Soil is usually waterlogged during
growing season and is often covered with as much as 6' of water.
Vegetation includes alders, willows, buttonbush, dogwoods, and
swamp-privet. Occur mostly along sluggish streams and
occasionally on flood plains.
Wetland T~pe and Definitions
Page (2) ~ . ..... ... ~ .~.,~
Type ? - Wooded swamps. Soil is waterlogged at least to within a
few inches of surface during growing season and is often covered
with as much as 1' of water. Occur mostly along sluggish
streams, on flood plains, on flat uplands and in shallow basins.
Trees include tamarack, arborvitae, black spruce, balsam, red
maple and black ash. Northern evergreen swamps usually have a
thick ground cover of mosses. Deciduous swamps frequently
support beds of duckweeds, smartweeds.
Type 8 - Bogs. Soil is usually waterlogged and supports a spongy
covering of mosses. Occurmostly in shallow basins, on flat
uplands and along sluggish'streams. Vegetation is woody or
herbaceous or both. Typical plants are heath shrubs, sphagnum
moss and sedges. In the North, leatherleaf, Labrador-tea,
cranberries, carex and cottongrass are often present. Scattered,
often stunted, black spruce and tamarack may occur.
WATERS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Section 103G.005
Subd. 18. PUBLIC WATERS WETLANDS. "Public waters wetlands"
means all types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands as defined in United States
Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), not
included within the definitioD of public waters, that are ten or
more acres in size in, unincorporated areas or 2-1/2 or more
acres in incorporated areas.
SUBD. 19. WETLANDS (a) "Wetlands" means lands transitional
between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow
water. For purposes of this definition, wetlands must have the
following three attributes:
(1) have a predominance of hydric soils;
(2) are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of
Hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions; and
(3) under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such
vegetation.
(b) Wetlands does not include public waters wetlands as defined
in subdivision 18.
Laws 1990, c. 391, art 7, section 2. Amended by Laws 1990, c.
597, section 62, eff. May 4, 1990; Laws 1991, c. 354, art 6,
sections I to 6; Laws 1991, c. 354, art 10, section 4.
RECEIVED
. ;
~ O3
0
0
0 ~
~ 0
0
I-.I
L
0 ~0 m 0
"1
J
~T