The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-05-06AGENDA - MOUND cITY coUNCIL RECON~ENED BOARD OF RE¥IEW MONDAY, MAY 6, 1996- 7 PM RECOMMENDATIONS FROM KEITH RENNE~ELDT, pRINCIPAL APPRAISER' i-IENNEPIN c°uNvry' APPROVAL OF VALUATIONS AS sUBMITtED BY HENNEPIN couNTY AND/OR ApPROYAL OF MoDiFICATIONS BY LOCAL BOARD OF RE¥IEW- ADIOURN-MENT OF LOCAL BOARD OF RE¥IEW. AGENDA sPECIAL cITY coUNCIL MEETING cITY OF MOUND FOLLOWING TIlE CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MAY 6, 1996 1. pLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE pROCLAMATION OF TIlE WEEK OF MAY 6 - 10, 1996 AS 2. WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK ............... 139'7-1398 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO coNSIDER TIlE RENEWAL OF A cONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE oPERATION OF A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR GLASS PLUS AT 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE. . ............... SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 14, 1996 ............. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ~/OODLAlqD POINT MEDIATION wORK GROUP ................. 1399 1400-1425 5. OTHER BusINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT 1396 RECEIVED ~?R 2. 4 1§~ O NKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD ' MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-0347 April 22, 1996 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, Mn 55364 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Each year the Westonka Senior Center celebrates National Older Americans Month by having a special week of activities in May. We would appreciate if your city could declare the week of May 6th through 10th as Westonka Senior Center Week. Thank you for your wonderful support and confidence for these many years. We are proud to be a place where Westonka seniors can come to receive services and give back to their communities. Our area is a fine place to grow old! Sincerely, Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. Board of Directors A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound ·Orono · Spring Park · Minnetrista RESOLUTION ~96 PROCLAINIING RESOLUTION CEaNTER WEEK wESTONKA SENIOR MAY 6TH - 10TH wHEREAS, we need to realize now, more than ever, what a resource our older Americans are, and that the abilities of the older AmeriCanS to invest our country with their knowledge, creativity and experience cannot be denied; and, the opportunity wHEREAS, senior centers offer valuable service to the community in providing our senior citizens the benefits of good fellowship, encouragement and support, to help themselves and each other, and offering service or access to community services as Month and needed; and, wHEREAS, the month of May has been proclaimed Older AmeriCanS communities across the country are giving special recognition to the role of senior centers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that May 6th through 10th is Mound, and the celebration of past Westonka Senior Center Week in the City of of involvement and contribution to our accomplishments and encouragement for continuation Westonka Community. 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 Xttest: Acting C~ty Clerk 5341 MAyWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168,7 (612) 472-0600 FAY, (612) 472-0620 pUBLIC HEAP. lNG NOTICE cITY OF MOUND MOUND, MiNNEsOTA cASE NO. 96-16 NOTICE OF A pUBLIC HEARING TO coNSIDER THE RENEWAL OF A coNDITIONAL USE pERMIT FOR GLASS pLUS AT TO oPERATE A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS 5533 sHoRELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the CounCil Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at ?:30 p.m. on conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Minor Auto as Lot 5 and the ~9~96 to consider the renewal of a Repair business for Glass Plus at 5533 Shoreline Drive, legally described Westerly 50 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's subdivision Number All persons appearing at said heating with reference to the above will be given the opportunity tO be heard at this meeting. · . lng Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by May 3, 1996, published in The Laker on April 27, 1996, and posted by April 27, 1996. printed on recycled paper MAY 03 KEMMr'DY & GRIqVF-M Way 3, 1996 E~ward 3. Shukle, Jr. 53~1 Mayw~ Road Mound, ~ 553~1687 ~~n~tFons o[ w~l~d ~int M~diafion W~ At o~ ~o6ng yes~daY with M~yor polston, b was s~~ t~t I f~sh you ~ "ouO~e" which ho~fUlly woutd ~ of nssi~nnce m ~e city council ~ R cons~d~s impleme, nta~O~ of the r~ommenda~OnS o~ t~o wo~ ~oup, T~o gen~al condUdon of ~ ~ouu~nda~on is ~t ~o W~d point ~ons won~ ~ Waut'~a) should ~ couS~ as ~dvam co~OnS which ~e ~n~ned for ~ ~n~fit o~ ~c owu~ ~e ci~ would con~ue to ~ i~voive~ for e~en~ally ~ re~ons: a~ R has th~ s~ff and ~ ex~ience in p~ovidi~ ~ome of ~e ~ces wh~ ~e w~d poha ~si~cnts wan~ n conn~O~n ~ the ~o~d 0~ ~ro~ ~s n~s~Y ~ o~dct' to ~n~nuc ~ obtain ~ cu~eut num~ of d~k ~tts. c) ~e ~tY provides a fo~'um for x~vic~n6 po~n6nl disputoS ~eeu owne~ ~oups. 2, ~ ~wncrs As~uuon ~e Work (.~ro~p re~ would ~ as volunt~ B~aus~ ~ role of the ~, ms de~d~ h a~ent for the owners, it is ve~ impor~t ~ai ~he inspections and d~o~s of ~e owners hav~ ~ c~ac~ris~cs - a) cl~i~, b) ~e{iness and c) ~ a~pmble to ~e cRY. It i~ ~ Al~ough ~ lawsuit olfly involv~ ~6 po~ons of Wawon~s~ ~o~OnS ~bu~n8 plaintiffs propc~, ~c work 8roup r~om~ndafions ~e dkec~d m~ all of Wawonai~ ~d ~ of Waudka. 14~J20O 1 MRY 03 '96 10:02 KENNEDY & GERVEN P.2 Edward J. Shukle, May 3, 1996 Page Two Jr. important that the city have someone who represents the owners to whom it can communicate rather than to communicate with every Single owner. For these reasons, i am suggesting that the owners form an association whose role would be to represent the owners in all matters involving regulation of thc Woodland Point Commons. Thc so-called association would be somewhat informal, would probably not hold the rights to the commons and would continue to function only so long as it was the concensus of the owners that it should. We will be willing to put together thc necessary instruments to create such an entity. 3. AKrccmcnt Between City and AssociatiOn,: Once the association has been created, thc association and thc city could enter into a "comprehensive agency agreement" which would define thc roles of the parties rcgaxding the commons. The agreement would be used here to deal with thc Woodland Point commons much like the Ordinances deal with the public commons. The agreement would address a number of issues which would include the following: Number and location of docks. a) The council may wish to consider a process similar to Mound's dock localion map, except that here, thc association would annually submit its location map for Woodland Point. The city could either approve the map and extend the agency agreement for that year or disapprove the map and not extend thc agency agreement. b) multiple vs. duster docks - cost, phasing. c) . fees to cover the city's costs. ~- Certain improvements to the commons might be necessary Or desirable including stairs or other access to multiple or cluster docks. The agreement should address these matters,, how they would tx= finan~d and by whom. Encroachments - The regulations which are applicable to public commons are not directly applicable here. The agreement should address whether the city should have a role with respect to.controling encroachments, ~ - The agreement may or may not address the status and the future of Canary Beach. Should it remain as a public beach operated by the city'?. JBDlO¢0%3 MU200-1 MAY OB '~G 10:0~ KEMMEDY i GRAVEM ~ - The agreement should assign responsibility' for maintaining the commons area. Pm ~- Especially if the city is to have no responsibility for maintenance or for encroachments, the agreement should make it clear that it is thc owners and not the city which has responsibility. Law ]~nforccment Issues -. Unless the agreement indicates otherwise, enforcement of the laws would be done in the same manner as with any private property in the city. Hopefully, this outline of issues may be helpful to the council in determining how to proceed; and, if the agreement format is used, the specifics which would be included in the agreement- IBD:ds SincerelyN ,JBDlO401I MU200-1 We the undersigned, participated in the Woodland Point Mediation Work Group. This report reflects the consensus of the Group. Plaintiffs Representatives JeffBishop Jack Korlath Denny Flack Non-litigant Abutting Dock Holders Bob Lein Olen Pederson Jim Walters Non-abutting Dock Holders - Wawonaissa/Waurika Mike Aspelin John Eccles Leah Weycker Non-abutting Residents without Docks Rodney Hein Cathy Bailey Paul Erickson Abutting Waurika Commons Dock Holders Danie Watson Chuck Champine Dave Kunz City of Mound Mark Goldberg Gordy Tulberg Ed Shukle /4a3 WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION WORK GROUP REPORT TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 23, 1996 BACKGROUND On January 30, 1996, the Mound City Council hosted a public meeting to discuss ways of resolving issues involving the use of Wawonaissa Commons. The Council invited public participation in its decision to appeal or not appeal a lawsuit limiting the city's authority over certain lands and activities within the Commons. At~er considerable discussion, there was a consensus that a work group, consisting of representatives of various interests in the Commons, be established to work with a mediator in identifying and addressing the issues and reporting recommendations back to the Council. The Work Group was directed to complete its activities not later than April 30, 1996, due to the city's 90 day time limit for appealing the Court's decision in the lawsuit. In forming the mediation work group, six interests were identified: litigant abutting dock holders; non-litigant abutting dock holders; non-abutting dock holders; non-abutting residents without docks; abutting Waurika Commons dock holders; and, the City of Mound. Interest groups were asked to choose their representatives to the mediation. The list of representatives is attached as Appendix A. MEETINGS The Mediation Work Group met a total often times between February 6th and April 17th. The first meeting was dedicated to a discussion of "ground rules" or procedures as to how the Work Group would interact and conduct its business. The second meeting focussed on issues from the perspective of the six interests represented at the table. These issues are displayed by interest group on Appendix B and by categories on Appendix C. The issues list formed the basis for the agenda at all subsequent meetings and will provide the structure to this report. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issue 1: Appeal of Lawsuit The Mediation Work Group reached consensus that this report, if implemented, would eliminate the need, in our opinion, for the City to appeal the court's decision in the Flack, et al. V. City of Mound lawsuit. Page Two Issue 2: Recommendations: Implementation of Recommendations A. The recommendations in this report should be implemented as quickly as possible. B. The City should reconvene the Mediation Work Group during the Fall of 1996 to evaluate the implementation of recommendations contained in this report. Issue 3: Dock Program Clearly, docks are the number one concern for abutters and non-abutters alike - how many, where they are located and who administers a dock program. Docks were discussed, in one form or another, at every meeting of the Mediation Work Group. To gain information about dockage options, the Group invited Mr. Greg Nybeck of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the District's attorney, Charles LeFevere to discuss how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the Commons in light of the order to the court in the lawsuit. A memo from Mr. LeFevrere is attached as Appendix D. The Work Group also reviewed the recommendations of the Commons Task Force pertaining to docks. The City prepared an aerial photo of the Commons, showing dock locations and a plat map that actually sited each dock in relation to the lots abutting the Commons. A sub-committee of the Work Group formulated five dock options which were thoroughly discussed by the Work Group along with a sixth option generated during that discussion. The options with Work Group comments are listed in Appendix E. A listing of all docks within the City of Mound is attached as Appendix F. Recommendations: That the future dock program: mo maintain the number of existing dock sites currently on the two Commons - 54 dock sites (two of which are unavailable due to obstructions). allow one dock site in front of each abutter's house and continue to give the abutters priority for permits on those docks. Allow non- abutter's to cluster their individual docks at ends of streets, other than Canary Lane, on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. Clustered docks can be placed closer together than 20-30 feet. rewrite City rules to encourage and provide positive incentives for all dock owners - abutters and non-abutters - to share docks. Do not punish permit holders for sharing a dock one year by not granting a permit for an individual dock the next year. Page Three D. consider providing fishing docks for use by Woodland Point residents. E. consider the possibility of allowing docks accommodating more than one boat (multiple docks) in the future if supported by dock owners. F. The Work Group further recommends that the City negotiate with the LMCD to implement the provisions of this dock program. Issue 4: How should the Commons be Used? The Mediation Work Group discussed many different uses of the Commons by abutters and non- abutters. Some abutters were concerned about trespass on their private property by those gaining access or egress to the Commons. Non-abutters were concerned about continuing their right to use the Commons in an unobstructed manner, while considering the rights of abutters. Generally, it was felt that common sense could and should prevail among all parties. Recommendations: A. Information dissemination: As a means of clarifying appropriate use of the Commons by Woodland Point residents, it is recommended that an informational brochure be developed and distributed to Woodland Point residents only. B. Access points: Free and unobstructed access to the Commons should be a continued right of all Woodland Point residents. Some existing access points are in need of improvements to facilitate access while the use of others should be discontinued. Woodland Road o consider adding stairs or handicap access Bluebird Lane North - regrade path Bluebird Lane South - not an appropriate public access due to wet conditions. Work with abutting property owner to discourage trespass and limit access to Commons at this point with possible landscaping and by listing appropriate access points in the informational brochure. C. Pedestrian Use To provide privacy for abutters and unobstructed passage for pedestrians, walkers should be encouraged to traverse the Commons Il Page Four near the waters edge and away from close proximity to homes. The right of privacy of abutters should be respected to the extent possible. D. Shoreline fishing Fishing should be permitted from the shoreline of the Commons. Dock fishing should be limited to dock owners or those gaining permission from dock owners. Include information in proposed brochure. Noise: Include reference in informational brochure Snowmobiling/ATV's Motorized machines should not be allowed to traverse the Commons. Machines should access/egress the Commons perpendicular to the shoreline and only at Canary and Finch Lanes. Abutters may access/egress the lake directly from their property. G. Overnight Use Although some water-related use will occur at night, no overnight use of the Commons should be permitted. H. Encroaching Structures Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shoreland Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by an encroachment's existence. Hinderance of access to the Commons is defined here as actions or structures which block access to docks, block the ability to traverse the Commons, or block the ability to conduct other permitted activities. In order to prevent hinderance of access to the lakeshore, structures would be allowed only in accordance with Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) regulations. To the extent possible, a thirty foot traversable area adjacent to the lake would be maintained. In some cases the area of traversable lakeshore may be narrower than thirty feet. In those cases, the LMCD and SMO regulations would apply. No new lock boxes or decks that would be permissable under LMCD or SMO regulations will be allowed on Wawonaissa or Waurika Commons. Page Five Prohibited activities and encroachments which fall under the regulation of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or the MN Dept. Of Natural Resources will continue to be governed by those agency's regulations. The current permitting process should be simplified to reduce the time required to obtain a permit and to create an approval mechanism consistent with the potential impact of the action requiring the permit. a. Some activities currently requiring a permit should be allowed without one. Examples of these activities include: - lawn mowing - trimming of tree limbs below a height of 8 feet - maintaining existing stairways or other existing structures, and - planting new flower beds which do not exceed 25 sq. ff., nor exceed 5 linear feet on any one side (for example, a 5'x5' flower bed is okay; a 2'x10' bed would require a permit Not all permits should require City Council approval. The appropriate City staff should have the authority to grant some permits, with residents having the ability to appeal any decision to the parks commission and/or the city council. Examples of those activities include landscaping and major maintenance activities such as: - trimming of tree limbs above a height of 8 feet - tree removal - landscaping - planting new flower beds which exceed 25 sq. R. or which exceed 5 linear feet on any one side, and - clearcutting c. Ail construction activities should continue to require approval of the appropriate city authority and the City Council. 5. When granted for an encroachment, a permit should be granted for the life of the structure, provided there is no change in the nature or extent of the encroachment that hinders or discourages access. 6. Planting is undertaken at one's own risk. Page Six Issue 5: Roles and Responsibilities: The Mediation Work Group had spirited discussion over the past role of the City of Mound in administering the Commons. Some abutters felt that the City was guilty of micro-management, requiring lengthy reviews of permit applications for improvements considered by them to be insignificant and/or beneficial. Other abutters felt comfortable with the City's past actions and expressed interest in continued oversight. Many non-abutters see the City as their ally, protecting their interests and rights in the Commons. Clearly, some feel that without continued City presence, the rights of non-abutters will gradually erode away. The Work Group considered various ways of administering the Commons in the future. The two most commonly discussed methods were a Woodland Point homeowner's association and continued City administration. It was the consensus of the work group that a homeowner's association not be pursued at this time. Recommendations: A. Public Safety The Work Group recommends that the Mound Police Department continue to enforce all municipal laws in the Commons and respond to calls and complaints about inappropriate use. B. Maintenance/Trash Pickup 1. The City should continue to maintain the Canary Beach swimming area 2. Abutters and non-abutters will be responsible for maintaining the commons. C. Dock Program Administration The City of Mound should continue to issue dock site permits and uniformly enforce the ongoing maintenance of docks on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons, excluding the six litigants. The Commons Task Force should work with the City to develop appropriate standards for maintaining and enforcing the maintenance of docks. Page Seven Issue 6: Resolution of Future Disputes Recommendation: The City should continue to use a representative group of Woodland Point residents, on an ad hoc basis, to make recommendations on resolving future disputes. APPENDIX A Woodland Point Mediation Work Group Members WOODLAND POINT SUBDIVISION MEDIATION PARTIES NON-LITIGANT ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS Bob Lien 1583 Bluebird Lane 472-4095 Jim Walters 1601 Bluebird Lane 472-2622 Olen Pederson 1593 Bluebird Lane 472-7158 NON-ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS - WAWONAIS S A/WAURIKA Mike Aspelin 1604 Eagle Lane 472-4860 John Eccles 5112 Woodland Road 472-3267 Leah Weycker 1586 Bluebird Lane 472-4187 NON-ABUTTING RESIDENTS WITHOUT DOCKS Rodney Hein 1605 Eagle Lane 472-2123 Cathy Bailey 1554 Bluebird Lane 472-4011 Paul Erickson 1564 Bluebird Lane 472-3845 I~EPRESENTATIVES OF THE SIX PLAINTIFFS Jack Korlath 1579 Bluebird Lane JeffBishop 1549 Bluebird Lane Denny Flack 1609 Bluebird Lane 472-3657 472-5456 472-7243 ABUTTING WAURIKA COMMONS DOCK HOLDERS Danie Watson Chuck Champine. Dave Kunz 1559 Eagle Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1546 Bluebird Lane 472-6477 472-4795 472-1806 (~ITY OF MOUND REPRESENTATIVES Ed Shukle 5341 Maywood Road Gordy Tulberg 1711 Finch Lane Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive 472-0609 472-7963 472-4624 tql~ APPENDIX B Mediation Issues - by Interest Group 0 9 APPENDIX C Mediation Issues - by Category 2/15/96 WOODLAND POINT SUBDMSION MEDIATION ISSUES - CATEGORIZED Use of Commons Non-abutters - access points - parking - docks - non-motorized use - motorized use - overnight use - picnicking - unorganized games - fishing Abutters - building new shoreline structures - improvements to property - privacy concerns Roles and Responsibilities (who does what) - maintenance of existing structures w/o regulation/interference by city - over-regulation by city - cities inadequate response to problems - LMCD rules (fees?) - fairness in applying rules - noise, litter, privacy, parking, general maintenance and upkeep - control of encroachment - policing powers - preserve/improve existing Canary Beach swimming area - maintain existing lake views - buffer zones Docking - overcrowding - docking priorities - docking fees - multiple docking options - preserve existing rights for spaces - options for non-abutters - maintaining existing number of slips Taxes - impact of court decision on property taxes of abutters and non-abutters -- over-- Define Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons Boundaries - how/who?? Miscellaneous - Accident insurance - liability - Affect on water main - Process for resolving future disputes Maintain Neighborhood Peace and Harmony/Avoid Anarchy Mediation Agreement - not to change court decision - lasting/binding - impact on similarly dedicated commons APPENDIX D Letter from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Attorney Attorneys at Law ROnERT A. At. SOP BRUCE ,N'L BATTER~ON RONALD H. BATTY STEPHEN J. BUBU% JOH~ B. DF.m,I Dnnm'L J. GRr~S'W~m DAVID J. KENNEDY CHARLES L. LEFEVERE JOITN M. L~FEVRE, J~. ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT C. LONG JAMY. S M. STROMMEN CORRINE H. THOMSON KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 Facsimile (612) 337.9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (~12) 337-9215 March 5, 1996 JAMES J. THOMSON LARRY .~. WERTHEIM BONNIE L W[LKIN$ JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991) OF COUNSEL ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVlDSON WELLINGTON H. LAW FLOYD B. OLSON CURTIS A. PEARSON T. JAY SALMEN Greg Nybeck Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, MN 55391-1836 RE: Mound Commons Dear Greg: You have asked for my comments on how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the Mound Commons in light of the order of the court in the case of Flack. et al. v. City of Mound. et al.. Under the LMCD Code, dockage rights are recognized for "sites" on Lake Minnetonka. Sites are defined in LMCD Code Section 1.02, subdivision 51 as "... any shoreline lot, parcel or other piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder". As this term is def'med, none of the lots of the litigants in the Flack case are "sites" because they are not "lakeshore" lots. Under the LMCD Code, the common area would be a single site. As such, if one or more docks for the storage of more than a total of four restricted watercraft (defined in section 1.02, subdivisions 41 and 55a, generally watercraft which are 16 feet or more in length or having motors of more than 10 HP) are constructed on the Commons, a multiple dock license is required under LMCD Code section 2.03. The total watercraft storage density for the commons may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of shoreline as provided in LMCD Code section 2.02. In most cases where multiple owners have an interest in one "site" on Lake Minnetonka, all owners join together in an application for a single multiple dock license which provides storage of not more than a total of one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline. Therefore, one option would be for all owners having an interest in the Commons area to form some sort of association for the purpose of applying for a dock license from the LMCD. In the past, the LMCD has recognized the transfer of exclusive dockage rights from one party to another by deed, easement or license. For example, when one landowner transfers exclusive dockage rights on 100 feet of lakeshore to the owner of adjacent property, the LMCD has recognized that 100 feet of shoreline as being part of the transferee's property for licensing .I0-4 Greg Nybeck March 5, 1996 Pagei 2 purposes. Therefore, if the owners having an interest in the Commons area consent to continuing control by the city of Mound over all dockage rights for all or a portion of the Commons area, the LMCD could treat the affected lakeshore as a part of the lakeshore of the city of Mound. Since the LMCD Code allows a municipality to combine all of its lakeshore, whether contiguous or not, for purposes of the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule, that lakeshore could continue to be a part of the city's multiple dock license application, and the city could continue to license dockage as they have in the past. Therefore, if all of the owners with an interest in the Commons area agree to a single unified multiple dock license application for the entire Commons area, it could apply to the LMCD for a license which could be granted subject to the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. Likewise, all owners could agree to allow the city of Mound to continue to be the agency applying for this license under the city's license application to the LMCD. If all parties agree that some, but not all of the Commons area should continue to be a part of the city of Mound license, that part of the lakeshore could be considered to be a part of the city's lakeshore for LMCD licensing purposes. If there are parts of the Commons area which are not a part of a unified application, either by a homeowners group or by the city of Mound, those parts of the lakeshore would be subject to the LMCD Code as separate parcels. As to the six owners who were parties to the lawsuit referred to above, the court has ordered that the city has no right to regulate their construction of docks. However, the court did not resolve dockage rights among the owners of all lots having an interest in the Commons area, and did not provide any special rights for owners of lots immediately adjacent to the Commons. The LMCD has no power to adjudicate riparian rights (including the right to construct docks in the lake) between owners having conflicting claims. Therefore, I would recommend that in the case of all parts of the Commons area which are not subject to an agreement for a single application, either by the city or by a homeowners group, the LMCD simply treat this lakeshore as separate sites subject to the licensing requirement and the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. If the parties cannot agree, and no license is secured from the LMCD, and if docks are constructed on such parts of the Commons which are not covered by an overall agreement, the LMCD would commence prosecution against all parties with docks on such shoreline for erection of multiple docks without a license. If you have any other questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:cmm CLLIOi2$O APPENDIX E Docking Options WOODLAND POINT SUBDIVISION DOCKING OPTIONS Discussion from March 13th OPTION 1: Move Wawonaissa non-abutting docks to multiple docks at the end of Bluebird/Canary - Dock size would accommodate 3-6 boats - A stairway may be required Comments: - similar to Options 2 and 3 OPTION 2: Multiple dock program for all dock owners - with 7 multiple docks, size would be about 8 slips per dock to maintain existing site count - multiple dock sites to be evenly distributed along lake shore and at street endings - all dock owners would participate Comments: - public parking - access at Bluebird, Eagle, Dove - ownership of docks _ maintenance/policing/control - freeze number of sites (no increase over current number) - security - cost - inconvenient - will remove options for public fishing - administration of program - by whom? - creates imposition on abutters - number of boats per dock - already spent money on own dock - not practical OPTION 3: Move all non-abutters to multiple docks at street endings. - Abutting owners have dock in front of house all dock owners pay same fee to spread cost of multiple dock over all dock owners non-abutting owners get dock site without responsibility for maintenance. - responsibility for installation, removal, maintenance would be handled by third party - city would require some assurance of control if they were asked to implement Comments: - provides some balance between abutters who maintain area and have own docks with non-abaters who don't maintain area and have multiple docks - need to have a lift for boat - possible to accommodate non-abutter's needs by locating multiple docks for 4-5 boats at ends of six streets. - cost of multiple dock? - access down slopes? parking control/maintenance want families of non-abutters to have same dock rights as abutters seems to limit non-abutters to one boat may affect ability of adjacent abutters to have docks on their property due to required setbacks - eliminates docks for fishing - limit size, and number of boats - option clusters non-abutters to open up space for abutters - consider a fishing dock - what would a multiple dock look like - boat size, lilts?? - policy for site maintenance as abutters - program administration OPTION 4: Spread out existing docks by exploring possibility to expand into currently non-accessible areas Comments: - cost - DNR permits OPTION 5: Encourage all dock owners to share docks Comments: - rewrite city rules to recognize and encourage shared docks and not punish someone for not putting out their own dock one year by not granting a permit the next year - cap the total number of slip-holders OPTION 6: Create clusters of docks at ends of streets Comments: - utilizes current investment in dock - serveS all needs: gives abutters privacy/non-abutters have their own docks. - lessens need to traverse commons. - lower cost than Option 3 APPENDIX F Attachment to Dock Location Map CITY OF MOUND ATTACHMENT TO DOCK LOCATION MAP Rev. 215/96 i lB REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 1 00010 D Avocet Lane 2 oo030 O 3 OO050 D & 00070 0 5 00115 O 6 00125 D 7 00145 O 8 00155 D 9 00195 D 10 00215 0 11 00235 0 12 00255 D 13 00275 O 14 00295 O 15 00315 D 16 00335 O 17 00355 D 18 00385 D 19 00490 0 20 00550 0 21 00580 D 22 00610 0 23 00640 O 24 00670 O 25 00700 O 26 OO73O O 27 00760 D 28 00790 D 29 00820 0 30 00850 O 31 OO88O 0 32 00910 O 33 00940 O 34 00970 D 35 01000 O 36 O1O3O D 37 O1O6O C 38 01090 C 39 O112O C 40 01150 C 41 01170 C 42 01200 C 43 01530 C &4 0156O C 45 01600 C 46 01650 c 47 01880 O 48 01900 O 49 01920 O 50 01940 0 51 01960 0 52 01980 O 53 02000 O 54 02020 D 55 02040 O 56 02060 0 57 02080 0 58 02100 O Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane BLuebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Wawonatssa Con,non Wawonaissa Conamn Wawonaissa Common Wawonalssa Co~n Wawonalssa Cormmn Wawonalssa Corrmon Wawona~ssa Corrrnon Wawonalssa Conmon Wawonalssa Conmon Wawona~ssa Wawonalssa Corrmon Wawonatssa Common Wawonaissa Con=mn Wawona~ssa Common Wawonaissa Core,on Wawona~ssa (or. non Wawona~ssa Common Wawonaissa Con~non Wawonalssa Waurika Co.'mon Waurika Common Weurika Common Waurika Con~on ~aurika Cor~non Waurika Co~non Waurika Co~on ~aurika ~aur{ka Con,non Waurika Conmon Waurika Co.non Waurika Co~non Waurika Common Waurika Con,on Waurika Cormon ~aurika Common Waurika Con,non Waurika Common Waurika Con,non Waurika ¢ornnon Waurika Common REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02180 D Uaurika Common 60 02200 D Waurika Common 61 02220 D Waurika Co~on 62 02250 D Waurika 63 02280 64 02310 D Waurika Conmon 65 02340 0 Waurika 66 02370 0 Waurika 67 02400 0 ~aurika 68 02430 D ~aurika Common 69 02460 D Naurika Con~on 70 02490 D Waurika Cor~non 71 02520 O Waurika Con~on 72 02550 O Waurika Common 73 02605 D Pebble Beech (oran 74 02635 D Pebble Beach Corrm 75 02665 D Pebble Beach Con~n 76 02695 D Pebble Beach Comm 77 02720 D Pebble Beach Con~ 78 02750 D Pebble Beach Con~ 79 02780 O Pebble Beach Comm 80 02810 D Three Pts. Blvd. 81 02840 O Three Pts. Blvd. 82 02870 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02900 O Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02930 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 85 04070 O Beachside (North) 86 04110 O Beachside (North) 87 10020 0 Shorewood Lane 88 10050 0 Beachside (South) 89 10070 D aeachside (South) 90 10090 O Beachside (South) 91 10220 D Crescent Park 92 10250 O Crescent Park 93 10280 D Crescent Park 94 10310 O Crescent Park 95 10340 O Crescent Park 96 10370 D Crescent Park 97 10400 0 Crescent Park 98 10430 D Crescent Park 99 10460 0 Crescent Park 100 10490 D Crescent Park 101 10520 D Crescent Park 102 10550 D Crescent Park 103 10580 D Crescent Park 104 10610 D Crescent Park 105 10640 O Crescent Park 106 10670 O Crescent Park 107 10700 D Crescent Park 108 12430 O Wren Road 109 12460 D ~iota Common 110 12490 D Wiota Common 111 12520 D Wiota Conlaon 112 12550 O Wiota Co~on 113 12580 O Wiota Con1~3n 114 12610 O Wiota Common 115 12640 O Wiota Common 116 12670 D Wiota Co~non NenneDln uountv ~:.i ~!!~ ,~ An Equal Opportunity Employer May 6, 1996 Local Board of Review City of Mound Dear Board Members: As you requested, we have reviewed the 1996 Estimated Market values of several properties in Mound. Those properties are listed below with their original 1996 EMV and a recommendation based on our review. Doug Berdie 5028 Enchanted Road 13-117-24-11-0072 Darrell Monteith 5420 Three Points Blvd. #214 13-117-24-22-0079 Robert Putnam 2132 Overland Lane 13-117-24-31-0031 Paul Kaster 4831 Dale Road 24-117-24-44-0215 Paul Kaster 1672 Eagle Lane 13-117-24-12-0023 Original Local Board 1996EMV Recommendation Action $239 ooo $235 ooo ~-~-~ , , $73,500 $154,300 $44,000 $32,000 No Change No Change , o,ooo Hennepin County General Services County Assessor Division A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 Re~cled Paper Mound Local Board of Review May 6, 1996 Page 2 Roy Dworakowski 6241 Birch Lane 14-117-24-23-0044 Frank Ahrens 4673 Island View Dr. 30-117-23-22-0008 John Turnacliff 2560 Avon Drive 24-117-24-11-0002 John & Sheryl Menge 1822 Commerce 13-117-24-33-0046 John Timberg 6049 Ridgewood 23-117-24-34-0003 Richard McCurdy 5330 Three Points Blvd. 13-117-24-21-0085 R. K. Anderson 3001 Brighton Blvd. 24-117-24-44-0185 [/Glenda Sime 2390 Avon Drive 24-117-24-12-0062 GPatrick Furlong 5044 Edgewater 13-117-24-42-0016 Bartolo Cruz 5135 Drummond Road 25-117-24-12-0114 Thomas Johnson 5163 Emerald 24-117-13-0020 Original 1996EMV $189,200 $194,000 $241,500 $262,000 $184,500 $216,000 $182,000 $242,600 $62,000 $498,400 Local Board Recommendation Action No Change No Change - , ~o Chan~o NO Change No Change~~)~'. Nu Cha~e Ido ooo No Chang~'-'---~~ No Change Mound Local Board of Review May 6, 1996 Page 3 Original 1996EMV Recommendation Vincent Forystek 3131 Inverness 19-117-23-33-0070 Vincent Forystek 19-117-23-33-0064 Vincent Forystek 19-117-23-33-0225 Vincent Forystek 19-117-23-33-0061 Michael Fitzgerald 5321 Baywood Shores Dr. 13-117-24-24-0019 Craig Johnson 5849 Grandview Blvd. 14-117-24-13-0002 Scott Holter 2241 Southview Lane 14-117-24-34-0004 Mrs. James Anderson 2039 Arbor Lane 13-117-24-41-0003 Ned Dow 4994 Manchester Road 24-117-24-42-0005 Ray Demont ~Z~1936 Shorewood Lane 18-117-23-23-0011 John Tombers 3~%1736 Baywood Shores Dr. 13-117-24-21-0059 Vera Bee 4333 Wilshire Blvd. 19-117-23-13-0005 $4,000 $5,000 $95,000 $62,000 $250,500 $78,000 $182,000 $172,000 $125,100 $126,500 $203,600 $154,800 No Change No Change No Change No Change $234,600 $73,000 $168,500 N~-~hange 17o - $121,200 / "> $199,000 NO Change Mound Local Board of Review May 6, 1996 Page 4 Original Recommendation Local Board Action Jethro Philbrock 6064 Aspen Road 14-117-24-31-0029 Charles Carlson · ~ 6080 Aspen Road 14-117-24-31-0030 Dan Burnes 2130 Noble Lane 13-117-24-31-0003 ~Ruth Gr~y 2640 Lakewood Lane 24-117-24-24-0029 Yours truly, Principal Appraiser $131,200 $172,200 $217,000 $191,000 $125,300 $168,400 No Change No Change KMR: jb I ,ti, o/~/~/~ v'/qg.U ~ Fo~ ~,x /~/~/"7 ~v/~b Ff~LU~ Fo~ TAX nf 7 f~g I K, -C P~'" Tr~ ,f,~- (h . v~L_u.~ o ~ ..TH. ~ ~1~ 7000 '~'17 2_ oo0 fSILL O,'tVY) OT-/-fEt~. Ttf;~l "/--H'E.Y FEEl.- T/F~T5 7A--~ ')'560 AVON DRIVE 4434 WEST ARM ROAD KEWOOD LANE !036 ARBOR I..~[: ,ddress MOUND SPRING PARK, MN IMOUND, MN ,,1OUND, MN 'roximit7 to Subject [~,.~.',.:.'.~:.',.~.~.~... WITHIN 1MILE ~,T.:.:.~N,~ ~,,E ¢/ITHIN 1 MILE ~~.~ ~7~ /r~¢~::~'$ 137 88 ~;~]]]]~ $ 94.2i )~/Gro~ Liv. Area ~/A ~ $ 120.37 ......... '.:.:,.:.:~.':':'"~:"~" V ~<~:~>~,v.,..,,:,.>..v...v.~, · )ara an~or /edfi~tion Soume /INSPECTION MLS - 7 DAYS MLS - I DAY MLS - 146 DAYS /ALUEADJUSTMENTS I D~CRIPTIO~ ~ DESCRIPTION +(-)$ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +(-)$Ad)ustment DESCRIPTION :~'~:~*~* *~*~ 3ONVENTIONAL 3ONVENTIONAL ~ales or Financing~::;<:~:::~<~ ........... ~::::]CONVENTIONAL 3ate of Sale, me ~:.~:~**~,~:~:~:~8-30-94 S-1-94 Location ~OOD ODD ~OOD GOOD Leasehol~Fee Sift FEE SIMPLE ;EL SIMPLE - SIMPLE FEE SIMPLE Site 129.8X102XlRR X 303 .28 ACRES 40 X 180 View ~KE ST ARM qNETON~ -25,000 MINNETON 1.5 STORY/GOOD 1.5 STORY/GOOD STORY/GOOD STORY/GOOD QualiW of ~nstmction )OD/AVG )D/AVG )OD/AVG ~OOD/AVG Age 930/UPDATED 910/UPDATED 1920/UPDATED 1920/UPDATED Condition ODD tOD )OD GOOD Tota~ Bdrms Baths Above Grade Room Count +2,00( +1,00~ 6 3 2.00 Gross Livin 549 s( +4,0( +3,40~ 1,900. Sq. Ft. Ba~ment & Finished FULL +1,000 FULL Rooms Below Grade FAMILY ROOM ONE +2,00~ FR,OFFICE,BATH Functional UtiliW ~GE ~AGE ~E~GE ~VE~GE -GAS/NONE -GAS/NONE FA-GAS/NONE FA-OIUC-AC Enemy Efficient Items 3ARD ~DARD STANDARD CAR A~ACH CAR DETACH CAR DETACH +2,00C 2 CAR A~ACH +2 Porch, Patio, Deck, ~NE +1 ~CWPATIO/ -2,00~ DECK FIREP~CE ONE FIREPLACE ~ FIREPLACES Fence, Pool, etc. )NE qE ONE INONE] , - z, oo I.... ? - o, oo Adjusted Sales Pdce ; ]Net~'~o ................ :: of Comparable ~ 172,000 ~ 172,400 ~Gm~ 8% ~ 168,500 Comments on Sales Comparison (including the subject prope~'s compaabili~ to the neighbo~ood, etc.): THE MULTIPLE LISTING SYSTEM INCORRECTLY REPORTED COMPARABLE SALE g3'S AGE. THE YEAR BUILT WAS OBTAINED FROM HENNEPIN COUN~ RECORDS. SEE ADDENDUM. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. I COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Date, Priceand Data IPUB.REC.INDICATE PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE IPUBLIC RECORDS INDICA1'E IPUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE Source, for prior sales/NO ACTIVITY W/IN NO ACTIVITY WITHIN THE /NO ACTIVITY WITHIN TH E /NO ACTVITY WITHIN THE within year of appraisal~THE PAST 12 MOS. PAST 12 MONTHS. I PAST 12 MONTHS. /PAST 12 MONTHS. Analysis of any cunent agreement of sale, option, or lislJng of the subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and comparables within one year of the date of appraisal. THERE IS NO SALE, OPTION OR LISTING PRESENTLY ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PRIOR SALES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS (IF ANY) HAVE BEEN INDICATED ABOVE FOR THE SUBJECT AND THE COMPARABLES. INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ............................................ $ 172 I INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH Ill Applicable) Estimated Market Rent $ N/A /ao.x Gross Rent Multiplier N/A =$ This appraisal is made L~"as is" L__J subject to the repairs, alterations, inspections or conditions listed below [_..J subject to completion per plans and specifications. Conditions of Appraisal: SUBJECT TO STANDARD AND LIMITING CONDITIONS. TO THE BEST OF THE APPRAISER'S KNOWLEDGE, THE SUBJECT HAS NOT BEEN ON THE MARKET WITHIN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Final Reconciliation: AS IS NORMAL IN APPRAISING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE MARKET COMPARISON APPROACH TO THE VALUE WAS GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION. THIS APPROACH TO VALUE IS MORE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACTION OF THE BUYERS AND SELl FRS. The purpose of this appraisal is to eslJmate the market value of the re'al property lhat is subject to this report, based on the above conditions and rite certification, contingent and limiting conditions, and market value definition that are stated in the attached Freddie Mac Form 439/Fannie Mae Form 1004B (Revised 6-93 (WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF NOVEMBER 21 (WHICH IS THE DATE OF INSPECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 172~000 APPRAISER: ~j/~'"~~ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED): Signature ~/. ,- j,./~ Signature [] Did [] Did Not Name AI~REV~. HARRINGTON Name WILLIAM A. SCHWAB Inspect Property Date Report Signed // ~-N'OVEMBER 28, 1994 Date Report Signed NOVEMBER 28, 1994 ;=,o,,, r",..~i~,-.t~,,..,. ,4003120 State MN State Certification # 4000585 State MN Hennepin Countv ~4~,~"'~J,~.,I ,i-An Equal Opportunity Employer May 6, 1996 Local Board of Review city of Mound Dear Board Members: As you requested, we have reviewed the 1996 Estimated Market values of several properties in Mound. Those properties are listed below with their original 1996 EMV and a recommendation based on our review. Doug Berdie 5028 Enchanted Road 13-117-24-11-0072 Darrell Monteith 5420 Three Points Blvd. #214 13-117-24-22-0079 Robert Putnam 2132 Overland Lane 13-117-24-31-0031 Paul Kaster 4831 Dale Road 24-117-24-44-0215 Paul Kaster 1672 Eagle Lane 13-117-24-12-0023 Original 1996EMV $239,000 Recommendation $235,000 Local Board $73,500 No Change $154,300 No Change $44,000 $40,000 $32,000 $29,000 Hennepin County General Services County Assessor Division A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 Recycled Paper .... lB & ,B ih~ Il ~r Mound Local Board of Review May 6, 1996 Page 2 Original ~ecommendation Roy Dworakowski 6241 Birch Lane 14-117-24-23-0044 Frank Ahrens 4673 Island View Dr. 30-117-23-22-0008 John Turnacliff 2560 Avon Drive 24-117-2~-11-0002 John & Sheryl Menge 1822 Commerce 13-117-24-33-0046 John Timberg 6049 Ridgewood 23-117-24-34-0003 Richard McCurdy 5330 Three Points Blvd. 13-117-24-21-0085 R. K. Anderson 3001 Brighton Blvd. 24-117-24-44-0185 Glenda Sime 2390 Avon Drive 24-117-24-12-0062 Patrick Furlong 5044 Edgewater 13-117-24-42-0016 Bartolo Cruz 5135 Drummond Road 25-117-24-12-0114 Thomas Johnson 5163 Emerald 24-117-13-0020 $78,000 $189,200 $194,000 $241,500 $262,000 $184,500 $216,000 $182,000 $242,600 $62,000 $498,400 No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change $207,000 No Change No Change No Change No Change Mound Local Board of Review May 6, 1996 Page 3 Original Recommendation Vincent Forystek 3131 Inverness 19-117-23-33-0070 Vincent Forystek 19-117-23-33-0064 Vincent Forystek 19-117-23-33-0225 Vincent Forystek 19-117-23-33-0061 Michael Fitzgerald 5321 Baywood Shores Dr. 13-117-24-24-0019 Craig Johnson 5849 Grandview Blvd. 14-117-24-13-0002 Scott Holter 2241 Southview Lane 14-117-24-34-0004 Mrs. James Anderson 2039 Arbor Lane 13-117-24-41-0003 Ned Dow 4994 Manchester Road 24-117-24-42-0005 Ray Demont 1936 Shorewood Lane 18-117-23-23-0011 John Tombers 1736 Baywood Shores Dr. 13-117-24-21-0059 Vera Bee 4333 Wilshire Blvd. 19-117-23-13-0005 $4,000 $5,000 $95,000 $62,000 $250,500 $78,000 $182,000 $172,000 $125,100 $126,500 $203,600 $154,800 No Change No Change No Change No Change $234,600 $73,000 $168,500 No Change $121,200 No Change $199,000 No Change Mound Local Board of Review May 6, 1996 Page 4 Original Recommendation Jethro Philbrock 6064 Aspen Road 14-117-24-31-0029 Charles Carlson 6080 Aspen Road 14-117-24-31-0030 Dan Burnes 2130 Noble Lane 13-117-24-31-0003 Ruth G¢~y 2640 Lakewood Lane 24-117-24-24-0029 $131,200 $172,200 $217,000 $191,000 $125,300 $168,400 No Change No Change Yours truly, Principal Appraiser KMR: jb HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. o 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD ° MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-0347 April 22, 1996 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, .Mn 55364 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Each year the Westonka Senior C National Older Americans ~/[,,,,,~ ~.__ ,_ . enter celebrates of activities in May ~,~,,:,L,~ uy nav~n.g a special week -,. We would appreciate if your city could declare the week of May 6th through 10th as Westonka Senior Center Week. Thank you for your wonderful support and confidence for these many years. We are proud to be a place where Westonka seniors can come to receive services and give back to their communities. Our area is a fine place to grow old! Sincerely, Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. Board of Directors A Non-i)rofit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound. Orono. Si)ring Park. M/nnetrista I 5~ 7 ~0 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK MAY 6TH - 10TH WHEREAS, we need to realize now, more than ever, what a resource our older Americans are, and that the abilities of the older Americans to invest our country with their knowledge, creativity and experience cannot be denied; and, WltEREAS, senior centers offer valuable service to the community in providing ~or citizens the benefits of good fellowship, encouragement and support, the opportunity our sen' . -~ ~ch other, and offering service or access to community services as to help themselves ana needed; and, WHEREAS, the month of May has been proclaimed Older Americans Month and communities across the country are giving special recognition to the role of senior centers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that May 6th through 10th is Westonka Senior Center Week in the City of Mound, and the celebration of past accomplishments and encouragement for continuation of involvement and contribution to our Westonka Community. 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: Acting City Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ('612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 96-16 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RENEWAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GLASS PLUS TO OPERATE A M/NOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on _Tuesday, May 14~ 1996 to consider the renewal of a conditional use permit to aJlow the operation of a Minor Auto Repair business for Glass Plus at 5533 Shoreline Drive, legally described as Lot 5 and the Westerly 50 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision Number 170. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~'- - ..... ~, ~,~mg aecretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet &affected property by May 3, 1996, published in The Laker on April 27, 1996, and posted by April 27, 1996. printed on recycled paper MAY ~:) 'gG 10:01 KEI'~'EDY & GP, AVU'% ][~ENNED¥ & GRA¥1~N May 3, 1996 Edw-~rd 3. Shulde, Jr. Ci~ M~aser City of Mound Mound, MN 5536d,-16B'7 RE: K,~~t Mcd~on Work Dcar Mr. Shuklc: At ou~ meet~n~ yesterday wRh Mayor Pols~on, i~ was st~B§&su''4 thnt I f,~n~sh yOU an 'outline" which hopefully would be of a,~sigvance Io the cit~ council as tt constdc~s possiblc implementation of the rex:ommcndations o! thc work ~oup. Thc gcn~al conclusion of ~c r~oum~da~on ~s ~t ~c W~l~d Point ~ons ~wonais~ ~d Waut'~a} should ~ considc~ as ~vnm ~ons w~ch ~e ~n~ned for ~' ~--~'=':-- - .... rs on lorn in W~lnnd Point 1. Involvcmcut of the Ci~: ~e ci~ would con~ue to be i~votve~ for e~en~aHY ~ r~ons: a~ R ha~ th~ s~ ~nd ~e e~ience in pvovidin~ some of ~e ~ccs which ~c W~~d poh~t rcsidcnts wan~ a c~nnec~nn ~ thc ~o~d d~k pro~ ts n~s~rY ~ order' ~ ~n~nuc ~ obm~ ~c cu~ent num~ of d~k ~tts. c3 ~c ~ty provides a fulton for tcvic~n~ pomn~n} dispumS ~een ownc~ ~oups. 2. ~c~ ~ Owncrs B~au~ ~e role of the ~, as de~ ~ ~e Work {~rot~p te.~ would ~ as volunt~ a~ent for ~e owners, it is ve~ ~mpor~t ~nt ~he insmtc~ons and ~ons of ~c o~crs h~vC ~ c~s~cs - a) 8~, b) ~etiness and c) ~ ~p~blc ~ ~e ci~. It ~ ~cwi~ Al~ou~h ~c laws~t olfly 1nvolv~ ~c po~ons of Wawon~s~ co~ons abu~n~ p~ing~s PwP~' ~c work ~oup r~om~Ma~ons ~e dkec~d ~ ~1 of Wawonai~ ~d ~ of l~j~oo ~ ROLL AS IICII~I~rEt~i~D AND ADJUSTED WI-IEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 274.03, notice was posted on April 11, 1996, and published in The laker on April 13, 1996, that the Board of Review would meet at 7:00 P.M., April 23, 1996, in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for the year 1997; and WHEREAS, this meeting was held and __ persons were heard, or presented their cases in writing, all asking to have the value of their property rechecked; and WHEREAS, in order to allow the Hennepin County Assessors time to recheck these properties, the meeting was continued until May 6, 1996 at 7:00 P.M., at which time the Board of Review reconvened, and the Hennepin County Assessor gave his decisions on the property questioned at the April 23th Meeting (see Minutes of the May 6, 1996, continuation of the Board of Review for actions taken and approved); and WHEREAS, the public was instructed that after the decisions were given and approved by the City Council, the property owner has the right to appeal the decision to the Hennepin County Board of Review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the entire assessment roll as presented (See Minutes of May 6, 1996, for Assessor recommendations). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Attest: City Manager The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor MAY 0S '96 10:0E KENNEDY & GRAVEN P.E Edward J. Shukle, May 3, 1996 Page Two Jr. important that the city have someone who represents d~e owners to whom it can communicate rather than to communicate with every Single owner. For them reasons, I am suggesting that the owners form an association whose role would be to represent the owners in all matters involving regulation of the Woodland Point Commons. The so-called association would be somewhat informal, would probably not hold the rights to the commons and would continue to function only so long as it was the concensus of the owners that it should. We will be willing to put together thc necessary instruments to create such an entity. 3. Agreement Between City and AssociatiOn: Once the association has been created, thc association and thc city could enter into a "comprehensive agency agreement' which would dcf'mc thc roles of thc parties regarding thc commons. The agreement would bc used here to deal with thc Woodland Point commons much like thc Ordinances deal with the public commons. The agreement would address a number of issues which would include thc following: A. Number and location of docks. a) The council may wish to consider a process similar to Mound's dock location map, except that here, the association would annually submit its location map for Woodland Point. The city could either approve the map and extend the agency agreement for that year or disapprove the map and not extend the agency agreement- b) multiple vs. duster docks - cost, phasing. c) . fees to cover the city's costs. ~- Certain improvements to the commons might be necessary or desirable including stairs or other access to multiple or cluster docks. The agreement should address these matters,, how they would be financed and by whom. Encroachments - The regulations which are applicable to public commons are not directly applicable here. The agreement should address whether the city should have a role with respect to.controling encroachments. ~ - The a~eemem may or may not address the status and the future of Canary Be, ach. Should it remain as a public beach operated by thc city? MU200-1 MAY 03 'gG 10:02 KENNEDY & GRAVEN Eo ~aintenancc - Thc agreement should assign responsibility' for maintaining thc commons area. Liability Issues - Especially if the city is to have no responsibility for maintenance or for encroachments, the agreement should make it clear that it is the owners and not the city which has responsibility. Law Enforcement Issues - Unless the agreerncnt indicates othcrwisc, enforcemcnt of the laws would be done in the same manner as with any private property in the city. Hopefully, this outline of issues may be helpful to thc council in determining how to proceed; and, if the agreement format is used, thc specifics which would be included in the agreement. IBD:ds Sineerely~N .~3BO1G4013 We the undersigned, participated in the Woodland Point Mediation Work Group. This report reflects the consensus of the Group. Plaintiffs Representatives JeffBishop Jack Korlath Denny Flack Non-litigant Abutting Dock Holders Bob Lein Olen Pederson Jim Walters Non-abutting Dock Holders - Wawonaissa/Waurika Mike Aspelin John Eccles Leah Weycker Non-abutting Residents without Docks Rodney Hein Cathy Bailey Paul Erickson Abutting Waurika Commons Dock Holders Danie Watson Chuck Champine Dave Kunz City of Mound Mark Goldberg Gordy Tulberg. Ed Shukle WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION WORK GROUP REPORT TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 23, 1996 BACKGROUND On January 30, 1996, the Mound City Council hosted a public meeting to discuss ways of resolving issues involving the use of Wawonaissa Commons. The Council invited public participation in its decision to appeal or not appeal a lawsuit limiting the city's authority over certain lands and activities within the Commons. Atter considerable discussion, there was a consensus that a work group, consisting of representatives of various interests in the Commons, be established to work with a mediator in identifying and addressing the issues and reporting recommendations back to the Council. The Work Group was directed to complete its activities not later than April 30, 1996, due to the city's 90 day time limit for appealing the Court's decision in the lawsuit. In forming the mediation work group, six interests were identified: litigant abutting dock holders; non-litigant abutting dock holders; non-abutting dock holders; non-abutting residents without docks; abutting Waurika Commons dock holders; and, the City of Mound. Interest groups were asked to choose their representatives to the mediation. The list of representatives is attached as Appendix A. MEETINGS The Mediation Work Group met a total often times between February 6th and April 17th. The first meeting was dedicated to a discussion of "ground rules" or procedures as to how the Work Group would interact and conduct its business. The second meeting focussed on issues from the perspective of the six interests represented at the table. These issues are displayed by interest group on Appendix B and by categories on Appendix C. The issues list formed the basis for the agenda at all subsequent meetings and will provide the structure to this report. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issue 1: Appeal of Lawsuit The Mediation Work Group reached consensus that this report, if implemented, would eliminate the need, in our opinion, for the City to appeal the court's decision in the Flack, et al. V. City of Mound lawsuit. Page Two Issue 2: Implementation of Recommendations Recommendations: A. The recommendations in this report should be implemented as quickly as possible. The City should reconvene the Mediation Work Group during the Fall of 1996 to evaluate the implementation of recommendations contained in this report. Issue 3: Dock Program Clearly, docks are the number one concern for abutters and non-abutters alike - how many, where they are located and who administers a dock program. Docks were discussed, in one form or another, at every meeting of the Mediation Work Group. To gain information about dockage options, the Group invited Mr. Greg Nybeck of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the District's attorney, Charles LeFevere to discuss how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the Commons in light of the order to the court in the lawsuit. A memo from Mr. LeFevrere is attached as Appendix D. The Work Group also reviewed the recommendations of the Commons Task Force pertaining to docks. The City prepared an aerial photo of the Commons, showing dock locations and a plat map that actually sited each dock in relation to the lots abutting the Commons. A sub-committee of the Work Group formulated five dock options which were thoroughly discussed by the Work Group along with a sixth option generated during that discussion. The options with Work Group comments are listed in Appendix E. A listing of all docks within the City of Mound is attached as Appendix F. Recommendations: That the future dock program: maintain the number of existing dock sites currently on the two Commons - 54 dock sites (two of which are unavailable due to obstructions). allow one dock site in front of each abutter's house and continue to give the abutters priority for permits on those docks. Allow non- abutter's to cluster their individual docks at ends of streets, other than Canary Lane, on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. Clustered docks can be placed closer together than 20-30 feet. rewrite City rules to encourage and provide positive incentives for all dock owners - abutters and non-abutters - to share docks. Do not punish permit holders for sharing a dock one year by not granting a permit for an individual dock the next year. Page Three D. consider providing fishing docks for use by Woodland Point residents. E. consider the possibility of allowing docks accommodating more than one boat (multiple docks) in the future if supported by dock owners. F. The Work Group further recommends that the City negotiate with the LMCD to implement the provisions of this dock program. Issue 4: How should the Commons be Used? The Mediation Work Group discussed many different uses of the Commons by abutters and non- abutters. Some abutters were concerned about trespass on their private property by those gaining access or egress to the Commons. Non-abutters were concerned about continuing their right to use the Commons in an unobstructed manner, while considering the rights of abutters. Generally, it was felt that common sense could and should prevail among all parties. Recommendations: A. Information dissemination: As a means of clarifying appropriate use of the Commons by Woodland Point residents, it is recommended that an informational brochure be developed and distributed to Woodland Point residents only. B. Access points: Free and unobstructed access to the Commons should be a continued right of all Woodland Point residents. Some existing access points are in need of improvements to facilitate access while the use of others should be discontinued. Woodland Road - consider adding stairs or handicap access Bluebird Lane North - regrade path Bluebird Lane South - not an appropriate public access due to wet conditions. Work with abutting property owner to discourage trespass and limit access to Commons at this point with possible landscaping and by listing appropriate access points in the informational brochure. C. Pedestrian Use To provide privacy for abutters and unobstructed passage for pedestrians, walkers should be encouraged to traverse the Commons Page Four near the waters edge and away from close proximity to homes. The right of privacy of abutters should be respected to the extent possible. D. Shoreline fishing Eo Fishing should be permitted from the shoreline of the Commons. Dock fishing should be limited to dock owners or those gaining permission from dock owners. Include information in proposed brochure. Noise: Include reference in informational brochure Snowmobiling/ATV' s Motorized machines should not be allowed to traverse the Commons. Machines should access/egress the Commons perpendicular to the shoreline and only at Canary and Finch Lanes. Abutters may access/egress the lake directly from their property. G. Overnight Use Although some water-related use will occur at night, no overnight use of the Commons should be permitted. H. Encroaching Structures Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shoreland Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by an encroachment's existence. Hinderance of access to the Commons is defined here as actions or structures which block access to docks, block the ability to traverse the Commons, or block the ability to conduct other permitted activities. In order to prevent hinderance of access to the lakeshore, structures would be allowed only in accordance with Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) regulations. To the extent possible, a thirty foot traversable area adjacent to the lake would be maintained. In some cases the area of traversable lakeshore may be narrower than thirty feet. In those cases, the LMCD and SMO regulations would apply. No new lock boxes or decks that would be permissable under LMCD or SMO regulations will be allowed on Wawonaissa or Waurika Commons. Page Five Prohibited activities and encroachments which fall under the regulation of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or the MN Dept. Of Natural Resources will continue to be governed by those agency's regulations. The current permitting process should be simplified to reduce the time required to obtain a permit and to create an approval mechanism consistent with the potential impact of the action requiring the permit. a. Some activities currently requiring a permit should be allowed without one. Examples of these activities include: lawn mowing trimming of tree limbs below a height of 8 feet maintaining existing stairways or other existing structures, and planting new flower beds which do not exceed 25 sq. fL, nor exceed 5 linear feet on any one side (for example, a 5'x5' flower bed is okay; a 2'x10' bed would require a permit bo Not all permits should require City Council approval. The appropriate City staff should have the authority to grant some permits, with residents having the ability to appeal any decision to the parks commission and/or the city council. Examples of those activities include landscaping and major maintenance activities such as: - trimming of tree limbs above a height of 8 feet - tree removal - landscaping - planting new flower beds which exceed 25 sq. ff. or which exceed 5 linear feet on any one side, and - clearcutting c. All construction activities should continue to require approval of the appropriate city authority and the City Council. 5. When granted for an encroachment, a permit should be granted for the life of the structure, provided there is no change in the nature or extent of the encroachment that hinders or discourages access. 6. Planting is undertaken at one's own risk. Page Six Issue 5: Roles and Responsibilities: The Mediation Work Group had spirited discussion over the past role of the City of Mound in administering the Commons. Some abutters felt that the City was guilty of micro-management, requiring lengthy reviews of permit applications for improvements considered by them to be insignificant and/or beneficial. Other abutters felt comfortable with the City's past actions and expressed interest in continued oversight. Many non-abutters see the City as their ally, protecting their interests and fights in the Commons. Clearly, some feel that without continued City presence, the fights of non-abutters will gradually erode away. The Work Group considered various ways of administering the Commons in the future. The two most commonly discussed methods were a Woodland Point homeowner's association and continued City administration. It was the consensus of the work group that a homeowner's association not be pursued at this time. Recommendations: A. Public Safety The Work Group recommends that the Mound Police Department continue to enforce all municipal laws in the Commons and respond to calls and complaints about inappropriate use. B. Maintenance/Trash Pickup 1. The City should continue to maintain the Canary Beach swimming area 2. Abutters and non-abutters will be responsible for maintaining the commons. C. Dock Program Administration The City of Mound should continue to issue dock site permits and uniformly enforce the ongoing maintenance of docks on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons, excluding the six litigants. The Commons Task Force should work with the City to develop appropriate standards for maintaining and enforcing the maintenance of docks. It(c Page Seven Issue 6: Resolution of Future Disputes Recommendation: The City should continue to use a representative group of Woodland Point residents, on an ad hoc basis, to make recommendations on resolving future disputes. L~IO APPENDIX A Woodland Point Mediation Work Group Members WOODLAND POINT SUBDIVISION MEDIATION PARTIES NON-LITIGANT ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS Bob Lien 1583 Bluebird Lane 472-4095 Jim Walters 1601 Bluebird Lane 472-2622 Olen Pederson 1593 Bluebird Lane 472-7158 NON-ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS - WAWONAISSA/WAURIKA Mike Aspelin 1604 Eagle Lane 472-4860 John Eccles 5112 Woodland Road 472-3267 Leah Weycker 1586 Bluebird Lane 472-4187 NON-ABUTTING RESIDENTS WITHOUT DOCKS Rodney Hein 1605 Eagle Lane 472-2123 Cathy Bailey 1554 Bluebird Lane 472-4011 Paul Erickson 1564 Bluebird Lane 472-3845 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SIX PLAINTIFFS Jack Korlath 1579 Bluebird Lane JeffBishop 1549 Bluebird Lane Denny Flack 1609 Bluebird Lane 472-3657 472-5456 472-7243 ABUTTING WAI. JRIKA COMMONS DOCK HOLDERS Danie Watson Chuck Champine. Dave Kunz 1559 Eagle Lane 1550 Canary Lane 1546 Bluebird Lane 472-6477 472-4795 472-1806 (~ITY OF MOUND REPRESENTATIVES Ed Shukle Gordy Tulberg Mark Goldberg 5341 Maywood Road 1711 Finch Lane 4853 Island View Drive 472-0609 472-7963 472-4624 APPENDIX B Mediation Issues - by Interest Group 0 0 APPENDIX C Mediation Issues - by Category 2/15/96 WOODLAND POINT SUBDMSION MEDIATION ISSUES - CATEGORIZED Use of Commons Non-abutters - access points - parking - docks - non-motorized use - motorized use - overnight use - picnicking - unorganized games - fishing Abutters - building new shoreline structures - improvements to property - privacy concerns Roles and Responsibilities (who does what) - maintenance of existing structures w/o regulation/interference by city - over-regulation by city - cities inadequate response to problems - LMCD rules (fees?) - fairness in applying rules - noise, litter, privacy, parking, general maintenance and upkeep - control of' encroachment - policing powers - preserve/improve existing Canary Beach swimming area - maintain existing lake views - buffer zones Docking - overcrowding - docking priorities - docking fees · - multiple docking options - preserve existing rights for spaces - options for non-abutters - maintaining existing number of slips Taxes - impact of court decision on property taxes of abutters and non-abutters - over- Define Wawonaissa and Waurlka Commons Boundaries - how/who?? Miscellaneous - Accident insurance - liability - Affect on water main - Process for resolving future disputes Maintain Neighborhood Peace and Harmony/Avoid Anarchy Mediation Agreement - not to change court decision - lasting/binding - impact on similarly dedicated commons APPENDIX D Letter from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Attorney Attorneys at Law Greg Nybeck Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distr/ct 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, MN 55391-1836 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, .Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-93OO Facsimile (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (t;12) 337-0215 March 5, 1996 JAIVI~S J. '~'IOM$ON LARRY .N~. WERTHi~M Bo~?,'m ~ w~s JOE Y. DASD L. G~ (192~1~1) OF COUN~L ROBERT C. CAR~ON ROBERT L WELLI~G~W H. FLO~ B. O~o~ C~TIS A. T. JAY SALON RE: Mout~d Commons Dear Greg: You have asked for my comments on how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the Mound Commons in light of the order of the court in the case of Flack. et al. v. City of Mound. et al__._.~. ~ Under the LMCD Code, dockage rights are recognized for "sites" on Lake Minnetonka. Sites are defined in LMCD Code Section 1.02, subdivision 51 as "... any shoreline lot, parcel or other piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder". As this term is deemed, none of the lots of the litigants in the ?lack case are "sites" because they are not "lakeshore" lots. Under the LMCD Code, the common area would be a single site. As such, if one or more docks for the storage of more than a total of four restricted watercraft (clef'reed in section 1.02, subdivisions 41 and 55a, generally watercraft which are 16 feet or more in length or having motors of more than 10 HP) are constructed on the Commons, a multiple dock license is required under LMCD Code section 2.03. The total watercraft storage density for the commons may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of shoreline as provided in LMCD Code section 2.02. In most cases where multiple owners have an interest in one "site" on Lake Minnetonka, all owners join together in an application for a single multiple dock license which provides storage of not more than a total of one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline. Therefore, one option would be for all owners having an interest in the Commons area to form some sort of association for the purpose of applying for a dock license from the LMCD. In the past, the LMCD has recognized the transfer of exclusive dockage rights from one party to another by deed, easement or license. For example, when one landowner transfers exclusive dockage rights on 100 feet of lakeshore to the owner of adjacent property, the LMCD has recognized that 100 feet of shoreline as being part of the transferee's property for licensing .C:280 .lC-4 Greg Nybeck March 5, 1996 Page 2 purposes. Therefore, if the owners having an interest in the Commons area consent to continuing control by the city of Mound over all dockage rights for all or a portion of the Commons area, the LMCD could treat the affected lakeshore as a part of the Iakeshore of the city of Mound. Since the LMCD Code allows a municipality to combine all of its lakeshore, whether contiguous or not, for purposes of the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule, that lakeshore could continue to be a part of the city's multiple dock license application, and the city could continue to license dockage as they have in the past. Therefore, if all of the owners with an interest in the Commons area agree to a single unified multiple dock license application for the entire Commons area, it could apply to the LMCD for a license which could be granted subject to the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. Likewise, all owners could agree to allow the city of Mound to continue to be the agency applying for this license under the city's license application to the LMCD. If all parties agree that some, but not all of the Commons area should continue to be a part of the city of Mound license, that part of the lakeshore could be considered to be a part of the city's lakeshore for LMCD licensing purposes. If there are parts of the Commons area which are not a part of a unified application, either by a homeowners group or by the city of Mound, those parts of the lakeshore would be subject to the LMCD Code as separate parcels. As to the six owners who were parties to the lawsuit referred to above, the court has ordered that the city has no right to regulate their construction of docks. However, the court did not resolve dockage rights among the owners of all lots having an interest in the Commons area, and did not provide any special rights for owners of lots immediately adjacent to the Commons. The LMCD has no power to adjudicate riparian rights (including the right to consn'uct docks in the lake) between owners having conflicting claims. Therefore, I would recommend that in the case of all parts of the Commons area which are not subject to an agreement for a single application, either by the city or by a homeowners group, the LMCD simply treat this lakeshore as separate sites subject to the licensing requirement and the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. ff the parties cannot agree, and no license is secured from the LMCD, and if docks are constructed on such parts of the Commons which are not covered by an overall agreement, the LMCD would commence prosecution against all parties with docks on such shoreline for erection of multiple docks without a license. If you have any other questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:cmm CLLiOi2~O Il ,~& APPENDIX E Docking Options WOODLAND POINT SUBDMSION DOCKING OPTIONS Discussion from March 13th OPTION 1: Move Wawonaissa non-abutting docks to multiple docks at the end of Bluebird/Canary - Dock size would accommodate 3-6 boats - A stairway may be required Comments: - similar to Options 2 and 3 OPTION 2: Multiple dock program for all dock owners - with 7 multiple docks, size would be about 8 slips per dock to maintain existing site count - multiple dock sites to be evenly distributed along lake shore and at street endings - all dock owners would participate Comments: - public parking - access at Bluebird, Eagle, Dove - ownership of docks - maintenance/policing/control - freeze number of sites (no increase over current number) - security - cost - inconvenient - will remove options for public fishing - administration of program - by whom? - creates imposition on abutters - number of boats per dock - already spent money on own dock - not practical OPTION 3: Move all non-abutters to multiple docks at street endings. - Abutting owners have dock in front of house - all dock owners pay same fee to spread cost of multiple dock over all dock owners - non-abutting owners get dock site without responsibility for maintenance. - responsibility for installation, removal, maintenance would be handled by third party - city would require some assurance of control if they were asked to implement Comments: - provides some balance between abutters who maintain area and have own docks with non-abaters who don't maintain area and have multiple docks - need to have a lift for boat - possible to accommodate non-abutter's needs by locating multiple docks for 4-5 boats at ends of six streets. - cost of multiple dock? - access down slopes? - parking - control/maintenance - want families of non-abutters to have same dock rights as abutters - seems to limit non-abutters to one boat - may affect ability of adjacent abutters to have docks on their property due to required setbacks - eliminates docks for fishing - limit size, and number of boats - option clusters non-abutters to open up space for abutters - consider a fishing dock - what would a multiple dock look like - boat size, lifts?? - policy for site maintenance as abutters - program administration OPTION 4: Spread out existing docks by exploring possibility to expand into currently non-accessible areas Comments: - cost - DNR permits OPTION 5: Encourage all dock owners to share docks Comments: - rewrite city rules to recognize and encourage shared docks and not punish someone for not putting out their own dock one year by not granting a permit the next year - cap the total number of slip-holders OPTION 6: Create clusters of docks at ends of streets Comments: - utilizes current investment in dock - serves all needs: gives abutters privacy/non-abutters have their own docks. - lessens need to traverse commons. - lower cost than Option 3 APPENDIX F Attachment to Dock Location Map CITY OF MOUND ATTACHME TO DOCK LOCATION MAP Rev. 215/96 RE(# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Hame 1 00010 D 2 00030 0 3 O0O5O D 4 0OO70 0 5 00115 O 6 00125 O 7 00145 O 8 00155 0 9 00195 0 10 00215 O 11 007~5 0 12 00255 0 13 00275 D 14 00295 D 15 00315 D 16 00335 O 17 00355 D 18 00385 0 19 00490 D 20 00550 D 21 0058O D 22 00610 D 23 00640 D 24 00670 D 25 00700 D 26 00730 O 27 00760 D 28 00790 D 29 00820 D 30 00850 D 31 00880 D 32 00910 D 33 00940 D 34 00970 D 35 01000 D 36 01030 D 37 O1O6O C 38 01090 C 39 O112O C 4O O115O C 41 01170 C 42 01200 C 43 01530 C 44 01560 C 45 01600 C 46 01650 C 47 01880 O 48 01900 D 49 01920 D 50 01940 0 51 01960 D 52 01980 D 53 02000 D 54 02020 O 55 02040 D 56 02060 0 57 02080 O 58 02100 O Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane BLuebird Lane BLuebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane 0Dye Lane 0Dye Lane 0Dye Lane 0Dye Lane Dove Lane 0Dye Lane Dove Lane 0Dye Lane Dove Lane 0Dye Lane Wawonaissa (one, on Wawonaissa Common Wawonaissa Common Wawonaissa Core,on Wawonaissa Con,non Wawonalssa Cotrmon Wawonalssa Corrmnon Wawonalssa Con,non Wawonaissa Con~on Wawonalssa Conlllon Wawonalssa Con.non Wawonalssa Conll~on Wawonalssa Con,non Wawonalssa Con,non Wawona~ssa Con,non Wawonalssa (or.non Wawona~ssa Wawona~ssa Co~m~on Wawonalssa CoflTnon Waurika Conmon Waurika Coranon Waurika Corrmon Waurika Cornnon Waurika Con,non Waurika Waurika Waurika Con'mon Waurika Con,non ~aurika Con,non gaur(ka Comnon Waurika Co~rmT~n Waurika Co~non Waurika Cora~on Waurika Con~non Waurika (or,non Waurika Conmon Waurika Co.non Waurika Coranon Waurika Con,non Waurika Con~x~n REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02180 O gaurika Con~x)n 60 02200 D Waurika Con.on 61 02220 D Waurika Co~on 62 02250 O Waurika 63 02280 0 Waurika Cordon 6/, 02310 0 Waurika 65 02340 0 Waurika 66 02370 D Waurika Conmon 67 02400 O Waurika 68 02430 D Waurika Co~non 69 02460 D Waurika Co.non 70 02490 D Waurika Common 71 02520 O Waurika Common 72 02550 0 Waurika 73 02605 0 Pebble ~each Contn 74 02635 D Pebble Beach Con~n 75 02665 D Pebble Beach Corrm 76 02695 D Pebble ~each Con~n 77 02720 O Pebble Beach 78 02750 O Pebble Beach Comm 79 02780 D Pebble Beach Corm 80 02810 D Three Pts. Blvd. 81 02840 D Three Pts. Blvd. 82 02870 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02900 O Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02930 O Three Pts. Blvd. 85 04070 0 Beachside (North) 86 04110 D Beachside (North) 87 10020 D Shorewood Lane 88 10050 0 Beachside (South) 89 10070 D Beachside (South) 90 10090 D Beachside (South) 91 10220 D Crescent Park 92 10250 O Crescent Park 93 10280 O Crescent Park 94 10310 0 Crescent Park 95 10340 D Crescent Park 96 10370 D Crescent Park 97 10400 D Crescent Park 98 10430 0 Crescent Park 99 10460 0 Crescent Park 100 10490 D Crescent Park 101 10520 D Crescent Park 102 10550 D Crescent Park 103 10580 D Crescent Park 104 10610 D Crescent Park 105 10640 O Crescent Park 106 10670 0 Crescent Park 107 10700 O Crescent Park 108 12430 O Wren Road 109 12460 D Wiota Co~on 110 12490 O Wiota Cow~an 111 12520 D Wiota Con~n 112 12550 D Wiota Comnon 113 12580 D Wiota Conmon 114 12610 O Wiota Cowmon 115 12640 O ~iota Conmon 116 12670 D Wiota Co~mnon AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW MONDAY, MAY 6, 1996 - 7 PM o RECOMMENDATIONS FROM KEITH RENNERFELDT, PRINCIPAL APPRAISER, HENNEPIN COUNTY. APPROVAL OF VALUATIONS AS SUBMITTED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY AND/OR APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS BY LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW. ADJOURNMENT OF LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW. AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF MOUND FOLLOWING THE CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MAY 6, 1996 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION OF THE WEEK OF MAY 6 - 10, 1996 AS WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK ......................... 1397-1398 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RENEWAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR GLASS PLUS AT 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE. SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 14, 1996 ............................. 1399 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION WORK GROUP ................. 1400-1425 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 1396