The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-07-23 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 9, 1996 REGULAR MEETING ................................... 2443-2449 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: TRIAX/DD CABLE PARTNERS f~). PROPOSED MERGER. (NOTE: LEGAL COUNSEL HAS ADVISED THAT WE CONTINUE THIS HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 13, 1996, AT WHICH TIME FINAL DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE BEEN PREPARED WHICH WILL REPORT TO YOU LEGAL COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED MERGER) ............. 2450-2463 q~-7 c( CASE t/96-29: VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION, JOHN HUBLER 5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 1, MOUND SHORES PID #14-117-24 23 0003 .................................. 2464-2481 ~%~E #96-35: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CHRIS BRANDLE, 4842 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON PLACE PID #24-117-24 14 0062 .................................. 2482-2498 CASE #96-36: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JOE & GEORGIANNE STIBAL, 4723 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOT 3 & 1/2 OF 2, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0046 ....... .~. 777~ ...... 2499-2511 7. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. -"' 8. DISCUSSION: LINEAL FOOTAGE - CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM ...................................... 2512-2561 ~ APPLICATIONS FOR ~UBLIC LANDS PERMITS-BATCH #8 ......... 2562-2579 42461 BRADLEY MILLER 4747 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 42511 CHRIS BRIGHT 4753 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 42556 TOM EFFERTZ 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 42586 DEBORAH MATHEWS 4763 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 2441 [] I I I I, , It I 42626 RONALD MCCOMBS 4767 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 42691 WANDA STUERMAN 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 42791 JAMES MILLER 4781 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 10. REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE TO MODIFY THE BASEBALL FIELD AT PHILBROOK PARK .................. 2580-2584 USSION & RECO~ND~Ti0~; '~'E~NViRONMENT~L SSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR LOST LS~KE ,., ~ IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (t..~. ~ ..................... L..2~85_2628 12. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 13, 1996 .......................... 2629 13. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: REQUEST FROM LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RE: LMC WORK PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES AND UTILITY COMPANIES ...................... 2630-2632 14. I~0,RENEWAL OF A GARDEN LEASE, LEO AND BEVERLY WALLIS, ~' 1668 CANARY LANE ................................... 2633-2634 15. PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................... 2635-2646 16. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR, FOR JUNE 1996 ................... 2647-2648 ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) RE: ANNUAL NLC CONGRESS OF CITIES, DECEMBER 7-10, 1996 IN SAN ANTONIO TEXAS. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, PLEASE CONTACT LINDA ASAP SO THAT REGISTRATION CAN BE SENT TO NLC. COUNCIL RECEIVED BROCHURE AT LAST MEETING ............ 2649 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8, 1996 ......... 2650-2658 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 1996 ................................. 2659-2670 2442 · ,i .... [] J I .... Ill i 1,, Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO - PHONE LOG July 3, 1996 Participants: Nick Rowse, Twin Cities Field Office - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 725-3548 Bruce Chamberlain Re: Official comments to the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project EAW. Mr. Rowse expressed two comments regarding the project. 1. As a representative of the Fish & Wildlife Service, it is his opinion that the project will have a positive over-all environmental impact. 2. Mr. Rowse expressed concern that after the main canal is dredged, private property owners will propose to dredge secondary channels from adjacent shoreline to the main canal. If this occurs, it could create boat traffic problems and significantly disturb the ecology of the wetland through fragmentation. END OF REPORT MAMOUND~4-40~F&W_COMM. MEM 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 I, , iii CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 23, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK BLUEBELL ICE CREAM HAWKER LICENSE In March of 1996, licenses were approved by the Council for various businesses. The BlueBell Ice Cream License was approved, but never issued as they did not submit insurance documents nor did the fee arrive. The owner of the company is reapplying with a new vendor, insurance is now current and fee has been submitted. They are applying for the months of July and August only. Council approval is needed. attachments ls grin!ed on recycled paper :uL--z2-96 /96 Ill I FRI 12:57 C1'1'¥ oF M011Ni) P.02 ~- ...,-,~...~.,- -,, ,-- -. . . .-. .... USE .......... :, . o sE , ,._. CITY. OF HOUND ~34[ MAYWOOD ROAD MO~, M~OTA, HAWKER LICENSE APPLICANT NAME:~ ~ f/< ~ V" E:) e~ DATI::- OF BIRTH: HOME AD ORF...SS~: .~./ ....... _a ~.d ~ r.... ~_~ 2_ DR. L[C.,: ~~.. 7r~~ BUS~S ADD.S; ~I~ENC~ OF TH~ APPI,ICANT FOR THE LAST (5) YEARS: SALES PEOPLE NAM~g & DRrVER'S ,..:_..REFERENCF_..q: (O[VE NAMES,x4DDRESSES, AN'D PHONE # OF THRE.E). DATE ~IGNATURE OF APPLICANT ~a.$", · ' AUTHORIZATION Ill ,I CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 I~lal ~7~-0~00 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 23, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK .~-~ VFW - PICNIC IN THEIR PARKING LOT The VFW is planning a membership picnic in their parking lot on Saturday, August 10, 1996. They are setting up an area of tables and chairs, games, and a beer keg with free beer in the parking lot. The Minnesota Liquor Control Division requires a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License. Before they will approve, it needs the approval of the City Council. I have enclosed the application to the state, their food plans which they have applied for at the County level, and their newsletter article. Chief Harrell is out of the office this week. He needs to review this application and approve also. I am suggesting to the VFW that they fence in the area and allow access only from within the building. Council approval could be considered pending the Police Chief's approval next week. The VFW's other licenses and insurance forms are on file and are current. 1s printed on recycted paper Minnesota Department of Public Safety LIQUOR CONTROL DMSION 444 Cedar St./Suite 100L St. Paul, MN 55 I01-2156 (6 ! 2)29~-6439 TDD (6 ! 2)2~2-6~ APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A I TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE (--'-o ' -' [[[ I _- - . ........ .... ' ...... . . TYPE OR PR=tNT INFORMATION DATE ORGAN~Z~.D TAX EXEMPT NUMBER STATE. [ ZIP Cc.~,DE ,. BU$1'NES$ PHONE l HOME PHONE ~E OF O~aAN~T~ON O C~~ ~ ~atOUS O O~R NO~OF~T APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST ~E A.PPRO~D BY ~ OR COIJI~ BEFORE SUBMITTING TO LIQUOR CONTi~OI. CITY/COUNTY CITY FEE AMOUNT DATE FEE PAID SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUN't-Y OFFICIAL DATE APPROVED LICENSE DATES APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR NOTE: Do not separate these two parts, ~end both parts to the addrtfl above and the original ~ipid by ebb diN'bloa will be returned a~ the Uctnse. Submit to the City or'County ~t lent 30 days before the event. HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT GROUP CO~NITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1011 First Street South #215 Hopkins, MN 5534~ (612) 930-2770 FAX (612) 930-2762 TEMPORARY FOODSERVICE INFORMATION BHEET (Please be explicit and write legibly) Person in charge of~f-fOOd opera=ion Telephone (days) ~'/J'~/TJ ~29~ (evenings) - List equipment =o be used to cook and maintain food above 150' F. and =o keep food below 40'F. (Identify if used for preparation, storage, or service) Q~/cl(~J ~ ~/£~ ~e_ O~Jo~¢f3 ~e . HC 11032 (over) How will food be prepared & stored (prior to and during even=)? _ Ilk) S~a~e me~hod of ~rans~or~ng ~ooa (vehicle & con~a~ner~ ~o ~e u~, m~ans of r~frigeration, use of wa~ers, etc.) What facilities will be provided for washing hands? What facilities will be provided for washing utensils? ~at toilet facilities are available ~or foodhandlers? _ WAll disposable dishes be ,used? Yes ~ No __ If no, how will , 7 dishes be washed? Individual providing information [] I [] I ii It It ,I,,, Keep in mind the Post Picnic at the Post Home on August 10 th. The Planning Committee is hard at work putting together the details. Members and their families get a da~ at the Post have fun and meet some of the new members. Final details will be posted at the Club and in the next newsletter, ~rget -_Fly your fla - o y. e have all, in the VFW, crossed seas to pro and keep the Red, White and Blue flying high. INDEPENDENCE DAY Chamberlain-Goudy VFW 5113 2544 Commerce Blvd Mound MN 55364 NONPROFIT ORG. U.S.POSTAGE PAID PERMIT # 113 MOUND MN 55364 Veterans Helping Veterans Philbrook Park Proposed Development Picnic Shelter 123 ]VRNUTES ' MOUND CITY COUNCIL - ~ULY 9, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 9, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Parks Director Jim Fackler and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Richard and Connie Meyer, Steve Ochy, Michelle Alexander, Michael Pride, Stephanie Coon, Michael Savage, Randall Englehart, Jeffrey Andersen, Gene Garvais, Steve Erickson, Steve Behnke, Tom Stokes, Ron Moore, Doug Rippie, Pete Ruchner. Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited following a moment of silence for the lives lost in Saudi Arabia. Mayor Polston acknowledged Sgt. John McKinley of the Mound Police Department. Sgt. McKinley introduced to the City Council the two new police officers: Michelle Alexander and Allen Ringate. The Council and Staff welcomed the new officers. 1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 25, 1996 REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Hanus mentioned on item #1.14, the Parks Commission, not the Planning Commission recommended approval. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, and carded unanimously to approve the Minutes of the June 25, 1996 Regular Council meeting as amended. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE LOCATED IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AT 2610 COMMERCE BLVD., PID//23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050. City Planner Mark Koegler stated the owners had applied for an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business in the B-1 District. He reviewed the conditions with the Council and stated staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Councilmember Jensen questioned the actual number of vehicles allowed to be parked overnight on the lot. Discussion revolved around there not being a limited number of vehicles, rather keeping the parked vehicles within the north lot. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment either for or against this item. Mr. Meyer was present and stated that he did not want a limit on the vehicles as vehicles will be coming and going frequently. Weather conditions often dictate the count Minutes - Mound City Council July 9, 1996 of vehicles as his business was AAA authorized. Also, he had agreed, as the Planning Commission had requested, to not have any overnight parking on the south side of the property along Bartlett Boulevard. Then Mr. Meyer questioned item "g~ in the conditions regarding the two parcels being combined. He stated he could not do this as the north lot was on a contract for deed and not paid off yet. He would like to have that portion of the resolution removed. Council discussed this and the City Attorney reworded item "g" to read: Tax parcels 23-117-23 14 0043 and 23-117-24 14 0050 shall be required to be under one ownership and if either parcel is sold or transferred, this Conditional Use Permit shall immediately become null and void and the new owner or owners shall be required to reapply for a new Conditional Use Permit. ' Mr. Meyer was in agreement. City Manager Ed Shukle read a letter from a neighboring resident, Mr. Tom Reese, that stated his agreement with the business proposal. Being no more comments for or against, Mayor Polston closed the public heating. Mayor Polston was concerned with the possibility of complaints of too many vehicles and if the resolution did not state an actual count, what guidelines did the City have to enforce over parking? Councilmember Jensen suggested changing the word 'parking' to 'storage' of vehicles. Mayor Polston stated that if the resolution was not defined clearly, a precedence could be established. Consensus was to let the area in use be the definition. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the amended resolution: RESOLUTION//96-69 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE LOCATED IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOTS 1, 2, 3, & S. 1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID'S 23-117-24 14 0043 AND 0050. PZ //96-26. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE //96-32: RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE/SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, RAYMOND BAYLOR, 4790 NORTHERN ROAD. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the proposed resolution: RESOLUTION//96-70 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY ADDITION AT 4790 NORTHERN ROAD, E. 1/2 OF LOT 27 & W. 1/2 OF 28, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID//18-117-23 33 0027. PZ//96-32. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council 1.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR STAIRWAY AND RETAINING WALL, STEPHANIE COON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed this item stating that at the previous City Council meeting the Council had removed from the proposed resolution any reference to the existing nonconforming playhouse and lightpole. These items would be dealt with later when the Commons Task Force makes their recommendations regarding private structures and encroachments on public lands to the Council. Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following revised resolution: RESOLUTION//96-71 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND FOR STEPHANIE COON, INCLUDING A STAIRWAY, RETAINING WALL AND PLANTINGS, LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON, ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. DOCK SITE//42314 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INCREASE IN FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION PENSION BENEFIT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1996. City Manager Ed Shukle stated he had received a request from the Mound Fire Relief Association to increase the pension benefit currently at $425 to $460 per month. Each firefighter must have served 20 years or more before receiving this pension. He stated based upon an actuarial that was performed as of 12/31/95, the current pension contributions from the various cities in the fire district, along with the investment earnings on the pension, there are adequate funds to cover a pension benefit increase of $35. He also mentioned the unfunded accrued liability, and stated the Board of Directors and City Staff will continue to work on a strategy and report back to the Council in the future. Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following proposed resolution: RESOLUTION//96-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST TO INCREASE BENEFITS AS REQUESTED. RELIEF PENSION The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.5 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL FOR NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD, BRENSHELL HOMES/FINE LINE DESIGN. City Manager Ed Shulde stated there was a packet of information just handed out from Jim Fackler, Parks Director. He asked the Council if they had any questions. Jim Fackler introduced Greg Nybeck, 3 Minutes - Mound City Council July 9, 1996 Administrative Technician of the LMCD. Mr. Fackler summarized his memo to the Council. He stated there had been three Dock Location Maps since 1974. He was able to collect a limited history on the number of dock' sites and boat counts that were used when calculating the LMCD Commercial Dock License for the City from 1978 to present. The first map (1974-1976) made no reference to lineal footage. It was not known. The second map (1977-1982) applied lineal footage to identify each dock site location. The total noted was 70,050 feet. He was informed by the City Engineer that the lineal footage was probably collected by city staff using a combination of surveys and half section maps. The third map (1982-1995) was a continuation of the previous map with enhancements from the engineering firm McCombs Frank Roos. This map used lineal footage, but shows a reduction of 8,735 to a total of 61,315 lineal feet. He had no history as to why this was changed and what areas were affected. The fourth map (1983-presen0 shows nine revision dates, but the total lineage footage remains at 61,315. Faclder stated it was always understood by staff that the dock program utilizes approximately 4.5 miles of shoreline, which is a portion of the total 6 miles of noncontiguous shoreline under the City's control. He stated that the total footage in 6 miles is only 31,680 lineal footage and does not match the maps at 61,315 lineal footage. When using the LMCD's requirement for one BSU (Boat Storage Uni0 per 50 lineal feet, 31,680 lineal feet would allow for 633.6 BSU's, and according to the BSU count from 1988 on (when they began counting BSU's) the total has never been over 633.6. Mr. Faclder further stated there was an understandable question as to what is the correct lineal footage of noncontiguous City owned shoreline. The Dock Location Map can be updated by two ways: Staff could make use of current recorded based on half section maps and the use of surveys that are currently on hand, giving an approximation; or, contract a registered land surveyor at the cost of about $20,000 to survey the shoreline in need of clarification, also utilizing surveys on file and half section maps. Ahrens had questions for Mr. Nybeck regarding when the LMCD allowed cities to add up and use noncontiguous shoreline? Mr. Nybeck stated it was started for density provisions, too many boats, in one area, use another city owned area. She also asked what types of shoreline could be included, street dead ends, easements? He stated any area dedicated to the public would be city owned. Other discussion dealt with whether the current Dock Ix>cation Map was to scale. This was not known. Ahrens stated the City could end up with 633 docks. Mr. Nybeck stated the license is for BSU's not docks. Steve Behnke, Brenshell Homes/Fine Line Design, approached the Council and stated that their proposed dock, of 9 slips fits in under the total number of docks allowed in the system. Ahrens stated what if the measurements are very inaccurate and the City did not have the estimated amount of lineal footage and docks had to be removed? Without knowing the exact lineal footage, she did not want more docks. Tom Stokes, Fine Line Design, approached the Council and stated that there had been questions about the docks for over eight months. Mayor Polston stated he did not want mistakes, the footage should be determined. He suggested asking the City Engineer to verify map origination, and to have the footage verified before adding more docks. Ahrens asked of Mr. Nybeck what footage could be counted. Mr. Nybeck stated any city owned land over the OHW of 929.4 ft., including setbacks being met. Mayor Polston suggested returning with the information in two weeks at the next Council meeting. Jensen stated that if the request of the builder for a dock came in under the current dock count, BSU count, why not allow it? Mr. Doug Rippie, a future resident of the new development, stated he had one boat and would like to put it in the water and that the other docks/boats would not be requested until next summer. Fackler stated the Longford Road shoreline is not yet included on the Dock 4 Minutes - Mound City Council .~uly 9, 1996 Location Map. Jensen stated that if this road was to be added to the shoreline footage, there should be plenty of room for a dock, even if the actual footage was not known, more footage was being added to the total. Fackler mentioned application was needed to the DNR for these new docks and a fee of $150. Stokes stated the DNR won't issue a permit until the City approves, and verbally, the DNR had approved their plan to cross the wetlands to reach these new docks. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to allow Brenshell Homes/Fine Line Design two boats at the proposed dock location site until further information is collected regarding the actual lineal footage the City of Mound owns for the dock program. The vote carried 4-1, with Polston voting nay. Polston stated he wanted definite answers to the lineal footage before allowing more boats. 1.6 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.7 APPROVAL OF A QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION-PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION FOR THE MOUND WESTONKA CLASSIC, MOUND WESTONKA BASEBALL ASSOCIATION. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the sign was already up, approval would be needed. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously, to approve a Quasi Function Portable Sign Application for the Mound Westonka Classic, Mound Westonka Baseball Association. 1.8 RESOLUTION RELEASING TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY FOR SALE AT 6253 BIRCH LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 9, MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 32 0046. City Manager Ed Shukle stated a parcel on Birch Lane had been reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission, Planning Commission, City Engineer and Department Heads. The lot is a buildable lot. Jessen stated that there is huge amount of nature area in the City, the school property, wetlands and the lake need to be included as nature areas. She wanted this parcel back on the tax rolls. Hanus mentioned the City has a large task maintaining all of the nature areas it has. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following proposed resolution: RESOLUTION//96-73 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE STATE TO RELEASE THE NORTHEASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 9, MOUND TERRACE FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND DIRECT THIS PARCEL OF LAND TO BE RELEASED FOR SALE. Minutes - Mound City Council July 9, 1996 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 30 FOOT WIDE PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS COBDEN LANE, LOCATED NORTH OF WINDSOR ROAD AND TERMINATED AT LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF TEAL POINTE LOCATED IN "ARDEN" ADDITION. SUGGKqTED DATE: AUGUST 13, 1996. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to set August 13, 1996, 7:30 pm, for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a 30 foot wide platted right of way known as Cobden Lane, located north of Windsor Road and terminated at Lot 3, Block 1, of Teal Pointe, located in "Arden" addition. 1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Hanus had a question pertaining to the payment to a resident for dock repair. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, explained the City was going to remove a derelict dock left by a moved out resident, instructions were given and the crew removed the wrong dock. The City had to reimburse the owner of wrong dock removed for materials only. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $179,376.13, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 TELECOMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS City Manager Ed Shukle indicated an information item handed out that night from the League of Minnesota Cities with information regarding local management of public rights of way and the possibility of losing this local control. The LMC is designing a work program and needs financing to counter the challenge. They are asking for voluntary donations, Mound's would be $709. The Council consensus was to discuss at the July 23, 1996 meeting. 1.12 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JUNE, 1996. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE, 1996. LMCD MAILINGS - 1997 LMCD BUDGET WHICH RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE LMCD BOARD. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 1996. 6 Minutes - Mound City Council July 9, 1996 Eo REMINDER: SPECIAL MEETING RE: POLICE SERVICES STUDY, WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 7 PM, SHOREWOOD CITY HALL. MAYOR POLSTON AND COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN INDICATED THAT THEY WILL BE ATTENDING. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 17, 1996 Mr. Thomas D. Creighton Mr. Robert J.V. Vose Bernick & Lifson, P.A. Suite 1200 The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55416-1270 RE: Triax / DD Cable Merger Approval Process Dear Tom and Bob: Thank you for your letter of May 16, 1996, regarding the above process. The Mound City Council will schedule a public hearing on this matter for Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall. We will set the hearing date at the next meeting and have it published accordingly in the local newspaper. Is there any information that I should have with regard to this matter so that it can be presented to the City Council for the public hearing? I would appreciate any information you might have; or, if you feel it is necessary for one or both of you to attend the Council meeting, we could certainly arrange that as well. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jr. City Manager ES:kb printed on recycled paper F:~OSS A. SUSSMAN NE:AL J. SHAPIRO SAUL A. SERNICI~'" DAVID K. NI(~hTIN(~ALE BERNICK AND LIF$ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE iZOC), THe: COLONNADE: 5500 WAYZATA BOULE:VARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S416-I:~70 TELE:pHONE: (6~2I 546-1200 FACSIMILE {~12} 54~-1003 May 16, 1996 ~'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN 'ALSO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT LEGALAB$i$TANT$ JO BROWN JOAN M. SCHULKERS KATHRYN G. MASTERMAN RECEIVED 1 ? Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 RE: Triax/DD Cable Merger Approval Process Dear Mr. Shukle: As you know, we have taken the position that the procedural timelines of state law relating to your review of the requested transfer of ownership are preempted by the 120-day maximum timeline requirement of federal law. Unfortunately, legal counsel for the cable companies has taken a contrary position and refused to cooperate in an acknowledgment of federal preemption or a waiver of the state timelines (as has been done by other companies). While we could have sought clarification in a court of law, we have chosen not to recommend that you incur such expense. Instead, we recommend that you comply with both state and federal timelines. Compliance requires: 1. The enclosed letter sent May 14, 1996. 2. You opening a public hearing on this matter within 30 days of the company's receipt of this letter (sometime on or before June 17). Please see the recommended enclosed Notice of Public Hearing. 3. Do not close this public hearing, but continue it until further notice of this office. 4. Forward to this office notice of the date of your public hearing. May 16, 1996 Page Two We are still negotiating the reimbursement of your expenses in this matter and will not hold you responsible for expenses incurred until a commitment from the cable company is received. Should they refuse reimbursemem, we will forward to you a Resolution denying the request for approval since you will be unable to fund your fiduciary responsibility for review. If I can answer any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. Thomas D. Creighton Robert J. V. Vose Enclb~ure jJ55 A. BEI NICK AND LIFSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA May 14, 1996 JOAN M. SCHULK£1~$ Via Certified Mail: Return Receipt Requested Mr. Robert Langley Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. 1504 Second Street S.E. P.O. Box 110 Waseca, Minnesota 56093 Mr. Joseph Shanks DD Cable Parmers, L.P. P.O. Box 375 Savage, Minnesota 55378 Re: Request for Approval of Transfer/Merger: Cities of Brooten, Hutchinson, Grand Rapids, Maple Plain, Waconia, Mound, Morris, Prior Lake, and Cloquet, Hancock and the Lake Minnetonka Telecommunications Commission (consisting of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Long Lake, Medina, Minnetonka Beach, Minnestrista, Orono, St. Bonifacius, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, and Woodland) Dear Messrs. Langley and Shanks: We have received correspondence from your legal counsel, Jane Bremer, indicating that she does not concur with our prior opinion that the Federal Cable Act, which guarantees that municipalities have 120 days to approve or deny transfer requests, preempts the significantly shorter and therefore inconsistent procedural timelines created by Minn. Stat. § 238.083, Subds. 24. While we believe this interpretation m be incorrect and an unnecessary financial and administrative burden on both the municipalities and companies, we believe that compliance with the preempted state law will be less burdensome on our clients than formal adjudication of the preemptory effect of federal law on state law. Mr. Joseph Shanks Mr. Robert Langley May 14, 1996 Page 2 Accordingly, on behalf of the above-referenced municipalities and municipal consortia, you are hereby notified in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.083, Subd. 2, the requested merger of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P., and DD Cable Partners, L.P., DD Cable Holdings, Inc., and its various subsidiaries d/b/a Northland Cablevision or Midwest Cablevision, may adversely affect subscribers of either or both of the companies, and a public hearing is necessary with respect to each of the above-referenced municipalities or municipal consortia. Each of the above-referenced municipalities or municipal consortia will open a public hearing on the requested transfer within 30 days of your receipt of this le~er. An official from both of the merging companies should attend to respond to specific questions which may arise. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my associate, Robert Vose, with any questions. Sincerely, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. . , Thomas D. Creighton TDC/rs cc: Jane E. Bremer, Esq. Clients J J ,J, J ,I,,~, i il RECEIVED, ] EKNICK AND LIFSON A PROFE.~51ONAL ASSOCIATION ATTC) RN~"YS AT LAW SUITE 1200, THE COLONNADE 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAF~OLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270 May 29, 1996 tALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN 'ALSO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT Via Telecopier and U.S. Mail Ms. Jane E. Bremer Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Dear Jane: I appreciated the meeting we had regarding some very difficult issues affecting both our clients. I wanted to reiterate my understanding regarding the tasks ahead, some of which are very imminent. .~ First and foremost, many of my clients' public hearings commence very soon. My clients must receive notification that your client will be responsible for expenses incurred in the transfer analysis in an amount not to exceed $25,000 before those hearings, or, as we discussed, we will have to begin the process of denial of the request for approval. Please send such verification to my attention. Silence is not helpful. If the f'mal answer is not to reimburse, we need that in writing also before the hearings referred to above commence. Second, you were going to reduce to writing your concerns with the Standstill Agreement for both Apple Valley and Lake Minnetonka. I would appreciate that matter resolved before June 7. You were also going to communicate directly with Theresa Kowalski of this office regarding the documents she needed to continue her review of the Triax transaction. She informs me that you have not contacted her as of yet. Since you have a written copy of her requests, I will not reduce them to a formal request for additional information. I am instead attaching a copy hereto for your further information. Ms. Jane E. Bremer May 29, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation in these matters. Sincerely, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. TDC/rs Enclosure cc: Theresa M. Kowalski, Esq. Ms. Jane E. Bremer May 29, 1996 Page 3 bcc: Clients TRIAX - DD CABLE MERGER Documents Requested All supplementary documents to the Contribution Agreement, including Exhibits, Schedules, and Attachments. Redemption Agreement for Midwest's redeeming partners. Programming Management Agreement between InterMedia Capital Management IV, LP, InterMedia Capital Management II, LP, Triax Midwest Associates, LP and Triax Communications Corporation. (Reflected at Tab 3 as forwarded to the franchise authoritfs attorney for review.) Current Partnership Agreements for Triax Midwest Associates, LP and Triax Midwest General Partner, LP. Incorporation documents for and documentation of the ownership of Triax Communications Corporation and its existing affiliation to Triax Midwest Associates, LP. Certificates of Authority and Organizational Documents of Triax Midwest LLC and Triax Telecommunications LLC including all member control agreements and other documents reflecting the member interests in the organizations. Partnership Agreements and Certificates of Authority for DD Cable Partners, LP, InterMedia Partners II, LP, and InterMedia Capital Management II, LP. C:\CLIENT~TRIAX~DOCLrMENT. REQ TI-lOMAS O. CRE:IGHTON SCOTT A. ~-IFSON C)AVI[~ K. NI(~HTINGALE:? DER. NICK AND LIF~ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270 RECEIVED ,,~, 2 § 1§~ May 28, 1996 Meredith Jones, Esq. Chief, Cable Services Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2033 M Street, N.W., Room 810E Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: In the Matter of: Triax Midwest Associates. L.P.'s Application For Small System Rate Relief Dear Ms. Jones: Enclosed for filing with the Federal Communications Commission, please find the original and three copies of Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission's Supplemental Opposition to Petition for Special Relief submitted by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. Very truly yours, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. ... ,-- ,. / - ~o~s D. C~g~to~ ~ob~ L ~. ~os~ TDC/rs Enclosures cc: See Certificate of Service FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WxsI-m4o'roN, D.C. In the Matter Of: TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. Application For Small System Rate Relief To: Chief, Cable Services Bureau FCC File No. SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF The Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission ("LMCCC"), a municipal consortium consisting of 14 cities, hereby files, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.7, which requires that the LMCCC ensure the continuing accuracy and completeness of its Opposition, its Supplemental Opposition to the Petition for Special Relief filed by Tfiax Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax"). Eligibility for special rate treatment in accordance with the small system cost-of-service methodology is available to small systems owned by small cable companies.~ A small system is defined as a cable television system that serves 15,000 or fewer subscribers.2 A small cable company is defined as a cable television operator that serves a total of 400,000 or fewer subscribers over one or more cable systems? ~ SmallSystem Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7406. 2 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c). 3 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). On September 25, 1995, Triax and its parent entity, Triax Communications Corporation ("TCC"), filed FCC Form 1230 with the LMCCC to permit Triax to establish regulated cable rates in accordance with the small system cost-of-service methodology adopted in the Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, in MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 93-215, FCC 95-196, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995) ("Sma#System Order"). On October 10, 1995, Triax and TCC filed an amended Form 1230 on behalf of Triax. In both filings, Triax alleged that it had 14,949 subscribers in the Lake Minnetonka system. Based on Triax's computation of Form 1230, the company would be permitted to more than double its existing basic and programming service tier rates pursuant to the Small System Order. Subsequently, Triax filed with the Commission its Petition for Special Relief ("Petition").~ In its Petition, Triax admits that its purported August 31, 1995 subscriber total of 14,949 was false or incorrect and Triax admits that at all times relevant hereto the Lake Minnetonka system has exceeded the Small System Order 15,000 subscriber threshold. However, Triax asserted in the Petition that it had under 400,000 subscribers nationwide. Accordingly, absent special relief, Triax is not entitled to the significant rate relief afforded by the Small System Order. The LMCCC filed its Opposition arguing that because Triax exceeds the 15,000 subscriber threshold and does not share other characteristics with other small cable operators the Petition should be denied. Important new information has developed and supports dismissal of Triax's Petition. 4 In the Matter of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.; Application for Small System Rate Relief} Petition for Special Relief, dated December 7, 1995. See Petition, Exhibit A (listing the municipalities served by the Lake Minnetonka system). 2 On or about April 15, 1996, Triax sent the LMCCC FCC Form 394 and supporting documentation regarding a proposed merger with DD Cable Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Midwest Cablevision, DD Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Northland Cablevision and various subsidiaries thereof ("DD Cable"). As a result of this merger with DD Cable, from which Triax alleges it will emerge as the surviving entity, Triax indicates that it will serve 487,135 subscribers in 17 states, making it one of the nation's 25 largest MSOs. Application of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P., et al. for Consent to Transfer Cable Television Franchise, Tab 5, Section 1, Summary of the Transaction. Accordin~y, by the terms of its Petition and Application for Transfer, Triax will serve in excess of the 15,000 subscriber limit in the LMCCC headend, and in excess of 400,000 subscribers nationally. Triax exceeds both thresholds for a small cable company and the LMCCC requests that Triax's Petition be dismissed. BERNICK AND LHrSON, P.A. Thomas D. Creighton, #1980X~ Robert J. V. Vose, #0251872 Attorneys for Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission Suite 1200 The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard lVfmneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 546-1200 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rose K. Speidel of Bernick and Lifson, P.A., hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Opposition to Petition for Special Relief and Affidavit of James M. Daniels was sent via United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, this 28th day of May, 1996. Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. c/o J. Christopher Redding Christopher T. McGowan Dow Lohnes & Albertson 1255 Twenty-Third Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Town of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 5317 Town of Loretto City Hall P.O. Box 207 Loretto, Minnesota 55357 Town of Maple Plain 1620 Maple Avenue Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 Town of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Town of Waconia 109 South Elm Waconia, Minnesota 55387 Town of Wayzata City Hall 600 E. Rice Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-1799 Thomas C. Power, Esq. Cable Services Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2033 M Street, N.W., Suite 406C Washington, D.C. 20554 Ms. Margo Domon Cable Serv. Bureau/Policy & Rules Division Federal Communications Commission 2033 M Street N.W., Suite 406 Washington, D.C. 20554 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of May, 1996. 12 ? Rose K. Speidel RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 1, MOUND SHORES PID 14-117-24 13 0003, P&Z CASE//96-29 WHEREAS, the owner, John Hubler has applied for a variance to recognize the following existing nonconforming setbacks to allow a 28' x 34' second floor addition and a 4' x 8' deck: north from yard - house north from yard - garage south side yard - house lakeside - deck required existing/prop, variance 20' 3.8' 16.2' 20' 2.1' 17.9' 6' 5.8' .2' 50' 36' 14' WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Grandview Blvd. and the alley to the north, a 6 foot side yard setback, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the existing crawl space is below the minimum building elevation of 942.0 required by the floodplain regulations, and; WHEREAS, the north front yard setback variances for this case are significant in number, but relatively insignificant in actual impact since the home abuts an unimproved public right-of-way that receives limited public usage, and; WHEREAS, the nonconforming lakeshore setback of 36' to the deck is due to a small dredged area in the shoreline, most of the lakeshore is approximately 45' from the edge of the deck. The existing deck will not be modified as part of this request, and; WHEREAS, the homes immediately south of the subject property are closer to the lake than this home, and; WHEREAS, the existing home and garage are in good condition, and the proposed addition will not further encroach on any of the existing nonconforming setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the owner's would like the option of constructing either a second story addition or a split entry, neither of which would encroach further than the existing footprint, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Proposed Resolution Hubler p. 2 The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming setbacks as listed below to allow the remodeling of the existing home, either a second floor addition or conversion into a split level, subject to the condition that the finished floor elevation of the lowest level of the existing home (crawl space) be raised to a minimum elevation of 942.0 consistent with Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, and subject to no further encroachments than the existing footprint. north front yard - house north front yard - garage south side yard - house lakeside - deck required existing/prop, variance 20' 3.8' 16.2' 20' 2.1' 17.9' 6' 5.8' .2' 50' 36' 14' The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Remodeling of the existing home, either a 28' x 34' second floor addition or conversion into a split level, with a 4' x 8' deck. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Mound Shores. Also, that part of the un-named road adjoining Lot 1, Mound Shores, described as follows: Beginning at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 1; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 0.00 feet; thence deflecting right 90 degrees a distance of 3.50 feet; thence Southeasterly to the point of beginning. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MF. ETING OF THF. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIgSION JULY 8, 1996 C~SE 96-29: V~RIANCE FOR ~DDITIONt JOHN HUBLERt 5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD. t LOT 1~ MOUND SHORES~ PID 14-117-24 13 0003 Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to substantially remodel an existing dwelling by adding a 28' x 34' second floor addition and a 4' x 8' deck. Variances are required for the proposed construction because the existing home has a nonconforming setbacks, as follows: required existinq/DroD, variance north front yard - house 20' north front yard - garage 20' south side yard - house 6' lakeside - deck 50' 3.8' 16.2' 2.1' 17.9' 5.8' .2' 36' 14' The north front yard setback variances for this case are significant in number, but relatively insignificant in actual impact since the home abuts an unimproved public right-of-way that receives limited public usage. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 The nonconforming lakeshore setback of 36' to the deck is due to a small dredged area in the shoreline, most of the lakeshore is approximately 45' from the edge of the deck. The existing deck will not be modified as part of this request. The homes immediately south of the subject property are closer to the lake than the Hubler home. The existing home and garage are in good condition, and because of the configuration of the house, expansion into a second story makes sense. Construction of the proposed addition will not further encroach on any of the existing nonconforming setbacks. On the basis of practical difficulty, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the remodeling of the existing home subject to the condition that the finished floor elevation of the lowest level of the existing home (crawl space) be raised to a minimum elevation of 942.0 consistent with Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Sutherland substantiated the requirement to raise the lowest floor of the dwelling by noting sections from City Code Section 300:15, Floodplain Overlay Regulations. Subdivision 8. c. was specifically reviewed, "When the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions to the interior and exterior of a nonconforming structure exceeds 50 percent of the Assessor's market value of the structure, the structure shall be made to comply with the standards of Subdivision 4 of this ordinance. The cost of alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the City's initial floodplain ordinance shall be calculated at current cost in making this determination." Sutherland noted that in previous cases, all but one has been required to be raised out of the floodplain. Sutherland commented that the applicant would prefer to seek the variance to raise the structure, but staff's recommendation is to require it meet the ordinance. Reifschneider clarified that the applicant could put 4 inches of concrete in the crawl space and this would make the lowest floor conforming. Sutherland confirmed that this would work, and noted that the crawl space is 4'3" high. Sutherland emphasized that if the addition and alterations are less than 50% of the existing value, they do not have to raise the dwelling, however, this would be another structure that will need to be reported to FEMA that is located in the floodplain. John Hubler, owner and applicant, stated they have lived in this house for 13-14 years, they have a sump pump in the crawl space, but they have never plugged it in because there has never been a need for it. They do not have draintile either, and they have never had water in their crawl space. They have never had sewage in their crawl space either, unlike some of his neighbors. Planning Commission Hinutes July 8, 1996 Hubler noted that his original plan was to raise the house and convert the crawl spaee-into the lower floor and make a split level home, however, due to the elevation of the floor in the crawl space did not think this was an option. He explained that the second story addition is the quickest, simplest and most cost effective way to add square footage to the house. Hubler believes the cost of the existing structure is more than 50 percent of what the proposed construction will cost. Sutherland stated that the 50% issue is still a question that needs to be answered. He explained that you do not go by how much it will cost the homeowner, but by what the value of the new construction will be. Hubler stated that he installed the wood retaining at the shoreline to create a swimming area for his kids. The Commission questioned why a split entry would not work. It was determined that if they add four inches to the floor in the crawl space and raise the second story it would work, and they would not have to pay flood insurance. Hubler stated that he would still like the option of either a second story addition or a split entry. Sutherland stated that staff would recommend approval of either option as long as they meet the floor elevation requirement and they stay within footprint as proposed. Hubler asked if the 10' x 10' mechanical area can remain below the elevation of 942. The Building official confirmed that this area must also meeting the minimum floor elevation requirement. Sutherland also stated that he would like the applicant to submit plans for each option prior to the City Council review of this case to avoid any misunderstandings. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as requested for either option of a split level or second floor addition subject to the lowest floor elevation being raised to meet the minimum elevation of 942, and subject to the footprint not changing. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1996 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: John Hubler CASE NUMBER: 96-29 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5p LOCATION: 5816 Grandview Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R- 1 A) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to substantially remodel an existing dwelling by adding a second floor addition. The addition which will measure 28' by 34' will contain bedrooms and bathrooms over the existing fa'st floor of the home. The second floor will also contain a small deck measuring 4' x 8'. Variances are required for the proposed construction to proceed because the existing home has a number of nonconforming setbacks including an existing side yard, a front yard off of an unimproved right-of-way on the north side and an existing deck has a nonconforming lakeshore setback. The property abuts an un-named road on the north side that serves as access to a City lift station and as an access to Dutch Lake. Both the existing home and the detached garage have non-conforming front yard setbacks from the un-named right-of-way. Variances for this case include the following: Required Ex./Proposed Variance Front Yard - Home 20' Front Yard - Garage 20' Side Yard - South Side 6' Lakeshore 50' 3.8' 16.2' 2.1' 17.9' 5.8' .2' 36' 14' 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report Hubler Variance Request July 2, 1996 Page 2 COMMENT: The from yard variances for this case are significant in number but relatively insignificant in actual impact since the home abuts a unimproved public right-or-way that receives limited public usage. In 1972, the City of Mound approved the vacation of a portion of the right-of- way to remove an encroachment caused by the placement of the detached garage. The applicant has done some landscaping on the public right-of-way, however, the improvements were done with the knowledge that the property owner would be responsible for their replacement if it ever becomes necessary to excavate within the right-of-way. The lakeshore setback to the existing deck is 36 feet due to a small dredged area that was created in the past. Most of the lakeshore is approximately 45 feet from the edge of the deck. The existing deck will not be modified as part of the construction. The homes immediately south of the subject property are closer to the lake than the Hubler home. Variances can be granted on the basis of practical difficulty or hardship. In this particular case, the existing home and garage are in very good condition and because of the configuration of the house, expansion into a second story makes sense. Construction of the proposed addition will not further encroach on any of the existing nonconforming setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of practical difficulty, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the remodeling of the existing home subject to the following condition: The finished floor elevation of the lowest level of the existing home (crawl space) shall be raised to a minimum elevation of 942.0 consistent with Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. HRY-23-19S6 11:44 ACOUST I CAL FLOORS CITY OF MOUND 5~4! Maywood Road, Mound, MN ~5364~' l~,one: 47~-0600~ F~: 472,-0§20 478 2135 612 P. 03/05 $50.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Plaaning Commission Dam: City Council Date: Distribution. i City Engineer Public Works ;I DNR PROPERTY LEGAL DF. SC. PROPERTY OWNER A.PPLICA.NT (IF OTHER THAN O'~N ER) Address ~'-g/~ Lot Subdivision PID~ ~ ZO~NG DIST~CT R-I ~-1~ Block Plat # R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Address Phone CH) ..(W) (M') Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Derailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): MAY-23-1996 11:44 ACOUSTICAL FLOORS 612 47B 2135 P,04/05 : 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning 8istrict iii w~h-H-'~To~te~. Yes.~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe r~' for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: lakeside: Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. f. fi. fi. sq fi sqft Do~s the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning disuict in which it is locate? Yes ~ No (). If no, sicily each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characterisdc~ of the subjcct pwperty prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses penniued in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ( ( ) topography ( ) soil ) too small ( ) draLaage ~ existing situation ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify · (~. I2181~$) RECEIVED MAY 2 3 lY96 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. MAY-23-1996 11: 44 ACOUST I CAL FLOORS 612 4?8 2135 , Ii P.05/05 Was the hardship described above creatzd by the action of anyone having property interests in the land ,.ft.~r the zoning ordinanc~ was adopted (1982)? Yes I~, Nos~g, If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as thc relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in tiffs petition? Yes g4t, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certi~ that all of the above statemefits.and the statements contained ia any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are lz'ue and accurate. 'I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the iCity of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as m:iy be required by law. Apph_'_c~pt.,s .$ignatu_re ylc/~,//,U, Date TCH LAKE Z s N 2'~°50' 49" £ ,,' b.50 .-~.~_ .-,- ~ :, -° 0 ,AND PART CERTIFIO4, i'E OF SURVEY FOR dOhN r. HUBLER OF LOT 1. MOUND SHORES OF ADJACENT VACATED UN-NAMED HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot i, MOUND SHORES ALSO that parr of the un-ncmed road odjolning Lot 1, MOUND SHORES. described os follows: Beginning at the most Eosterty corner of said Lot 1; thence Northwesterly (:}long the Northeosterl:, of said Lot 1 o distance of 60,00 feet; thence deflecting right 90 degrees (3 distance of 3.5C feet; thence Southeasterly to the point of beginning. o : denotes iron marker (945.4): denotes ex~sting spot elevation, mean sea level datum Beorinqs shown are based upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property i~l:f.,,:l~tr-tt~e Iocat;on of on existing house and garage, and the Ioc(3tion of (31t visible "~-v~"~vr-t~hcrdcover" thereon. It does not purport to show {3ny other improvemer~ts JUN 2 5 19~1~ encroachments. MOUND PLANNING & INSP, I "*- 20' (i'M~RVIOU0 0URFACE ~'~GE~ ............... :'-. ' , ~,~ [OWNER'S NAME::'.. ; , L~ AR~ ,S~.~.' X LOT. AREA ~ ?',0, LOT AB~. ..:_ .SQ. ~. X 15~ = .(for de~ched buildings only) I ~., . *Existing Lots.of. Reoord.'~may ~ve outlined in linage 0ecfion 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1, (see ~c~. A plan must subm;~ed' WIDTH SQ , ~. ;-, · _ DRIV~AY, PARKING AREAS, Sld~ALX~}[ .... " ,. X -= .... ~C. ~ X = ". ' DECKS o~ ~. (~/~; ~.;,. ;.. ';":~ X = ~,.' ......... ~ ~ua.u~ ~ - OTHER X = X :::~.~ ,,... ,_~ ~,: .;:, :.: .. .: ;~..,- :.. :, ~~o~,.~,.,., .~.~ ~.,~ ........... ,'~,. .................. ~:- ~. .... : ~,~; . ~W77 CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( SURVEY ON FILE? ~/~/ES~ NO i F RECORD? NO R3 IIOUSE ......... SIDE N S B W LAKE N TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' GAUGE, SI~D ..... OR OT~R DETACHED BU~DIN~S ~.o~ (~ w ~ 0 SIDE W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 50' INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: _-L~ 10~000/60 B! 7~500/0 R~A 6.000140.0.0.0.0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6r000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,OOO/80 SEE ORI). I1 30v000/100 EX]STING/PROPOSED LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ,4 This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirenle~ts outlined in the City of Mound Zoning ( '"~ .Planning Department at 4724)600. VA~I£O ;1~: )VT LOT 2605. 3O RES RESOLUTION #96-~__~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 4842 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON PLACE, PID 24-117-24 14 0062 P&Z CASE #96-35 WHEREAS, the owner, Chris Brandle, has applied for a 15 foot lake side setback variance to allow construction of a 20' x 28' second floor addition over an existing garage, 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 single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation, and; WHEREAS, the subject dwelling is one unit of a zero lot line twin home, and; WHEREAS, in 1986, the City of Mound approved a variance (Resolution #86-100) for this lot to allow the home to be built with a 35 foot lakeshore setback. The variance was granted due to the existence of a metropolitan sanitary sewer lift station that is located adjacent to Wilshire Blvd. The proposed improvement will not increase the amount of encroachment into the nonconforming lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming lake side setback of 35 feet to allow construction of a 20' x 28' second floor addition since the expansion of the structure does not increase the amount of the nonconforming setback, and the variance approval at this time is consistent with the actions that were taken by the City in 1986. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 20' x 28' second floor family rom addition. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 1, Seton Place. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. Proposed Resolution Brandl p. 2 The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 1996 CASE 96-35: V]tRIaNCE FOR ADDITIONt CHRIS BI~a_NDL, 4842 WILSHIRE BLVD. t LOT 4t BLOCK 1~ SETON PLACE~ PID 24-117-24 14 0062 Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to add a 20' x 28' second floor addition over an existing garage. The subject dwelling unit is one portion of a twin home and there are no similar improvements planned for the other half of the structure. The proposed improvement will change the front elevation of the building. In 1986, the City of Mound approved a variance for this lot to allow the home to be built with a 35 foot lakeshore setback. The variance was granted due to the existence of a metropolitan sanitary sewer lift station that is located adjacent to Wilshire Blvd. The proposed improvement will not increase the amount of encroachment into the nonconforming lakeshore setback. Since the expansion of the structure does not increase the amount of the nonconforming setback, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance. Variance approval at this time is consistent with the actions that were taken by the City in 1986. Sutherland confirmed that this dwelling is not located in the floodplain. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Chris Brandl CASE NUMBER: 96-35 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5q LOCATION: 4842 Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to add a second floor family room addition over an existing garage. The subject unit is one portion of a twin home and there are no similar improvements planned for the other half of the structure. The proposed improvement will change the front elevation of the building. In 1986, the City of Mound approved a variance for this lot to allow the home to be built with a 35 foot lakeshore setback. The variance was granted due to the existence of a metropolitan sanitary sewer lift station that is located adjacent to Wilshire Boulevard. The proposed improvement will not increase the amount of encroachment into the nonconforming lakeshore setback. RECOMMENDATION: Since the expansion of the structure does not increase the amount of the nonconforming setback, staff recomamnds that the Planning Commission recomn~nd approval of the requested variance. Variance approval at this time is consistent with the actions that were take by the City in 1986. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ?, ,JUN 1919~ APplication Fee: (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL I)ESCo PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address q -?~q City Planner ~o ~.~. City Engineer ~ Public Works Lot ~ Subdivision PID# ZONING DISTRICT Name Address Phone (H). q T gt- 7 ~.~3> or) Nam~ Address Case No. DNR /~oun/D Block Plat # B-1 B-2 B3 I~ c'~,7,~ ~,,,_.o_ Phone (FI). (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property7 .~' yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N(~E~W ) ~ 0 ft. fl 0 ft. 0 ft. Side Yard: ( N S~.,,W~) [ t.) ft. !C~ ft' 0 ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~)) 0 ft. 0 ff. 0 ft. Rear Yard: (~_~S E W ) ft. ~[r- ft. ft. Lakeside: I~S E W ) ~)~ ft. ,~ ft. j~ / ft. · EW) ~ ft. ~ ft. ~ ft. Street Frontage: ft. ff. ft. Lot Size: sq ff &, IT! sq ff sq ft Hardcover: sq ft ~ sq ft sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow too small too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil )existing situation other: specify Please describe: (Re~. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~v9 f~~h~ Applicant's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ~1! PROPERTY ADDRESS: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I--~ c ,~'- I X = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I...;~/~ X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. #################~##########################~########~##############,~#### HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DETACHED BLDGS /"~' 3ARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. '~O(_E? i~,¢[m? ~ It DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X -- X -- TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. = X X X _ = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~ /o ~/ I ~3~/y I ~'-'?'NDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...... , ............................... I ~,'~ '7,,I [mm~lll .... I I Cer[ificote of Survey for: [,OT A~EAS ILO..LAREA,, 10, Yl9 S.F. .L.O..T_A_.~.EA ABO._~. OHWt, I" 6,121 EXISTII¥¢ HARDCOVER AREAS 981 $.F. 1,022 $,F. 24~J $.F. 75 17 $.F. 2,5¢4 $.F. "" LANO PLANNERS. LANDSCAPE ARCHII[Cf~ Blaine, MN 55434 .(812) 783-1580 FAX:783-1883 BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES 2422 EnterprL';e Drive MendoLo Heights, MN 55120 625 Highwoy ~0 N.E. N89°q-6'q,1"E 81,12.. Z -EDGE (:iF ICE ELEV.=g29.6 .BIT..iIfl!V~WAZ , CON..CRETE SLIRFAC..~ ~oqE s'I..Y_ OF gH~ RE T.A. ININ(; WALL~ TO1^L / OHW~ =929.4 .~' ",,JF..ASEMENT PER PLAT~ ..../woo, ooc:~ ,,,, LOT SAN. MH.--~ RET. WALL-- EXISTING HOU PATIO Oq LIFT STATION ......... SAN. MH.-"'- .... :TE · '..':..,;.:'::':' '..i iii,:""::: C.S.A.H, '----HENN. t hO'rE; PROPOSEO ORADE5 SHOWN pER ORAOING PLAN ElY: "'"' .... CONCRETE DOG KENNEL AREA '-- .... WOOD F~NCE NO. 125 PROP(~S_ED HOU$=,_ ELEVATION LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION: TOP OF EILOCI( ELEVATION: _ 2422 Enterpri.';e Drive Mendolr'J Heights. MN (612) oal-lg14 FAX: 681-9488 Blaine, 'MN 5.54.34 783-IB~0 FAX: 783-1883 Certil'ico[e of Survey l.o'.r AR~AS OJ._~EF, ^J_O_VLOH_~_ I *JZ~ S.F,/ EXL~;T/N~ IIARDCOVER AREAS 981 S.F. 1,022 249 S F. 75 17 .~.r. for: BRANDL ANDERSON HOMERS g _-,WOOD O0{;K 4 Z .... EDGE OF ICE ELEV.~g2g.6 ..... CONCRETE DOC, KENNEL AREA EXISTING HOUS LIFI' WALL ........ -- ...... WOOD FENCE '-~-~' HENN. C.S.A.FI. tlOlC; PROPOSEO ORAOE$ SHOWN PER r;RADli'tO PLAN DY; ~ STRIICIURES ONLY. SEE ARCHIIECTUAL PLANS fOR BU[OINC AND r~)NOA TION DIMENSI~IS. SUR~YOR. Tile SUt1ABILITY OF SOILS 10 SUPPORT IHE SPECIFIC ItOUSE 'II'liE: ~[QA~TOR MLIST ~elrY DRIVEWAY O~SIGN. MI)lC: gEARINg~ ~10~ ARE OASEO ON Al4 ASSU~EO DATUU NO. 125 LOWCST FLOC)F{ ELEVATION: TOP OF 13LOCI( ELEVATION: CARl, CE SLAD ELEVATION: X OOO, O0 O[Idl)[E~ EXISTINg ELEVATION ( OOO, OO ) 0ENO'rES PROPOSED ELEVA710N .... OENOrES DrIAINAI;E AND UTIUI'f EASEMENT -------4.-- DEN.Ti'ES DRAINAGE FLOW DIREChON --~'-~-- DE~IDTES MDNUMI[NT .-.__~t.~ DENOTES OFFSET HUB 'KE HEREBY CERTIFY TO BRANOL ANDERSON HOMES THAT THIS IS A 1RUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF' THE BOUNDARIES OF: LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON PLACE HENNEPIN COLINTY, MINNESOTA Il DOES HOl PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENIS OR ENCHROACNMENIS, EXCEP, T ASJ.~FI?/WN. AS SURVEYEg/BY M~ OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1996. ~('GNEO/ /~ PIONEER ENOIP~EmNO/ v A -~;~^L~.: ~ ,~c~, = ~o r.~ £_/./;: .. /-~-" " ~j~]__??9~:o,o~ .?z~ ...................... ___~"~o',__~, .E ~o,'_~'o._2.~.,"?- .0. ,96~ 160 August 26, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-100 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF SETON PLACE PID# 24-117-24 14 0037/0038/0039/0013, LOTS 7,8, & 9, BLOCK 29, AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 18, SETON PLANNING COMMISSION CASE #86-507 AND 508, INCLUD'ING'THE CITY ENGINEER"S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STORM SEWER & DRAINAGE DITCH k~EREAS, the final plat of Seton Place has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 13, 1986, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 22.00, Chapter 22, of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, toconsider the approval of the preliminary plat and final plat requirements for Seton Place subdivision located on property described as follows: Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 29, and Part of Lot 6, Block 18, Seton Addition also known as PID# 24-117-24 14 0037/0038/0039/0013 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 the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the. City of Mound, Minnesota; A. Plat approval is granted for Seton Place requested by Richard M. Smith upon compliance withthe following requirements: 1. As .per final plat, Exhibit "A" . 2. Completion of the requirements and conditions listed in Resolution 86-53. Be The Developer is to sign a Development Contract and furnish to the City a performance bond in the amount of $23,000.00 to cover grading and utility construction as per plans approved by the City Engineer. Approval is to be submitted from all agencies requiring review, such as MCWD, ~'CC, Minnesota Health Department, Hennepin County, etc. 5. Approval of all final grading and utility plans by the City Engineer. ® Submit additional escrow funds of $1,000.00 t6 defray city costs for Engineering, Legal, and Planning fees and any additional amounts that may be charged against said account under City Ordinance Section 22.40. 7. Approval of the land title by the City Attorney. 8. Submit Soil Test Reports as required and approved by the City Engine, e Park dedication in the amount of the fee which is applicable at the time of building permit issuance, but in no case less than $300.00 per dwelling unit.. August 26, 1986 10. Any deficient sewer unit charges will be paid in the amount of $292. for each deficient sewer unit upon issuance of the building permits. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certi~ed copy o~ thl~ Resolution to the above named owner and subdivider after completion of the requirements for his use as required by M.S.A. 462.358. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing resolution. D. This final plat shall be Filed and recorded within 60 days of the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section 22.00 of the City Code and shall be recorded-within 180 days of the adoption date of this Resolution with one copy being filed with the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jessen and Smith. ' Mayor Attest: city ~leFk N 0 '. Z 0 k-- Ill'' '" ]i ~:i~ RESOLUTI 3 ~ (EXHIBIT "A") '8. 86 RESOLUTION NO. 86-53 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A SIX (6) LOT SUBDI¥ISION AS AMENDED DENYING THE SIDE YARD VARIANCES OF LOTS 7, 8 & 9, BLOCK 29, AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 18, SETION, PID NUMBERS 2~-117-2~ 1~ 0037/0038/0039/0013 PLANNING COMMISSION CASE ~86-507 & 508 WHEREAS, the City Council on May 13, 1986, held a publi~ hearing pursuant to Section 22.00, Chapter 22, Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider approval of a preliminary plat for Seton Place, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and approval of variances for the establishment of twin homes on six (6) lots located on property described as Lots 7, 8 & 9, Block 29 and Part of Lot 6, Block 18, Seton; and WHEREAS, twin homes are allowed in the Two-Family Residential (R-3) zone by Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 23.610.3 of the Mound Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested a 3 foot side yard variance for Lot 2, a 3 foot side yard variance and a 5 foot front yard variance for Lot 3, a 3 foot side yard variance and a 17 foot front yard variance for Lot 4 and a 3 foot side yard variance for Lot 5; and WHEREAS, the proposed front yard variance satisfies the criteria for granting variances as stated in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code and the Conditional Use Permit satisfies the criteria for granting Conditional Use Permits as stated in Section 23.505.1 of the Mound Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend a conditioned approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Preliminary Plat, Co'nditional Use Permit and the rear yard variance for Seton Place (Case #86-507) are apprOved subject to the following requirements: Per plat on file at Mound City Hall, dated March 25, 1 986. Posting of a subdivision escrow in the amount of $1,000. Payment of park dedication in the amount of the fee which is applicable at the time of building permit issuance, but in no case less than $300.00 per unit. 87 May 13, 1986 A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the final plat. Drainage and utility easements shall be shown in conformance with the City Engineer's recommendations. That failure on the part of the applicant to submit a final plat per Section 22.13 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval to be null and void. The following variance is approved: - Lots 3 and 4 : 20 to 22 foot rear yard variance, subject to 12~approval, to compensate for the MWCC lift station in the front of the parcel· Any modification from this variance shall require review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The side yard variances requested are DENIED. Subject to other State and Local agency approvals where applicable. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember · Peterson and seconded by Mayor Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jessen. Mayor c, Attest: City. Clerk ,J CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO IIOUSE ......... · FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDT~I.: R1 10,000/60 B1 ?,500/0 Ri~ 6,000/40 B2 20,000180 B3 10,000/60 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30~000/100 REQUIRED [ EXI,~'ING/PROPOSED LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE ] GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT N~S E W E W NS E W S E W OR OTitER DETACHED NS E W . ,,-DINOS rlev ? gO' FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ! summ~izes n portion of ~e requirem~ts outlined in the City of Mound ~ng Ordin~ce. For ~er informntion, con~t ~e City of Mound HARDCOVER ~ !CONFORMING? YES /6 This Zoning Information Sheet o~lv .Planning Dep~rtment at 472-0600. I ¢ : v~C VILL 0 O~ 0 0 0 ri- ~=- .~- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK YARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4723 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOT 3 & 1/2 OF 2, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0046 P&Z CASE//96- 36 WHEREAS, the owners, Joe & Georgianne Stibal, have applied for a 5 foot front yard setback variance to allow the "after-the-fact" construction of a new 8' x 16' deck which replaced a 9' x 23' deck, located at the west side of the home. An outdoor spa is also located adjacent to the deck, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to Beachside Road, a 20 foot setback to Lakeside Lane, a 6 foot side yard setback to the NE, and a 15 foot rear yard setback to the SE, and; WHEREAS, the variance also recognizes the nonconforming spa, and; WHEREAS, a finding of practical difficulty could be rendered in this case as this is a corner lot and since the design of the home and the placement of the patio door make the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa, and; WHEREAS, there is 3 feet +/- of additional green space in the boulevard between the property line and the curb that reduces the impact slightly, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 5 foot from yard setback variance to allow the "after-the-fact" construction of a 8' x 16' deck and space with the finding that practical difficulty exists due to the design of the home and the placement of the patio door which makes the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa, and because this lot is a corner lot, and there is a distance of 5 feet +/- from the property line to the curb, subject to the submission of all required building permit application materials and appropriate fees, including penalties. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of an 8' x 16' deck and a spa. Proposed Resolution Stibal p. 2 o This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 3 and the westerly half of Lot 2, Block 8, Shadywood Point. This variance shall be re. corded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Z,¢oo MINUTES OF A ME ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI qSION JULY 8, 1996 CASE 96-36: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JOE & GEORGIANNE STIBAL, 4723 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOT 3 & 112 OF 2, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18- 117-23 23 0046 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicants have requested an "after-the-fact" variance for a deck that was constructed without a building permit. The new 8' x 16' deck replaced a 9' x 23' deck along the western side of the home. An outdoor spa is located adjacent to the deck. A variance for the spa also needs to be addressed since it does not meet required setbacks. At the lowest point to the right-of-way, the deck has a setback of 15 feet. The code requires a 20 foot setback to Lakeside Lane since the home is on a corner lot, resulting in a 5 foot variance. A finding of practical difficulty could be rendered in this case since the design of the home and the placement of the patio door make the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa. If the Planning Commission finds that practical difficulty applies to this request, approval of the variance for the deck and spa is recommended subject to the submission of all required building permit application materials and appropriate fees, including penalties. Reifschneider commented that the deck looks better, and noted that they could take into consideration the extra distance from the property line to the actual location of the curb. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, with the finding that practical difficulty exists due to the design of the home and the placement of the patio door which makes the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa, and because this lot is a corner lot, and there is a distance of 5 feet +/- from the property line to the curb. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1996. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Joe and Georgianne Stibal CASE NUMBER: 96-36 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5r LOCATION: 4723 Beachside Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants have requested an "after the fact" variance for a deck that was constructed without a building permit. The new deck which meastues 8' x 16' replaced a 9' x 23' deck along the western side of the home. An outdoor spa is located adjacent to the deck. A variance for the spa also needs to be addressed since it does not meet required setbacks. At the closest point to the right-of-way, the deck has a setback of 15 feet. The code requires a 20 foot setback to Lakeside Lane since the home is on a comer lot, resulting in a 5 foot variance. COMMENT: Variances can be granted only on the basis of hardship or practical difficulty. In this case, hardship does not apply since other alternative locations for the deck (and spa) exist in the back yard. A finding of practical difficulty could be rendered in this case since the design of the home and the placement of the patio door make the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission finds that practical difficulty applies to this request, approval of the variance for the deck and spa is recommended subject to the submission of all required building permit application materials and appropriate fees including penalties. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 I I VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone: 4724600, Fax: 472-0620 J .... Iii JUN 19: ~pplication Fee (FOR O~--~qCE USE ONLY) Plsrming Commission D~te: City Council Date: Distribution: ~-~-~_~ City Planner DNR City Engineer Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Lot ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~al~ o[~ ~ ~ Block ~ Subdivision ~a~,~e~ ~,~ PIDg /~-//~-~3 ~3 Oo~ Platg 61¢~o ZONING DIS~CT fR- ~ -"~ R-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone ~) ff'}a-o/~2 ~) YP~- 7~3 ~ (M). Name Address Phone (I-I) (W). (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, q'~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~' ".4" /t; x (ad. z2/slgs) z. ¢'~3 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~pplication Fee~, (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot ~ ~ ~ ,o~~ ~1~ o~ ~a~ ~. Block ~ Subdivision ~~ ~ f~, ~ ZONING DIS~CT '~ R-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Nme ~o~ ~. ~ ~a~J~ Z, ~,~/ Address q~3 ~~X). ~L ~ ~v~dL ~ Phone (I-'I) Name Address Phone (FI). OAt). .(M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property.'? ( ) yes, (.affno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. o Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ,ZSodc (.~. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No/~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): .SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE FrontYard: (~iSE/Wx) 30 ft. p ~O ft. 6~ ft. Side Yard: ( N SE~) _5~O ' ft. 23'4ovr, e/4~'daKft. ~ t ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. /c4o,~,~- ' ( N S E{~) ...30 ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: 6, O fl. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (.-), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (~ other: specify Please describe: ~---~o~.~-n.e ~ ~" ¥:u-iance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone~ having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was ~ hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (.~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~.If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are hue and accurate. 'I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's S~gnatu~ Applicant's Signature Date ~'-~- ~4 Date CITY OF MOUND H/~I=ID¢0VER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} RTY ADDRESS: "~7 ~'~:~ OWNER'S NAME: ,,~ _~ .~ ~'/~//~/~ 6' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I J LOT AREA / 3/~ ~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record') ....... I ~'~/~- 1 / LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. I i eExisdng Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350: ! 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQFT '~. ~- x ~& = /~ ~/ X -- DETACHED BLDGS ~/~ (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. $0 ~ DECKS Open decks (1/4' min. Dizening between board=) with · 13ervious surfaoe under are not counted as hardcover OTHER x = 4E&f X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ............ ~f,.,~... x z~ = ~C .................. X = X X TOTAL DEC~ .......................... x = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PREPARED BY ~ DATE q~'Z/4/~ /7//~ BUILDING PERM1T SURVEY 1:3 = WOOD STAKE PLACED o = IRON MON. SET ELM.°- BEARINGS.ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ^OSUMED D^TU~ ~,, FLOOR EL~v. BASEMENT E~EV. $CHOBORG SURVEYING INC. ~J'2-3221 .'/7'°° · = IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV.. E '= EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. 000.0 I hereby certily that this plan, survey or report was. prel:mred by me or under my direct SuDervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State M~ ,~ ~ Book- Page -- Scale t ,~.,o: ~/Z / ~,4 ~,.,,.,,o.,o.,,~oo / ',_.- 3'0 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472--0620 SITE Subject Address Business Name~ennant The applicant is: ~owner ~contractor ~tenant LEGAL Lot ~ 3 ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Block O~ DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~ ~&/~c~ ~ Address ~)~ Phone (H) ~)~-~/~ ~ (W) ~ - ~ ~ (M) CONT~CTO~ Company Name Contact Person Address Phone (H) (W) (M) ARCHITECT Name ~~J &/OR Address ENGIN~R Phone (H) (W) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: ~LUATION ' '~'F WORK: *,~~, ~ VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIM E I.IMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTEt~IORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE {1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON VVRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMI3-rEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO G~VE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME {E DATE ??ICE USEtONLY ......... '~,- - -- · Lw- v ~r.. rvv- I'. i v/Iv 1, I-t/v I " ,- ·,l~ I rvv CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED A'PPROVEDJ ZONING LDG SIZE {SO FTi # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER J # UNITS YES / NO PUBLIC WORKS ~/I]~ECEIVED BY 1DA~/ :i APPR0~ED By/DATEi : ASSESSING CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET DRES$: ~ J ,,. , //') ll ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: r '~-lA 6,~00/40 82 20,000/80 t R2 14,000/80 ~OTO~.~co.~ v~ NO ~ s~g o~. Z~ 30,000/~00 YARD~ I DIRE~ON I ~QUIRED I E~G/PRO~SED EXISTING LOT SIZE: )/'),"?gl LOT__WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE [lOUSE ......... FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE N NS E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' .Planning Depmment at 472..0600. J DATED: the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound 2A- ~0 0 ~ 0 0 0 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: July 18, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~'~- LINEAL FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN FOR LMCD COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE As directed, I have compiled information regarding the actual lineal footage that is under the City of Mound control and utilized for the dock program. A listing of the shoreline areas that could be used to meet the requirements of the LMCD for a commercial dock license and maps indicating the location of these areas is attached for your review. Please note that this information is based only on referring to aerial photographs, half section maps, and surveys dating back to the 1970's. I only referred to the current dock location map on a very limited basis so as to give a separate accounting of the City's lineal footage. This is an estimate to see how close the City of Mound's dock program is to the compliance guidelines established by the LMCD. There are areas that could require an updated survey, but this depends on how exact the final total needs to be. In my prior memorandum to the City Council, dated July 9, 1996, I provided information on the LMCD regulations and background on how the current and past dock program has complied with them. Please refer to the memorandum as I give you the following data: TOTAL ESTIMATED LINEAL FOOTAGE ................ 33,225 LN FT BOAT STORAGE UNITS (BSU'S) ALLOWED BASED ON LMCD RULES AND 33,225 LN FT .............. 664 BSU'S AVERAGE BOAT COUNT BASED ON THE PAST NINE YEARS OF THE CITY PROGRAM ................... 514 BSU'S AMOUNT OF LINEAL FOOTAGE REQUIRED TO MEET LMCD RULES FOR 514 BSU'S .................. 25,700 LN FT LINEAL FOOTAGE ESTIMATED ABOVE REQUIREMENT FOR 514 BSU'S ...................... 7,525 LN FT printed on recycled paper Memo - Lineal Footage Breakdown for LMCD July 18, 1996 Page 2 of 2 From the above information it appears that the City dock program meets all the requirements of the LMCD. It is reasonable to request further updating of surveys, but there could be considerable costs involved. The LMCD does have the final say on what it will accept as sufficient information to grant a commercial dock license to the City. If you have any questions that I failed to answer, I would be pleased to research them for you prior to the July 23, 1996 City Council meeting. I have discussed with Greg Nybeck the information you requested from the LMCD and he will address that in a letter to you. JF:pj cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager MINUT~ - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JLILY 9, 1996 1.5 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL FOR NEW DOCK LOCATIONS - LONGFORD ROAD, BRENSHELL HOMES/FINE LINE DESIGN. City Manager Ed Shulde stated there was a packet of information just handed out from lim Faclder, Parks Director. He asked the Council if they had any questions. Jim Faclder introduced Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician of the LMCD. Mr. Faclder summarized his memo to the Council. He stated them had been three Dock Location Maps since 1974. He was able to collect a limited history on the number of dock sites and boat counts that were used when calculating the LMCD Commercial Dock License for the City from 1978 to present. The first map (1974-1976) made no reference to lineal footage. It was not known. The ~econd map (1977-1982) applied Lineal footage to identify each dock site location. The total noted was 70,050 feet. He was informed by the City Engineer that the lineal footage was probably collected by city staff using a combination of surveys and half section maps. The third map (1982-1995) was a continuation of the previous map with enhancements from the engineering firm McCombs Frank Roos. This map used lineal footage, but shows a reduction of 8,735 to a total of 61,315 lineal feet. He had no history as to why this was changed and what areas were affected. The fourth map (1983-present) shows nine revision dates, but the total lineage footage remains at 61,315. Faclder stated it was always understood by staff that the dock program utilizes approximately 4.5 miles of shoreline, which is a portion of the total 6 miles of noncontiguous shoreline under the City's control. He stated that the total footage in 6 miles is only 31,680 lineal footage and does not match the maps at 61,315 lineal footage. When using the LMCD's requirement for one BSU (Boat Storage Unit) per 50 lineal feet, 31,680 lineal feet would allow for 633.6 BSU's, and according to the BSU count from 1988 on (when they began counting BSU's) the total has never been over 633.6. Mr. FacMer further stated there was an understandable question as to what is the correct lineal footage of noncontiguous City owned shoreline. The Dock Location Map can be updated by two ways: Staff could make use of current recorded based on half section maps and the use of surveys that are currently on hand, giving an approximation; or, contract a registered land surveyor at the cost of about $20,000 to survey the shoreline in need of clarification, also utilizing surveys on file and half section maps. Ahrens had questions for Mr. Nybeck regarding when the LMCD allowed cities to add up and use noncontiguous shoreline? Mr. Nybeck stated it was started for density provisions, too many boats, in one area, use another city owned area. She also asked what types of shoreline could be included, street dead ends, easements? He stated any area dedicated to the public would be city owned. Other discussion dealt with whether the current Dock Location Map was to scale. This was not known. Alarens stated the City could end up with 633 docks. Mr. Nybeck stated the license is for BSU's not docks. Minutes - Mound City Council °o Steve Behnke, Brenshell Homes/Fine Line Design, approached the Council and stated that their proposed dock, of 9 slips fits in under the total number of docks allowed in the system. Ahrens stated what if the measurements are very inaccurate and the City did not have the estimated amount of lineal footage and docks had to be removed? Without knowiag the exact lineal footage, she did not want more docks. Tom Stokes, Fine Line Design, approached the Council and stated that there had been questions about the docks for over eight months. Mayor Polston stated he did not want mistakes, the footage should be determined. He suggested asking the City Engineer to verify map ori~nation, and to have the footage verified before adding more docks. Akrens asked of Mr. Nybeck what footage could be counted. Mr. Nybeck stated any city owned land over the OHW of 929.4 ft., including setbacks being met. Mayor Polston suggested returning with the information in two weeks at the next Council meeting. lensen stated that if the request of the builder for a dock came in under the current dock count, BSU count, why not allow it? Mr. Doug Pdppie, a future resident of the new development, stated he had one boat and would like to put it in the water and that the other docks/boats would not be requested un~l next summer. Fackler stated the Longford Road shoreline is not yet included on the Dock Location Map. Iensen stated that if this road was to be added to the shoreline footage, there should be plenty of room for a dock, even if the actual footage was not known, more footage was being added to the total. Fackler mentioned application was needed to the DNR for these new docks and a fee of $150. Stokes stated the DN-R won't issue a permit until the City approves, and verbally, the DNR had approved their plan to cross the wetlands to reach these new docks. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to allow Brenshell Homes/F'me Line Design two boats at the proposed dock location site until further information is collected regarding the actual lineal footage the City of Mound owns for the dock program. The vote carried 4-1, with Polston voting nay. Polston stated he wanted definite answers to the lineal footage before allowing more boats. REC~ :PROP._DISCRIP :MAP~:BAY_LOCATION 1 Wawonassa Common 2 Pebble Beach Common 3 Three Pts. IBlvd. 4 IBreezy Beach 13 Path , 5 Beachside North 6 Beachside South ' 7 Poplar [~nding:3 8 Avocet Lane 4 9 Bluebird Lane 4 South 10 Canary Lane / 4 : Vacant Lot ll IDove Lane 4 12 Bluebird Lane 4 North 13 Vacant Lot 4 14 Wawanassa 4 Common 15 16 17 18 19 Sunrise :5 Landing ' Crescent Park 15 Sunset l~ndingl Vacant Lot : 6 Wiota Common ~tlot West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm Harrisons Harrisons West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm West Arm Harrisons ,Harrisons , :6 Harrisons 7* Harrisons HALF_SEC._~ 12-117-24 12-117-24 12-117-24 iQUARTER_SEC.~ :SURVEY 43 IYes 44 'Yes 18-117-23 18-117-23 118-117-23 44 118-117-23 23 0072 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 12 0242 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 12 0243 13-117-24 [23 I 123 '23 23 21 13 12 12 12 12 13-117-24 13-117-24 21 13-117-24 13 0025 13-117-24 13-117-24 22 0057 '13 & 14 13 13 & 24 22 No No :No I IYes ! 1 Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No IYes SUBTOTAL - 1 - LINEAL_FEET 1877 240 1200 20 60 60 60 110 30 30 390 40 177 231 40 2250 40 1365 307 8,527 REC~ :PROP._DISCRIP :MAPS:BAY_LOCATION :HALF_SEC. 20 Vacant Lot 21 Vacant Lot 22 : Peabody Road/ Vacant Lot 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 QUARTER_SEC 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Water Bank Common Villa Lane Overland Lane Waterside Ln. Centerview PK Morton Lane North Park Lake Blvd. Lane : 8 Fire Ln. at Pecan Ln. & Edgewater Ln. Fire Ln. at ISandy Ln. & 'Edgewater Ln. Arbor Lane 19 Norwood Lane :9 Lost Lake Lost Lake iShorewood Lane Northern Road ? Harrisons 7 Harrisons 7 Harrisons 7 Harrisons 8 Harrisons 8 Harrisons 8 Harrisons 8 Harrisons 8 Harrisons J8 Harrisons Harrisons Harrisons Harrisons Harrisons Seton Lake 10 Lost Lake 10 Lost Lake ll Harrisons 11 Harrisons 13-117-24 23 0007 13-117-24 23 0010 13-117-24 23 0053 13-117-24 ~23 23 23 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 13-117-24 33 0069 13-117-24 33 0010 13-117-24 33 0012 18-117-23 18-117-23 'SUBTOTAL 31 31 31 31 & 34 42 42 42 42 41 41 44 33 33 32 33 SURVEY No No No :Yes 'Yes No No 'Yes ¸No No No No No No 'No No No No iNo LINEAL_FEET 40 160 8O 7OO 40 40 1724 928 210 168 30 10 10 100 40 1292 550 40 20 ~, 709 - 2 - REC~ 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 PROP._DISCRIP Longford Road Kenmore Common Vacant Lot (Includes ~Island) Excelsior Ln. Vacant Lot Stratford Lane Vacant Lot / 'Park Vacant LOt Lost Lake Carlson Park Inwood Road Avon Drive Emerald Drive & Channel Rd. Emerald Drive Vacant LOt Vacant LOt Vacant Lot Devon Lane Vacant LOt & Bush Rd. MAP~:BAY_LOCATION :HALF_SEC._$ 12 Black L~e 19-117-23 Channel 12 Black Lake 19-117-23 :QUARTER_SEC.$ :SURVEY 13 13 13 13 114 14 14. 15 15 15 15 15; 16 16 116 17 Black Lake Black Lake Black Lake Black Lake Lost Lake Lost Lake Lost Lake Seton Lake Seton Lake Seton Lake Emerald Lake :22 & 21 :21 & 24 19-117-23 24 0047124 19-117-23 123 19-117-23 23 0209:23 19-117-23 '24 24-117-24 23 0001 24-117-24 22 0002' 24-117-24 22 0019 24-117-24 11 0001 24-117-24 24-117-24 24-117-24 Cooks '24-117-24 Emerald Lake Seton Lake Seton Lake Seton Lake Lost Lake 24-117-24 14 0065 24-117-24 11 0010 24-117-24 11 0008 24-117-24 23-117-14 22 0046 23 22 22 11 12 14 13 13 14 11 11 11 14 :Yes / :No :Yes , 'Yes/No No No IYes 'No Yes/No No No No No No No No No No No SUBTOTAL LINEAL_FEET 1360 656 2158 610 166 918 380 50 1505 185 40 ,40 100 10 1703 119 120 250 325 25,404 -3- REC~ :PROP._DISCRIP :MAP~IBAY_LOCATION :HALF_SEC._~ 58 Mo~md Bay Park 17 Cooks 23-117-24 14 0024 59 Bluffs Park 18 Priests 22-117-24 44 0028 60 18 Priests 22-117-24 43 0029 Vacant Lot 61 :Highland Park l& Idlewood Rd. 62 .Twin Park 63 Highland End Park 64 Ridgewood Park & Island 65 66 Brighton Common 67 Brighton Common Road 68 69 70 71 72 Pembroke Park 73 Devon Common 74 Devon Common 19 19 19 20 Lagoon Park & 120 Sinclair Court: Pendleton Pl. 121 Chester Park Chester Place Thames Place 122 Avalon Park 123 23 24 25 75 ISulgrove Rd. &:25 iMiddlesex Ln. 76 Waterbury Rd. 26 Vacant Lot Cooks Cooks Priests 23-117-24 41 0024 23-117-24 43 0047 23-117-24 43 0046 Priests :23-117-24 Priests 123-117-24 34 0103 Cooks '24-117-24 42 0024 Cooks 24-117-24 Cooks '24-117-24 Cooks Cooks Spring Park Spring Park Phelps Phelps Phelps 24-117-24 34 0007 24-117-24 19-117-23 34 0069 19-117-23 34 0090 QUARTER_SEC.~ :SURVEY :LINEAL_FEET 14 625 44 30-117-23 25-117-24 25-117-24 43 41 ', Yes ,, ' Yes No No 43 'Yes 43 34 Yes Yes/No 34 :Yes 42 IYes 43 IYes 34 :No 34 :Yes 34 34 'Yes ,34 21 & 22 Yes Yes 11 & 12 'Yes 11 & 12 No 50 50 105 99 184 480 138 1301 320 10 65 15 180 85 2024 1775 250 Priest :25-117-24 21 0122 21 Yes 65 GRAND TOTAL OF LINEAL FOOTAGE 33,225 *From ariel photos; these appear to be public lands being utilized by private parties for docks. · / I R~$ ........ GO'VT LOT 8 //'9 1489.95 RES GOVT LOT 8 STORM SE',iER DISTRICT BOUNDARY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY WATERSHED 'DISTRICT BOUNDARY INCREMENT BOUNDARY i: Mc,; R~ HE _NbE.~ PIN .COUNT. Y, U GENERAL SERVICES D TAXPAYER SERVICES '-. SU_R__~.Y_: SE_CT I ON ~C 4 GOVT LOT 3 ~[NN~I~ISTA ~OUNO GOVT LC (WEST AF~J) I/ C44) ,' (40] LOT 22 ,' "40'" I (~6) · '34. ~3 · .. -. -... ..*.. .'.' ?... '..' -*.,-,.: ....* '...; CO~oN ( HARR i SONS GOVT LOT 3 (Ig89 AERIAL PHOTO) GOVT LOT 2 ACRE, AGE NW S'# N E Nw/ J SW NE SE I~T OF L0? 2~ (~5) (27) OUTLOT ~ 57) ,,O0C NO 4~3163 ?Pl OF LOT ~7 (~) oO (4) NO 4643~61 20? LCT ~9 ~ (~g) $~1~ 7O (5~) OUTLOT 2 (2) 3 8 , (,~0) (40) '~ ~" / 227.89 , ICi s8g'oB'E ~n~/T LA 6 : I DG£WATE~ $2, (84) NORTHERN RD (88) :- ,II 144 144 15 : 5U~V~Y Llh~ ORDE~UAP. IT OF I~f OR),(AT I ON Y, Ahl) STATE R SOLACES. 268g. 24 RES II 3q : e5 3L (,sc)) LOT ! -- ( , 1(34) PART~ O; DOC ~ L~ NO ~41891 ....... Z4e. '~ ........... DAKOTA RAIL 278. $ .......... (11) *Tg DANIEL - RE-AR;;~*d',GE~U~NT OF --LOTS 4-5-5- LANGO(;N ,'ARK AOON NOW VATTED DOC ~ Z~862DS 353 ~/ 295.5, ; : 1~6.84 · : °% o: CLARE' LA ~i .'.:KERRY LA KING<, A ~ OEVON La 2tO CLARE LA ! : CITY' SPRING PARK,..' .{30 6 ." - t.' 216. 278 .-" ": : · -,, : 22.0 223.3 226.7 ( ISLAND ~HANNON LA ~0 VAC ~$4.N ,~,,.,, EXCELSIOR LA 174 '7' CZ:) (2) ............ J ......... (4) (5)I --kO~ 2~ (lg) LOt ZO LO/ ~ ~ (32) 12 (~) 33 I I lO 5 ; (;~) (3l) 1 (6'/) 15 ( 61 .: ' ', (62) ~9 3 (68) 6 (8) (6o) / / I I I I / I I ** ** ! . ** ** ** ** ** (.65) i VAC DOC NO ICr~O~'~t 60VT LOTS 1 & 5 6 3 (t4) 5Z 47 (9) '31 (il) (~) (~2) I (~4) GOVT LOT. I lac -/ ('~) OU~LOT A (~) (~) ~0 ./ (.~7) ~ (5) 125 "'"" (4) 7 ~) I~ 4 ~ !? (3) (- ~5 8 (~02) ~51.$ [3~) IDLEWOOD ~gO. 05 2 (;'5) (2~) ~ ',~ (8) ' z,,.? (lO) fr..,, (11) (~) (4) 03 ~ 5 (~6) ,% ~ (z~2) ~ 4 16) I1 :7 RIDGEwOOD (~0 i) GOVT LOT 6 LESLIE ,s · ,~ s~m~z,o MANC~4ESTER ~ RD ? I I I I I ,Ill, It ~., i .... ~1 uO GOVT LOT 4 757.76 RES ~o ~' sz , ,o', ,0 67.4 ~ , ~.~.~ 49 40 i40 ~ 40 ~ ~65. g 17.8:" R LO'/ A (67) RD '..IS (74),52.; ;R L $ i~O (77) ~ (78) (?g) GOVT LOT 6 ¸mi. i ~ YU ~HO~XO /'/5 [] ,I GOVT LOT C lZ4) ( ?.'.6. i 127) (126) :.4c'44~ 40 *0 40 ,? ~. , -;-,_ CITY OF MOUND MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 9, 1996 Mayor and City Council Jim Fackler, Parks Director Lineal Footage of Shoreline Used to Calculate Application for LMCD Commercial Dock License At the last City Council meeting on June 25, 1996, staff was directed "to provide the Council with calculations and a Dock Location Map showing how the computations were done indicating exactly how much shoreline Mound has, and to have the LMCD confirm their computations and figures in writing regarding the amount of shoreline and formula for number of boats and docks for the City of Mound." I forwarded a copy of this motion and related minutes to Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician for the LMCD (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District), and have attached a copy of his letter written in response to the Council's concerns, see Exhibit//7. From records at City Hall I was able to collect a limited history on the number of dock sites and boat counts that were used when calculating the LMCD Commercial Dock License for the City of Mound from 1978 to present. As you will note on the attached Exhibit #1, from 1978 to 1981 the dock site count was 380. In 1982 there was an increase of 20 sites to 400. In 1988 the LMCD's method for calculating the license fee changed from counting dock site locations to counting boats. As shown on the bottom of the first page of Exhibit #2, the LMCD application form, boats are the same as Boat Storage Units (BSU's) and are computed, according the formula, into Water Storage Units (WSU's) to determine our annual fee. As you can see, by using this formula, Mound's fee can vary from year to year while the actual site locations remain consistent. The WSU's have varied by as many as 192 when comparing high and low counts, and BSU's have varied by 120. printed on recycled paper LMCD Memorandum July 9, 1996 Page 2 The BSU's that are allowed for the City of Mound's LMCD Commercial Dock License are based on the total lineal footage of the non-contiguous shoreline owned by the City that is above the DNR's ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of 929.4. The total lineal footage is divided by 50 lineal feet (one BSU = 50 In. ft.) to determine the number of BSU's allowed for the City. In looking at how the City of Mound had represented its claimed shoreline in the past for a commercial license, I found four basic dock location maps that were used in the calculation. 1974 to 1976 the map did not reference lineal footage, see Exhibit//3. The dock site numbers on the map were random and the lineal footage is unknown. 1977 to 1982, Exhibit//4, was the first map that applied lineal footage to identify each dock site location. This map started the measurement of lineal footage at Avocet Lane on Three Points (West Arm Bay), and continued around the shoreline ending on Bay Ridge Road on Halsteads Bay. The total lineal footage noted was 70,050. In checking with the City Engineer on who prepared these maps, he said the information for the lineal footage was probably collected by City staff using a combination of surveys and half sections maps. 1982 to 1995, Exhibit //5, is a continuation of the 1977-82 map format, but it was visually enhanced by the engineering firm of McCombs Frank Roos and Associates. This map still used lineal footage, but shows a reduction in the total lineal feet of 8,735 to a total of 61,315. I am not aware of any history as to why this was changed, and what areas were affected. 1983 to present, Exhibit//6. The current dock location map shows nine revision dates, beginning in 1982, but still maintains the total lineal footage of 61,315. It has always been understood by staff that the dock program utilizes approximately 4-1/2 miles of shoreline which is a portion of the total 6 miles of noncontiguous shoreline under the City's control. In comparing 6 miles of claimed shoreline, or 31,680 lineal feet, this does not balance with the dock location map which shows 61,315 lineal feet. Yet when using the LMCD's requirement of one BSU per 50 lineal feet, 31,680 lineal feet would allow for 633.6 BSU's. As you can see from Exhibit//1, the number of BSU's has not exceeded the number allowed by the LMCD. LMCD Memorandum July 9, 1996 Page 3 Because there is an understandable question as to what is the correct lineal footage of non- contiguous City owned shoreline, the current dock location map can be updated and the amount of lineal footage clarified by one of two ways: Staff could make use of current records based on half section maps and the use of surveys that are currently on hand. This would give only a close approximation of the lineal footage. A Registered Land Surveyor could be contracted, which would cost about $20,000 to survey portions of the claimed shoreline in need of clarification while utilizing surveys already on file and half section maps. The results of an in-depth survey raises two scenarios: If it is found that the City is exceeding the allowable number of BSU's, then the City must reduce the count. This can only be done by removing boats. A method would have to be determined on how to reduce the BSU's. With 447 dock sites, the number of BSU's would have to be strictly controlled by the City and a policy or ordinance established to direct staff on how to issue maximum BSU's between the sites. This will put strict limitation on a dock site holders ability to change the number of boats at their dock site. If it is found the City has enough BSU's, we can continue on with a more up-to-date dock location map and accurate limits on BSU's that the dock program can accommodate. Only if the BSU's are nearing the maximum allowed by the LMCD is there a need for a policy or ordinance to be established to direct staff on how to control the issuing of BSU's per dock site. A LMCD representative will be present at the July 9th Council meeting. YEAR DOCK SITES BSU(BOATS) WSU 1978 380 1979 380 1980 380 1981 380 1982 400 1983 400 1984 400 1985 400 1986 400 1987 400 '1988 400 587 746 1989 443 581 719 1990 444 516 615 1991 447 467 554 1992 449 501 606 1993 447 485 582 1994 447 487 601 1995 447 514 634 1996 447 489 604 1988 was the first year that the City of Mound's LMCD Multiple Commercial Dock License was based on BSU's. Prior to 1988 the fees were calculated by the dock site count. Exhib~ ~2 LAK~ MINNETONICA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RENEWAL WITHOUT CHAI~GE APPLICATION MULTIPLE &/O~ CO~q~¢IAL DOCK, AND LAUNCHING RAMP (Phone Number) (Address) (c~ty) (z~p) ce~cify ~.hat no changes arm to be ~ade in ?.he dock configuration or in the number of boats stored for lake use, of the (comp&ny Name) , loca~ed a~ , in the city of , riparian to Bay, during ~he 1996 season; that all information and at~aclments on file with ~he District for' last year's application will Me applicable to the license being applied for; and ~ha= a new license will be obtained the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District before Baking any cha~ge. Type of facility: Humber of Boat storage Units (SSS), for which you are licensedz Number of boats stored by use (enter number of BSU in tach category): Rent, lease.... · Service work .... __ Private use..... Transient ~mm.... Off Lake Storage Other use . ..... Descrih~: Wa~rcraft Storage Units (WSU) co=pu~ation schedule (enter number of BSU and WSU in each slip eisa category): BSU SLIP SIZE CATEGORIES BSU O I WSU (up to G incl. 10' wide x L0' long) - BSU @ 1.S WSU (Bp to & ~cl. 11' wide x 34' long) - BSU 9 2 #SU'(up to & incl, 12' vide x 32' long) - BSU 0 3.5 WSU (up to & incl. 14' wide x 40' long) - BSU O 3 wsu (up to & incl. 16' vide x 48' long) - ' BSU 0 4 MSU (over 16t vide x 48* long) - WSU WSU WSU WSU MST' BSU Total .... ToT. Il WSU for which you are licensed WBU , Ii Dock Renewal Application 1996 Page Bans Fee ............................... ...... ............ .-- 6 SQ.0Q TOTAL LICENSE FEE (Non-refundable) ..... · .................... - 6_ (6100 minimum) with your application ON OR BEFORE 12/1/95. PAYMENT SCHEDULE: License fee paid vl~h application 6 $ If application is reclived AFTER 12/1/9S, · late £ee or ~0% of ~he 20% deposit ·nount (or 6~0 min.) aunt be added. If application in received AFTER 12131195, · late foe of If application is received A~TER 2/28/96, · lite fee o~ 20t of the 20% deposit a~o~t (or $30 sin.) Bust be added.____.__ · Or * If &pp~icm~icn £e receivedAFTER3/31/96, & L/~l'fil et TOTAL LICENSE FEE DUE FOR 1996 AMOUNT PAID WITH APPLICATION BALANCE DuE ON OR BEFORE 3/31/96: 6 6 I certify that the inn·marion provided herein and the hereto are true and correct. ! understand that an~ lic~oe ~ revoked ~ the Die. ice for violation of ~ ~CD C~e. re--rue ~e Dintric~ for any legal, I~eyinq, engineering, ins~ction, ~intenance, or o~ir e~enitl re. ired ~at are ~ ~e District in ensuing c~pliance wi~ ~e ~ C~e ~is applica~ion would ~ ~anted. I reagent ~o pe~it~lng and agents o~ ~e Distric~ to ~ ~e pr~i/ea a~ all ~iaea ~ eaves=agate ~d tc de~e~ine whaler or no~ ~e Dis=rice ia ~inq co. lied wi~. Authorized Signature Title Relationship to Owner _ Return to: Lake Klnnetonka Conservation Oimtrict 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Sul=e 160, #ayze~a MN 5S391 473-7033 CITY OF Exhibit//3 0 U N D MINNESOTA WOODLAND P( ~', \ BAY MUNICIPALITY -OF MOUND ISSUED BY TI{E .... MINNESOTA DEPA.RT~~ OF HIGHWAYS 1X COOPERATION ~ ~ U.S. DEP~TMENT OF TB3~SPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DATA OBTAINED AND MAP PREPARED BY THE .'. TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING DMSION OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SCALE 8oo' o 800' i6oo' 1976 BASIC DATA-- 1969 ¥ Exhibit #4 < >. LEGEND INTERSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY .................... COU~ STA~ AID HIGHWAY IN ADJOINING COUN~ .................... COUN~ ROAD IN ADJOINING COUP, .. CO~T~ U~ ................ N o Doc k'~ Wi L ct Life- i% 'Doc/(~ MINNETRISTA Wood Iond Poir Jenni~g$ 8~ Exhibit #4 =..~ 8~YD. PECAN LA DR. Lang#on La/tm RD. s~.£~oo~ g3 FAI~ ~ 7005o Trailer Court en~ Eagle Blur( Pr~esl 8ay MINNETRISTA I I CITY OF 0 U N D Exhibit/)5 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOCK MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1982 FEBRUARY 1984 MAY 1984 NOVEMBER 1989 DECEMBER 1990 DECEMBER 1991 DECEMBER 1992 DECEMBER 1994 LOCATION 0 0 0 0 ~- 0 0 0 ~0 ~1 0 C · g'~ i~ i~ 1~ u MAP Class A: Class B: Class C: Class D: Cias~ E: Porks Shoreline Classifications Shoreline that is traversible only on top: need stairway to shoreline, accessible by public right-of-way. Shoreline traversible along the water's edge: access points available to traversible shore- line. Shoreline with no traversible space: stairs lic right-of-way (abutting .p__~r?perty owners only). Shoreline that is traversible on the top, and traversible along the water's edge: acces- sible by public right-of-way. Shoreline such as wetlands, wildlife area, beaches and boa+' -dings. No DoCks. )tTt~ 06t' OOU )01 G ~ ~o~g )o£g Z 0 ~WLd 0 )09(:J '1 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY OF Exhibit '#6 H 0 UND 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOCK MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1982 FEBRUARY 1984 MAY 1984 NOVEMBER 1989 DECEMBER 1990 DECEMBER 199 I DECEMBER 1992 OECEMBER 1994 MARCH 1996 LOCATION 0 MAP Type A: Type B: Type C: Type D: Type E: Porks Shoreline Tvoes Shoreline that is traversible only on top: need stairway to shoreline, accessible by public right-of-way: Shoreline travemible along the waters edge: access points available to traversible shore- line. Shoreline with no I~aversible space: stalin needed to shoreline, not accessible by pub- lic right-of-way (abutting property owners only). Shoreline that is travemible on the top, and I~aversible along the water's edge: acces- sible by public right-of-way. Shoreline such as wetland.s, wildlife area, beaches and boat landings. No Docks. Exhibit ~0000 DNR BAY~o' TE&O pR~ BAY Exhibit//7 ..... ?. % 7=. LAKE MINNETONKA cONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 July 5, 1996 O. Alan Wlllcutt, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound Joseph Zwak Secretary, Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Bert Foster Deephaven Gretchen Maglich Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Mollet Victoria Craig Nelson Spring Park Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Paul Stark Excelsior Herb J. Suerth Woodland Orono ~ Mr. Jim Fackler, Parks Director city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED J U L 0 8 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Dear Jim: I have drafted a short memo to address the dock issues outlined in your memo of 7/1/96 and City Council Minutes. As previously outlined in the memo of 6/5/96, the maximum number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's) allowed in the City of Mound multiple dock license is directly related to accumulative shoreline. LMCD Code Section 2.02, Subd. 1 "allows for the storage of one watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline." The Code allows Mound to place BSU's in a specific location with a density greater than 1:50, provided, the total number of BSU's for the cities multiple dock license does not exceed one watercraft for every 50 feet of shoreline. LMCD staff does not have the ability to accurately determine the amount of accumulative shoreline in Mound dedicated for your multiple dock license. The records we have on file will be consistent with yours at the City of Mound. If your City Council determines there is a need for an updated shoreline count dedicated for your multiple dock license, you may want to recommend a survey~ be done. A representative from the LMCD will be available. at your 7/9/96 City Council to answer any questions the City Council may have. Feel free to call me if you need additional information or have questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Technician 60% Recycled Content 30% Post Consumer Waste encl: 6/5/96 memo cc: Tom Reese- LMCD Board (Mound) ( . Ex ui--l- · ( p. 2 o¢2 " LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ...... , 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE eo12/473-?033 June 5, 199 6 G. Alan Willcutt. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair. Tonka Bay Tom Reese V~ce Chart. Mound JoseDt~ Zwak Secretary. Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer. Shorewood Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Bert Foster Deephaven Gretchen Maglich Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Mo,et Victoria Craig Nelson Spring Park Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Paul Stark Excelsior - Herb J. Suerth Woodland ........ , Orono Mr. Jim Fackler City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jim: Per conversation, I have drafted a memo outlining how dockage rights in Mound are interpreted by LMCD Code. LMCD Code Section 2.02, Subd.-1 "allows for the storage of one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline.- In the calculation of shoreline for LMCD cities with a multiple dock license, LMCD Code allows these cities to accumulate total shoreline despite the shoreline may not be continuous. The Code also allows the cities to place Boat Storage Units (BSU's) in a specific location with a density greater than 1:50. provided the total number of BSU's for the city multiple dock license does not exceed one restricted watercraft for every 50 feet of shoreline. With regards to the docks to be placed on Longford Road, this would be allowed provided that all aspects of LMCD Code are complied with. In 1997 when your renewal application for your multiple dock license is submitted, an adjustment in BSU's will need to properly note t~e increase on Longford Road. Feel free to call me if you need further clarification on this matter. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Technician CC' Tom Reese- LMCD Board (Mound) 30% Pos~ ~ Wnsle RESOLUTION #96-~//~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN AS DEVON COMMON "BATCH #8" DOCK SITES 42461, 42511, 42556, 42586, 42626, 42691, & 42791 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320 requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons, and; WHEREAS, "Batch #8" details the private encroachments located at Dock Sites, and these encroachments have been inspected by the Building official and Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to look at the process for dealing with structures on the commons (i.e. buildings, flagpoles, decks, etc.), and City staff is withholding all action on these type of structures until the Council reviews the recommendation of the task force and gives staff further direction, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed this Batch #8 and has recommend approval, with the conditions of approval as listed, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve Public Land Permits for Batch #8, subject to the conditions listed. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by the City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. These permits will expire five (5) years from the date of issuance and must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Batch #8 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 7-11-96 City Council 7-23-96 DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 42461 4747 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). BRADLEY MILLER - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* THE & OUTLET LIGHT MUST BE SHIELDED AS APPROVED BY THE PARKS DIRECTOR. Proposed Resolution Batch//8 13.2 42511 4753 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE. IN NEED OF MINOR REPAIRS FOR ACCEPTABLE CHRIS BRIGHT CONDITION, LOOSE STONES ON TREADS. - RETAINING WALL PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* 42556 4757 ISLAND VIEW DR STAIRWAY APPROVE WITH CONDITION THAT A GRIPABLE HANDRAIL BE TOM EFFERTZ INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. SHARES SITE WITH: LEROY GEISE, 4764 IVD - RETAINING WALL APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). - ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* 42586 4763 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). DEBORAH MATHEWS - PLATFORM * ° - RETAINING WALL APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION) PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - FLAG POLE ** ', - ELECTRIC, LOW APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* VOLTAGE REMOVE LOOSE ELECTRICAL WIRE. 42626 4767 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). RONALD MCCOMBS - PLATFORM * * APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* - ELECTRIC LIGHT - WATER PUMP APPROVE UPPER WALL (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). - RETAINING WALL LOWER WALL MAY REMAIN UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT IT FAILS, DEVON COMMON, CLASS B 42691 4771 ISLAND VIEW DR ~ STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). WANDA STUERMAN - RETAINING WALLS APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). 42791 4781 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION), JAMES MILLER - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* & OUTLET - RETAINING WALLS APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION), PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - PLATFORM ° ° Proposed Resolution Batch #8 p. 3 All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Hold any action, pending recommendation from Commons Task Force. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 11, 1996 Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Bill Darling, Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, Mary Goode, Rita Pederson, and Bev Botko, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Janis Geffre was absent and excused. The following persons were also in attendance: Frank Ahrens, Sandi Effertz, Tom Effertz, Lida Miller, Wanda Stuerman, Dune Stuerman, Ron McCombs, Bob Shidla, and Mark Goldberg. MINUTES Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Botko to approve the minutes of the June 13, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Meyer requested time to give a report on the Community Ice Skating Rink. Ahrens announced that she has to leave after item 5, Dock Fees. Meyer requested a report from Ahrens before she leaves regarding the tax forfeit property which was released for sale by the Council. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH #8 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private encroachments located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. The City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to look at the process for dealing with structures on the commons (i.e. buildings, flagpoles, decks, etc.), and City staff is withholding all action on these type of structures until the Council reviews the recommendation of the task force and gives staff further direction. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #8, subject to the conditions as noted in the table. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 1I, 1996 Hold any action, pending recommendation from Commons Task Force. 42406 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR TODD BRANDSTETTER - STAIRWAY APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. - FLAG POLE The applicant was not present. The Parks Director indicated that Mr. Brandstetter had not been contacted. The neighbors announced that Mr. Brandstetter has moved and the property is under new ownership. MOTION made by Darling that the Mound Park and Open Space Commission not review anything in Batch #8, either recommend, or take any other actions regarding public land permits until the Mound City Council makes a decision regarding the authority and involvement of the Commons Task Force on such issues. Seconded by Goode. Ahrens referenced the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on page 14 of the packet where the Council addressed this issue. Darling stated that his concern is that the last time they reviewed this Batch, the Park Commission asked the Council to decide on the issue of who has the authority of the Commons Task Force and what is the direction, and at that time they made a decision not to look at public land permits, and that decision has not yet made made by the Council, so he sees no reason to continue looking at the public land permits with the issues outstanding. Ahrens stated that the COW Minutes did reflect that the Council did discuss this situation and it was the Council's opinion that Park and Open Space Commission ought to proceed with any items that were not specifically buildings, but that stairways, retaining walls and the such should still be under the purview of the Park Commission until the Task Force came back with a recommendation with respect to other encroachments, and most of Batch #8 is stairways. Darlings stated that the issues are still the same, if the Park and Open Space Commission does not approve what is recommended, the people still have the right to object to their recommendation and the Council will approve the permits pending resolution of the Commons Task Force. He thinks they need to send a message again to the City Council that it is time to make a decision and to stop ignoring this issue. He does not see why the Park Commission should be put in the position to be the bad guys when they have absolutely no authority whatsoever, and then they are made to look like fools because the Council will approve the permit regardless. Casey referred to the motion made by the Park Commission on May 9, 1996 shown on page 1 § of their packet, which states, "Darling moved that the Park Commission not make any further recommendations for Batch #8 until the City Council determines if the Commons Task Force or the Park Commission should address the issues relating to private structures on public lands. Byrnes seconded the motion .... Motion carried 4-2-1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Geffre, Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 11, 1996 Darling, and Pederson. Those opposed were Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained." )arling stated that he still sees this as a commons issue, it is the same Batch, and we have seen 'no resolution from the City Council regarding the direction of the Commons Task Force, what authority they have, and what authority the Mound Park and Open Space Commission has. Casey clarified that Darling is suggesting that the Council determine whether or not the Commons Task Force has concurrent jurisdiction over these issues or whether or not they have sole advisory authority over these issues pertaining to structures as opposed to the Park Commission. Goode referred to the Staff Report for Batch//8 which shows that five out of the eight dock sites that it says "Hold any action, pending recommendation from Commons Task Force." So any action they take is subject to review by the Commons Task Force, and it is redundant and a waste of their time to discuss it. Casey has an issue with what the Commons Task Force is suppose to do. However, he does not see the Task Force as something that is authorized by Ordinance, unlike the Park Commission which is authorized to review Park and Open Space Commission issues which includes docks and commons issues, etc. Outside the purview of our Ordinance, a Task Force was formed that he views that circumvents the ordinance by suggesting that somehow they have no authority over certain issues pending their decisions, and he thinks that contradicts the ordinance at least in spirit, so has some similar concerns with Darling, although maybe they should address the ...... -,structures that are not in question which they would probably approve of anyway. Ahrens added that the COW minutes does say that the discussion included the Building Official and Parks Director, and it was the consensus of the entire Council to pursue non-building type encroachments. The Task Force's purview is specifically the survey with respect to docks and encroachments on the commons, and they gave the Task Force direction to continue to discuss how to deal with those encroachments, excluding stairways and retaining walls. She stated that there was a resident present at the last Council meeting that was upset they did not get a permit for their stairway because they had company coming for the 4th of July and they did not have a stairway to get to their dock. Ahrens referred to the June Park Commission minutes, where at the end of the meeting, when she was not present, state, "Darling expressed a concern that the Park Commission Council Representative is not communicating the Park Commissions motions and concerns onto the Council." Ahrens stated that the Motion made at the May Park Commission meeting regarding the processing of public land permits was taken to the City Council and it was discussed and those Council minutes were provided to the Park Commission, so she does take issue with the fact that the minutes say it was not brought to the City Council, because they were, and she feels the COW minutes on page 14 of the packet are proof. Casey stated that he opposed the motion back in May, and he thinks they ought to move forward and make recommendations as people are here and they want to speak, and he feels the ~"~Commission still has some input. He understands Darling's point, but thinks the Park 2ommission should take care of business and worry about the Commons Task Force jurisdiction Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 11, 1996 at another time. Botko agrees that the Park Commission should review the permits. Goode commented that in May they were told it did not matter how they voted, that it would wait until it went to the Task Force, so instead of spending the time discussing and reviewing these permits and going out and looking at them, is really a waste of time. Casey clarified that they are not being asked to vote on the structures that the Commons Task Force is taking issue with. Darling noted that there is a big difference between a "discussion" and "consensus" and a "decision" and a "motion that is passed." And, the Planning Commission had to do the same thing to get the attention of the City Council, all the way to the point of going on strike and not addressing anything. The Park Commission can continue to play their game or they can send a strong message that it is time to make a decision. He thinks it is time to send a message. Ahrens called the question. MOTION failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Darling, Goode and Meyer. Those opposed were: Casey, Botko, Pederson, and Ahrens. MOTION made by Ahrens to set aside this permit until we contact the new owner, rather than issue the permit to the past resident. Botko seconded. Motion carried 6-0-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Casey, Meyer, Botko and Pederson. Darling Abstained. 42461 I 4747 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY BRADLEY MILLER - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Goode, to recommend approval of the permit, as recommended by staff. Casey commented that he fails to see safety or security reasons for the light according to the policy adopted for "Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands." Byrnes arrived. Ahrens asked if this light is shielded? Staff stated that it could be made part of the approval that it be shielded. Ahrens noted that it is a very long stairway, and thinks applicant would argue that it is a safety issue. Ahrens accepted an amendment to her motion to require a shield on the light. Motion carried 6-0-2. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Casey, Meyer, Botko and Pederson. Darling and Byrnes Abstained. Byrnes stated that she abstained because she did not hear all the discussion. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July Ii, 1996 4753 ISLAND VIEW DR CHRIS BRIGHT (contacted) - STAIRWAY - RETAINING WALL - ELECTRIC OUTLET iAPPROVE. IN NEED OF MINOR REPAIRS FOR ACCEPTABLE CONDITION, LOOSE STONES ON TREADS. PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.' The applicant was not present. Ahrens asked if the applicant concurs with the recommendation. Fackler stated that the applicant was aware of the recommendation. MOTION made by Ahrens, that presuming the applicant was contacted and is aware of the recommendation, she recommended approval as recommended by staff. Motion seconded by Pederson. Casey commented that he sees no substantial security or safety reason to allow the electric. Motion carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 42556 I 4757 ISLAND VIEW DR I TOM EFFERTZ SHARES SITE WITH: LEROY GEISE, 4764 IVD (contacted} STAIRWAY - RETAINING WALL - ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE WITH CONDITION THAT A GRIPABLE HANDRAIL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL, APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* Tom and Sandi Effertz were present. Mr. Effertz stated that they will repair the handrail, and that they have already furnished the Building Official with a copy of the State Electrical Inspector's report on the electrical when it was installed four years ago. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Botko, to recommend approval of the permit as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 42586 4763 ISLAND VIEW DR DEBORAH MATHEWS (contacted) - STAIRWAY - PLATFORM - RETAINING WALL - FLAG POLE - ELECTRIC, LOW VOLTAGE APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION) PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* REMOVE LOOSE ELECTRICAL WIRE. The applicant was not present. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 1I, 1996 MOTION made by Ahrens, Seconded by Botko to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 42626 4767 ISLAND VIEW DR RONALD MCCOMBS (contacted) - STAIRWAY - PLATFORM - ELECTRIC LIGHT - WATER PUMP - RETAINING WALL APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* APPROVE UPPER WALL (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). LOWER WALL IN NEED OF REPAIR OR REMOVAL. NEED PLAN FOR RESTORATION. Ronald McCombs was present. Mr. McCombs explained that his lights are very Iow wattage, are shielded, and are approved outdoor fixtures. He installed the lights 15 years ago and installed them for safety issues only. He agrees with staff recommendation, except for the lower retaining wall which staff recommended "repair or removal." He is concerned that if the wall is removed there will be problems with erosion, and stated that it would be difficult to repair. He stated that the retaining walls were installed 19 or 20 years ago when the bank eroded during a rain storm. He installed four walls at his own expense and brought in about ten dump truck loads of fill. They tried to get the City to help them with the issue, but received none. They found ground cover that stays on the hills, and they like it natural. He does not want to take responsibility for the walls, and stated that if the City can repair them, but does not feel they are his problem. He stated that this land is literally unusable, and does not f"e~] the City should ask people to take care of it, and that this shoreline will never be pristine, and it has never been pristine. Casey stated again that he is opposed to staff recommendation because he has not found safety or security reasons for the lights. MOTION made by Botko, seconded by Pederson, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Sandy Effertz stated that this area is very dark at night and there is a safety reason for the lights. Meyer agrees that it would cause more damage to repair or remove retaining wall. Ahrens asked if it would be better to leave the wall until it falls over? She suggested that the remaining vegetation may be enough to hold the hillside back. Botko accepted an amendment to her motion to recommend that the lower wall remain until such time it fails. MOTION carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 6 Park and Open Space Commission HinuCes July I1, I~96 - RETAINING WALLS APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Pederson, to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode, Byrnes, and Case. Darling abstained. 4781 ISLAND VIEW DR JAMES MILLER - STAIRWAY - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET APPROVE [ACCEPTABLE CONDITION]. APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.e - RETAINING WALLS APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION). PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - PLATFORM Lidia Miller stated that they have called the Electrical Inspector and they will be fixing the retaining wall and they agree with staff recommendation. She emphasized the need for both lights for safety reasons. Meyer commented that they have a martin house full of sparrows, and that sparrows raise cain with all other song birds, and sparrows are not native to this area. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Botko to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Motion Carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. These cases will be reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1996. 7 CITY OF MOUND Revised STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 27, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission Those Persons Listed on the Attached Batch #8 Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ Tom McCaffrey, Dock InspectOr Update of Public Land Permits, "Batch #8", Dock Sites #42406- #42791 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting July 11, 1996 City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private encroachments located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Please find attached "Batch #8". This is a listing of dock sites that have private encroachments such as stairways, lights, or some other type of encroachment, located on public lands. These encroachments have been inspected by the Building Official and Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual as approved by the City Council. Batch #8 will be reviewed by the Park Commission on July 11, 1996, and then the City Council will take final action at their meeting on July 23, 1996. Please note that the City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to look at the process for dealing with structures on the commons (i.e. buildings, flagpoles, decks, etc.), and City staff is witholding all action on these type of structures until the Council reviews the recommendation of the task force and gives staff further direction. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #8, subject to the conditions as noted. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. pJ Enclosures Abutting property owners / dock site holders will be notified. It ,il · B I ,~, IL &i,, Batch #8 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 7-11-96 City Council 7-23-96 DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 42406 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS TO BE MADE BY TODD BRANDSTETTER APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. - FLAG POLE * ° 42461 4747 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). BRADLEY MILLER - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* & OUTLET 42511 4753 ISLAND VIEW DR ~ STAIRWAY APPROVE. IN NEED OF MINOR REPAIRS FOR ACCEPTABLE CHRIS BRIGHT CONDITION, LOOSE STONES ON TREADS. (contacted) - RETAINING WALL PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* 42556 4757 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE WITH CONDITION THAT A GRIPABLE HANDRAIL BE TOM EFFERTZ INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. SHARES SITE WITH: LEROY GEISE, 4764 IVD ~ RETAINING WALL APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). (contacted) - ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION,* 42586 4763 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). DEBORAH MATHEWS - PLATFORM ° ° (contacted) - RETAINING WALL APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION) PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - FLAG POLE °* - ELECTRIC, LOW APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* VOLTAGE REMOVE LOOSE ELECTRICAL WIRE. 42626 4767 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). RONALD MCCOMBS - PLATFORM * * (contacted) APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* - ELECTRIC LIGHT - WATER PUMP APPROVE UPPER WALL (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). - RETAINING WALL LOWER WALL IN NEED OF REPAIR OR REMOVAL. NEED PLAN FOR RESTORATION. BATCH//8 6-27-96 PAGE 2 DEVON COMMON, CLASS B 42691 4771 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). WANDA STUERMAN - RETAINING WALLS APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). 42791 4781 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). JAMES MILLER - ELECTRIC LIGHT APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* & OUTLET - RETAINING WALLS APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION). PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. - PLATFORM * * All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff, Hold any action, pending recommendation from Commons Task Force. MINUTES - CO1VI1VIITTEE OF THE V~IOLE - JLrNE 18, 1996 1.1 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT PROCESS Councilmember Mark Hanus stated that based upon recent action on an application for a Public Lands Permit, that there was some confusion as to the City's stance and approach to dealing with encroachments on Commons. Following some discussion and having Ion Suthefland, Building Official and Jim Fackler, Parks Director address the methods by which they are inventorying and bringing applications forward, it was the consensus to pursue the non-building type encroachments on a regular basis and leaving buildings or major structures to be dealt with at a later date. Perhaps, by that time, recommendations will be forwarded from the Commons Task Force on the encroachments issue. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINIYFES OF A MEETING MAY 9, 1996 PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH//8 The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #8, subject to the conditions as noted on the chart for Batch #8. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock licensee will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holders. *All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. TODD BRANDSTETTER APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. - FLAG POLE RELOCATE PLAG POLE TO PRIVATE PROPER'rY. Goode questioned if the subject flagpole is the one at the end of the dock. Michael Pride confirmed that they also have a flag pole located on the commons which is about even with the location for their flag pole. Fackler confirmed that staff is not concerned about flag poles on docks. Darling confirmed with Ahrens that if the Park Commission recommends denial of an encroachment, such as this flag pole, and the applicant wishes the flag pole to remain that the Council will automatically approve the permit for five years regardless, pending the Commons Task Force recommendation? Ahrens confirmed that this is what the Council intends to do if an applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation, and that the Council had discussed a moratorium, however, decided not to. Ahrens commented that there have been situations when people have agreed to take things out. Fackler clarified that the City Attorney stated that they could deal with those people who want to make improvements or repairs, and process them according to the ordinance we have today. Casey stated that there is nothing wrong with the Park Commission giving a recommendation on these issues. Darling stated that this makes the Park Commission look like the bad guy. Darling moved that the Park Conunission not make any further reconunendations for Batch #8 until the City Council determines if the Conunons Task Force or the Park Conunission should address the issues relating to private stnlctures on public lands. Byrnes seconded the motion. Casey stated that the Park Commission still has an obligation to do what the ordinance states. Darling suggested that they put pressure on the Council to make a decision. Byrnes suggested that they could just go down list for Batch #8 and deal with the ones that there are not objections to. Goode agreed that they could deal with as a batch. Motion carried 4-2-1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Geffre, Darling, and Pederson. Those opposed were Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained. No action was taken on the following: 42406 Todd Brandstetter 42461 Bradley Miller 42511 Chris Bright 42556 Tom Effertz 42586 Deborah Mathews 42626 Ronald McCombs 42691 Wanda Stuerman 42791 James Miller 4743 Island View Drive 4747 Island View Drive 4753 Island View Drive 4757 Island View Drive 4763 Island View Drive 4767 Island View Drive 4771 Island View Drive 4781 Island View Drive HANOVER ROAD l: DRUMMOND ISLAND VILLAGE OF MOUND VILLAGE OF MINNEI'RI)?A .,,o_,, ?.. _j j ,GAO DRIVE REA 4729 I.V.D. 0 0 0 o 0 ~ Q3 0 0 0 0 2~J77 GOVT LOT 1 ~5.83 FES ..... 'rx. 40 40 40 [/?j 40 ~,~ ',, ,o"' '~'] o,/"~" ¥' ~ ,~'" 25] 24, 40 t.--! /-- ' - >, ~13 14 ~5 16 17 ]26] 1273 ~91' ~ 40 40 40 4,q,F4Q' 40 40 j 40 L~o) 72 71 · ... "" ~- ....... ~ /-.'-'~ ' '~t '.2 ~..: ":.~ :. ~o [' 74'J I (75i /_[76] ~ ~ HANOVER RD 4O ~5' ":2L 2 I VIEW >R PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 11, 1996 REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE TO MODIFY THE BASEBALL FIELD AT PHILBROOK PARK We have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, and to allow continued use of the field. The program is for 13 year olds and is a new opportunity for youth participation. At this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes they are planning. This request also raises concerns about the need for: protective fencing for players on the bench and for spectators, an overhang on the backstop for foul balls, bathrooms, a home run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the neighborhood should also be considered. Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and to-date I have not seen any mis-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors. Bob Shidla, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League was present. Casey asked if the neighbors were notified. They were not. Mr. Shidla explained that they plan to install 20 to 30 feet of fencing down each path line, and asked if maybe they could have the backstop from Stenson Park transferred to this park. He commented that the length of field is adequate. They plan to expand the infield by cutting back the grass another 15 to 20 feet, which is back to its original size. This work will be all volunteered and they will pay for the improvements with money from fundraisers. Ahrens questioned projected use. Shidla stated that they foresee two games per week. The Secretary indicated that before the new Lions fields were completed, both the men and women leagues utilized this field on Monday and Wednesday evenings. Byrnes commented that they should do anything they can to improve this town for the youth, especially 13 year olds who need organized activities, and we should encourage sports. Fackler stated that he would like to be notified prior to any work commencing on the field. Meyer agreed with Byrnes that the City should support their youth. Meyer would like to see the City help the Baberuth association in restoring the field, and maybe they can include money in a future parks budget for a new backstop. Fackler commented that the satellites are already supplied by the City at this park, and there is a drinking fountain. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the request to make improvements to the ball field at Philbrook Park, subject to the League working with the Parks Director and subject to the approval of the Parks Department. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: June 27, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Park and Open Space Commission Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ Philbrook Park We have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, and to allow continued use of the field. Currently, the Babe Ruth League is utilizing the ball field at Philbrook Park on Tuesdays and Thursdays, May through July. The program is for 13 to 15 year olds and is a new opportunity for youth participation. At this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes they are planning. This request also raises concerns about the need for: protective fencing for players on the bench and for spectators, an overhang on the back stop for foul balls, bathrooms, a home run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the neighborhood should also be considered. As I noted before, the Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and to-date I have not seen any mis-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors. JF:pj CC: Lorraine Pinter, Secretary of Babe Ruth Baseball League Bob Shilda, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League printed on recycled paper To: Jim Fackter, City of Mound From: Lorraine Painter, Secretary of Babe Ruth Baseball League Date: May 15, 1996 Request: The Babe Ruth Baseball League requests the use of Philbrook Park for two 13-year old baseball games per week, and approval to modify the field at its cost. The schedule for the field is open for the dates needed, per Westonka Community Services. Background: In past years the Babe Ruth program for 13-15 year olds has lost participation as boys move up and are intimidated by the larger field size. The Little League field is 60 feet between bases, and the Babe Ruth format is 90 feet. During the 1995 season the league added a developmental 13-year level with three teams to play on a transitional size field. The regulation size for this format is 75 feet between bases. These teams participated in the Orono 13-year "Prep" league, and the program was very popular among the players. While Orono allowed the Mound teams to join them the first year on their field to see how well it would go, they requested that Mound provide a field if they wanted to continue the joint program The Mound portion would be two games per week from May through mid-July. A field with a deeper outfield than softball requirements is needed to accommodate the extra length in baseline, and still have adequate fielding distance. A local field was sought that could continue to be used for softball, but accommodate the larger field size as well. Since the Prep program does not require a pitching mound, this would be possible if a field was large enough. Philbrook Park: The Philbrook Park field has enough distance diagonally to be used for the 75-foot baseline and be adequate for the outfield. It has a backstop and local parking. While benches there are not shielded from the infield, neither are they at the Babe Ruth or high school fields or some other parks used by Little League baseball. Modification: The Babe Ruth league offers to remove the sod to extend the infield to the longer baseline, and provide approximately $1,000-1,200 in ag lime in the infield to properly provide for play. The 60-foot baseline for softball will be maintained. During this season a temporary fence from the backstop down toward the first and third bases could be installed for additional safety to the players on the team benches. Next year the league could provide additional equipment, such as a permanent fence from the backstop past the benches, and an overhang for the backstop. Philbrook Park '2 Proposed Development Picnic Shelter 123 It ,tn [] I, il Idl~,, I ~,,, RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DETERMI]~NG THAT, BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) AND PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE EAW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) IS NOT WARRANTED AND SOME PROJECT CONDITIONS AND FURTHER STUDY IS REQU~ FOR THE LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT Wt-l~~, acting as ~he Responsible Governmental Unit in accor~ee with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's Environmental Review Pro~arn Rule~, ~dllll,_]~, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared and approved by the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, through published notice, the City of Mound has solicited public comment on the contents of the SAW report, and WHEREAS, written, public comment has been received from a number of parties and the Mound City Council has reviewed and considered these commen~s, and WHEREAS, some of the comments received raise minor environmental concerns about the project which can be resolved through project conditions or minor construction modifications. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Based on comments to the EAW, the City Council has determined that an Environmental Impact Stm. cment is not warranted for the project. Based on the comments, no further study is required to make a determination on the Environmenul Assessment Worksheet. The following environmental concerns raised by comments will be applied to the project in the fora', of permit conditions or construction modifications. Secondary channels from adjacent shoreline to the main canal is a potential environmental threat. Dredging permits for the Lost Lake project shall have a condition placed on them tha secondary channels other than those existing and proposed as part of the Lost Lake project plan dated 1996 shzll b~ ~d. Thc RGU directs Staff to work with the MPCA and Watershed District to further explore options to the boat pull-outs to provide safe boat travel along the canal. THIS PAGE IS BLANK INTENTIONALLY Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. RECEIVEI3 JLIL 1 g 1906 [I]13 Ball FROM: Bruce Chamberlain, Downtown Redevelopment Coordinator DATE: July 18, 1996 SUBJECT: Lost Lake Environmental Assessment (EAW) HKG FILE NUMBER: 94-40 PROJECT LOCATION: Lost Lake wetland adjacent to County Road 15 in downtown Mound BACKGROUND: The Lost Lake canal project is proposed to restore the historic Lost Lake canal from Cooks Bay on Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound. In addition to the canal itself the project and connected actions include dredging a portion of wetland for transient docks, restoring previously filled wetland areas, creating a permanent docking facility, restoring wetland vegetation, building a boardwalk, conducting shoreline improvements, building fishing and transit boat piers constructing wildlife nesting structures and making modifications to the Bartlett Boulevard bridge. A mandatory EAW was prepared for the project pursuant to EQB rule Section 4410.4300 subp. 25 and 27 dealing with work in protected waters. A public comment period was conducted for the EAW from June 3 to July 3, 1996. During that time, nine written and verbal comments were received from various agencies and individuals. This report and attached reports responds to each of the comments specifically. Copies of the comments are included as attachments. Please note that in addition to this report which addresses some of the comments, there are also letters from Peterson Environmental Consulting and Braun Intertec which respond to cormnents within their realm of professional expertise. ACTION REQUIRED: It is the Mound City Council's responsibility (acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit, RGU) to review the Lost Lake EAW and all official comments received in its regard and take one of the following actions. Ao Require the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is an extensive and detailed written statement addressing the environmental impacts of an action. An EIS should be prepared for a project if it has the potential for significant environmental effects. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 oh.~ Planning Report - Lost Lake EAW August 18, 1996 Page 2 Indicate modifications to the project which lessen its environmental impact. These modifications can be imposed as permit conditions or other means. C. Proceed with the project as proposed. COMMENTS: This report will organize response to public comments as simply as possible. Responses to public comment below are organized according to the commenter. If response to comments are addressed by Peterson Env. or Braun, this report will reference attached reports. Please note that only public comments which raise concern about the project are addressed below. Several positive and neutral public comments were made but require no response. Minnesota Historical Society_: No comments which require response were made. MetrOpolitan Council: No comments which require response were made. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service: 'The commenter raised a concern about the possibility of secondary channels lX~ing dredged in the future from adjacent shoreline to the main canal. There are ;!~urrently two secohdary channels which lead into the main canal. The project Proposer does no(propose any secoiidary channels. If adjacent private property owners are able to get permits for dredging secondary channels, it is conceivable that they could be constructed. If this occurs to a large extent, the ecology of the wetland could be damaged through fragmentation and added boat traffic. The RGU can find this possibility to be a threat and request that permits received for the Lost Lake project place conditions that no secondary channels from adjacent shoreline be allowed to connect to the main canal other than the two existing and those proposed in the Lost Lake project plan dated 1996. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: Comment gl - see Peterson Environmental report. Comment #2 - The commenter indicates that multiple silt flotation curtains should be installed during and for a time after construction to confine sediment and prevent water quality impacts to Lake Minnetonka. Assuming the project proceeds, this suggestion will be followed. The EAW, its comments and responses as well as permit requirements will be consulted during plan preparation to incorporate issues like this. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Comment #1 - The commenter expresses the same concern as the one immediately above. Comment #2 - The commenter raises the fact that the boat pull-outs were not taken into account when the sediment sampling was completed. The reason is that boat pull-outs were an engineering recommendation incorporated into the project after sediment sampling was done in 1995. It is my understanding from a conversation with Judy Mader from the MPCA (July 17, 1996) that contaminant levels in sediment can change within a very short distance and since the Planning Report - Lost Lake EAW August 18, 1996 Page 3 boat pull-outs would be located where dredging has not occurred before, these areas should have representative sediment samples tested. This action will be accomplished according to MPCA guidelines prior to MPCA permit issuance for the project. On a related note, members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District expressed concern at a site visit in June 1996 that the boat pull-outs will cause re-suspension of sediments from boats sitting idle in the pull-outs then gunning their engines to move forward. Based on these two comments, the RGU may choose to direct staff to consult the MPCA and Watershed District to reconsider how safe passage of boats occurs along the canal. The best solution may be the boat pull-outs currently proposed but further exploration appears to be warranted. Comment #3 - The commenter points out that the MPCA was misquoted in saying that the dredge material is suitable for reuse as a compost soil amendment. I apologize for that and should have written that Braun Intertec's test findings indicate that the material is suitable for reuse but until the MPCA reviews a formal permit application, they will not sanction the finding. Comment g4 - See Peterson Environmental report. Minnesota D~partment of Natural Resources: Comment #1 - The commenter expressed disappointment that the project does not include a public boat launch. DNR staff and LMCD board members have expressed their desire for a boat launch in the past. It has been the City of Mound's position that the Lost Lake canal and greenway area is a highly pedestrian place providing diverse opportunities for the public to experience lakeshore. A boat launch in Lost Lake has been viewed by the City to have negative environmental and social impacts and an activity which would severely disrupt the urban, pedestrian fabric which the Mound Visions program proposes to create. The RGU can consider changing their position on this issue. Comment #2 - In reference to Item 9, Land Use in the EAW, the commenter strongly encourages full compliance with MPCA control measures for potential contamination problems. In response, it is incumbent on the project proposer to comply with all agency regulations, requirements and permit conditions when constructing and managing the Lost Lake canal project. The intense involvement and oversight by City staff and professional consultation of this project up until now is anticipated to continue through and beyond construction. - ~9 eJ.7~5 o~, ~; ~ ~* Comment #3 - In reference to Item 15, Water Surface Use in the EAW, the commenter asks what the long range estimates are for boat trips on the Lost Lake canal. Projections described in the EAW as 26 trips per weekend day and 9 trips per weekday are based on a study conducted by the DNR and LMCD in 1994 measuring average boat traffic generated at marinas and transient docks on Lake Minnetonka. An oversight was made in the EAW by not including trips generated by an excursion boat docked in downtown. With this, the average trip generation would likely be 30 trips per weekend day and 10 trips per weekday. According to the DNR/LMCD study (which is the only quantitative study we know of to work from) this is the expected trip generation of the canal when the transient docks, excursion boat and marina are in full operation. It is important to Planning Report - Lost Lake EAW August 18, 1996 Page 4 note that these are average number which is the customary way of measuring traffic. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District: Comment #1 - See Peterson Environmental report. Comment #2 - The commenter notes that a multiple dock license will be necessary for the transit boat pier and boardwalk. This will be added to the list of permits needed. Comment #3 - The commenter asks what methodology was used in calculating boat traffic in the canal. See the response to Comment #3 under the MDNR section above. Comment g4 - The commenter requests that a lighting plan be done for any walkways. Lighting is funded for the greenway and trail project. Comment #5 - The commenter asks about the set of steps shown on the fishing pier. The steps are intended to cantilever off of the pier structure as a way for people to get close to the water. The steps will not extend low enough to touch the water. No other structure is proposed to extend into the water from the steps. Comment #6 - The commenter concurs with MPCA suggestions to monitor the water column for phosphorus during and after construction. Comment #7 - See Peterson Environmental report. Catherine Zimmer-Lokken: See Braun Intertec's report for responses to all comments but the following. ,~ ~d~74~c~ ~Ld' Comment regarding Item 2lB - The commenter raises the possibility that temporary fuel storage tanks will be stored on the site during construction. This is a possibility although by no means a certainty. The temporary storage of on-site fuel tanks during construction is a common practice and standard construction safety practices minimize the spilling of fuel. Fueling of equipment will likely occur on the old dump site. If the RGU feels this is a potential hazard, a condition could be placed on the project that no fuel tanks are stored on-site. Thomas E. Casey: Comment #1 - The commenter asserts that all downtown redevelopment activities planned are "connected actions" as defined by Minnesota Statute and therefore the Lost Lake EAW should evaluate those activities as a component of the project. In response, the Lost Lake Canal project is a project in and of itself. There are "connected actions" to the initial project and those actions are defined as such in the EAW. All downtown activities defined in the EAW as "related activities" can and will be accomplished independent of the Lost Lake project. None of the activities defined in the EAW as "related activities" are dependent on completion of the Lost Lake project. Planning Report - Lost Lake EAW August 18, 1996 Page 5 Comment #2 - The commenter asserts that acquisition of property for the Auditors Road project prejudices the EAW process. As just mentioned, the Auditors Road project is a "related activity" to the Lost Lake canal project. The Auditors Road project has a separate funding source, it will be accomplished regardless of completion of Lost Lake. Therefore, property acquisition for the Auditors Road project does not in any way prejudice the Lost Lake EAW. Also, the commenter asserts that an ISTEA grant has been accepted. ISTEA funds for the Lost Lake project have been applied for and the project has been selected for funding. No moneys have been accepted by the City (ISTEA is a construction reimbursement program). Comment to Item 9. Land Use - The commenter asserts that if the dredging project occurs before stormwater treatment is installed, the adverse effects of runoff will be exacerbated because the natural filter provided by cattails will be removed. In response, the distance from the existing stormwater outlets through cattails to the open canal will not change after the dredge and filtering effects will remain the same. The commenter asserts that the sediment testing depths were not adequate to account for the dredge depths. On the contrary, testing was conducted within the proposed dredge depth and up to one foot below the proposed dredge depth. See Braun Intertec's report for further response. Comment to Item 11. - See Peterson Environmental report. Comment to Item 12. - See Peterson Environmental report. Comment to Item 14. - The commenter requests to know how the Lost Lake project and related projects bring adjacent lands into closer conformance with the shoreland ordinance. 1) A vegetative buffer will be established around the perimeter of the wetland. 2) Much shoreline will be restored or rehabilitated. 3) Stormwater treatment will occur. Comment to Item 18. - The commenter discusses surface water runoff issues and asserts that discussion' of these issues should be included in the EAW. In response, the Lost Lake canal project or connected actions does not contribute to surface water runoff. Comment to Item 20b - The commenter asserts that the Lost Lake project warrants discussion surrounding this item. In response, this EAW question asks if a short list of specific hazards are found on the project site. There are none in Lost Lake. Comment to Item 20c - See Braun Intertec's report. Comment to Item 23 - The commenter asserts that increased auto air emissions generated by use of Lost Lake should be quantified. The increase in air emissions due to increased traffic in Planning Report - Lost Lake EAW August 18, 1996 Page 6 downtown directly attributable to Lost Lake is so small that it is unmeasurable. Comment to Item 27 - The commenter asserts that adverse visual impacts will be created by the project. In response, this EAW question asks for impacts on the magnitude of cooling towers and intense lights. This project has negligible visual impacts. Comment to Item 28.1 - The commenter asserts that the project is not in conformance with Mound's Comprehensive Plan. The Lost Lake project and related activities strongly support the statement quoted by the commenter from the Comp Plan. The project creates a natural park-like area and it restores wetland. Comment to Item 28.2 - The eommenter asserts that the EAW fails to explain how the project and related projects creates an environment which is sympathetic to the environment. The Lost Lake project and related projects create public shoreline with extensive areas of restored and rehabilitated shoreline. It provides and diversifies wildlife habitat, it creates a vegetative buffer along the wetland and it shades the shoreline. ~9.~.~..c~, ~,~9. -~ Comment to Item 32 - The commenter asserts that a potential mitigation measure for wildlife disturbance identified in the EAW is "unacceptable" to the DNR. This is not true. Their stated position is not to even consider the measure unless wildlife disturbance is anticipated to be a significant problem as a result of the project. The City's environmental consultant nor any EAW commenters raise this as a concern so unless concerns are raised through the permit process, the easure will not be considered. COMMENDATION: Based on the EAW and the comments received, Staff recommends at an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted for this project. Staff further commends that Action "B" be taken to apply the following conditions to the project: 1. Secondary channels from adjacent shoreline to the main canal is a potential environmental threat. Dredging permits for the Lost Lake project shall have a condition placed on them that secondary channels other than those existing and proposed as part of the Lost Lake project plan dated 1996 shall be prohibited. 2. The RGU directs Staff to work with the MPCA and Watershed District to further ~6~lore options to the boat pull-outs to provide safe boat travel along the canal. ~ ~ J BRAUN INTERTEC Braun Inte~tec Corporation 1345 Northland Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1141 612-683-8700 Fax: 683-8888 Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Natural Environments~ July 16, 1996 Project No. BABX-94-819 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Suite 525 7300 Metro Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55439 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: Re: Lost Lake Canal, Environmental Assessment Worksheet As you requested, I have reviewed the comments on the captioned subject submitted by Ms. Catherine Zimmer-Lokken and Mr. Thomas E. Casey that were pertinent to the work performed by Braun Intertec (Braun Intertec, 1995). The dates of the comment letters were July 3, 1996 and July 2, 1996, respectively. In this letter I will address each comment in their letters pertinent to our work in the order raised beginning with Ms. Zimmer-Lokken's letter. Response to Comments by Ms. Zimmer-Lokken Item 9. A. Land Use The commenter indicates "These sediments have not been adequately characterized to determine whether TCE, PCBs and other volatile solvent type contaminants are present." The commenter cites the MPCA Lost Lake Dump file and a monitoring well which contained 140-500 parts per billion 1,2-cis/trans-dichloroethylene (DCE) as well as some recent work performed at the Tonka Toys site which apparently indicates the presence of several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at high concentrations. When we planned our work we believed there was little potential for the contaminants to be present at the lake so the analysis was not performed. Our view has not changed. The reasons are as follows: There were several investigations of the Lost Lake Dump performed in 1984 by Braun Intertec, then Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., for the City of Mound (Braun, 1984a and Braun, 1984b). During those investigations, four monitoring wells were installed and sampled for VOCs and metals. The only well in which significant VOCs were observed was one installed on Tonka Toys property north of County Road 15. Two wells were installed in the dump immediately adjacent to the wetland and one well was installed east of the wetland. These latter three wells did not indicate the presence of any chlorinated VOCs, such as TCE, DCE or vinyl chloride although they did contain very low concentrations of a few petroleum-related VOCs such as those present in boat gasoline. MPCA recently indicated (Trippler, 1996) that there is significant VOC contamination on the Tonka site but it has not migrated off of the Tonka site. Because there was Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-819 July 16, 1996 Page 2 no indication of significant VOC contamination discharging to the project site, no VOC sampling was necessary. VOCs, as their name suggests, are volatile and will disperse readily in water and evaporate. VOCs are not on the MPCA list of parameters routinely considered for analysis for dredging projects. It is not clear to us why the commenter believes that the dredging project would "pull" the TCE contaminated groundwater into the dump, canal and wetland as suggested or how testing now would be indicative of something that allegedly could happen in the future. With respect to the issue of PCB sampling, we are unaware of indications that PCB containing equipment was disposed of in the dump. As part of the earlier work performed by Braun Environmental Laboratories, a magnetometer survey of the dump was performed to determine if there were any indications of magnetic anomalies which could indicate the presence of barrels or other metal objects. Several test pits were dug to evaluate anomalies and nothing of significance was observed (Braun, 1984b). In addition, PCBs are not VOCs and are insoluble or have an extremely low solubility in water. Therefore it is highly unlikely that PCBs from small sources, even if present in the dump, could migrate through the groundwater beneath the dump to the wetland. Sampling for PCBs was discussed with MPCA and their conclusion was that absent a municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge to Lost Lake, it was unlikely that significant PCBs would be present and therefore sampling for PCBs was unnecessary. Item 9. B. 1. Table 2 The commenter indicates that the sediment analysis results should be multiplied by 1000 prior to comparison with the standards. This is not according to MPCA guidance. The Braun Intertec report (Braun Intertec, 1995), noted in the first paragraph on page 5 that the sediment sample results were reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) and Class 2b standards are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (ug/L). Therefore the laboratory results and the standards are not directly comparable because one is a measure of the amount of contaminant per weight of solid material (i.e., the sediment) and the other the amount of contaminant per volume of liquid (i.e., the water). However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance for evaluating the potential for the sediment to release contaminants from the sediment to the water in excess of the standards is to compare the numeric value of the contaminant in the sediment expressed in mg/Kg to the numeric value of the standard expressed in ug/L. The comparisons are made in Table 2 in that manner. The sediment sample results should not be multiplied by 1000 in order to compare them to the standards according to MPCA. We do not agree with the implication that wetlands or wetland muck are significantly less capable of binding or retaining metals than other types of soil. Within wetlands, wetland sediment interacts strongly with trace metals in a number of ways and are therefore capable of significant metal removal. There are three major mechanisms at work: 1) binding to soil, sediment, particulates and soluble organics; 2) precipitation as insoluble salts, principally sulfides and oxyhydroxides; and, 3) uptake by plants, including algae, and by bacteria. Wetland soils (i.e., muck) bind metals by cation exchange and chelation. Hurnic substances, both in solution and as solids, can form bonds with metals (Kadlec and Knight, 1995). I-Ioisin~on Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-819 July 16, 1996 Page 3 Item 9. B. 2. Table 1 The methodology used was that specified by MPCA and detection limits were discussed with and approved by them. The proper reporting units are rog/Kg. Solid material analysis is not reported in ug/L and the methods used are standard methods for these compounds. Some analytical matrix interference problems were encountered and were discussed with MPCA. The elevated detection limits where matrix interferences were encountered were not considered problems by MPCA. Item 9. B. 3. Section 2.0 Soil and Sediment Sampling The sampling methodology more closely meets the definition of biased sampling than judgmental. We attempted to collect samples at locations which we thought could contain the highest concentrations of contaminants or where sediment could be most stirred up by subsequent boat traffic. The locations were selected so that a sample was collected near the east side (i.e. dump side, #5), west side where post office vehicles were parked (#3), part way up the channel approximately where the boat turn around area began (#6) and at a point in the channel (#4) where another channel splits off to some townhomes in the vicinity of Bartlett Blvd and Lost Lake Road. The number and location of samples was discussed with and approved by MPCA. Item 21. A. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks The commenter indicates that the sediment results exceed the hazardous waste limit for lead of 5 mg/L as determined by the TCLP test. This is not true. No TCLP (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure) test was performed on the sediment. It is inappropriate to compare the ~;gtal concentration of lead in sediment, expressed in mg/Kg, to the TCLP concentration, expressed in rog/L, regardless of whether both units of measurement are equivalent to parts per million (ppm). The TCLP test is an acidic leach test conducted to determine whether lead present in a solid matrix will leach from it and if so, to what extent. Due to the test methodology, even if the entire 93 mg of lead in the sample were leached out in the TCLP test, the results would be less than 5 mg/L. There is n_ilo indication that DCE or other solvent contamination might be present. Monitoring wells installed by Braun Engineering in the dump adjacent to the wetland did not indicate the presence of DCE (Braun Engineering, 1984a and 1984b) and monitoring wells installed by Barr Engineering for the Tonka site indicate that the VOC plume on the Tonka site has not moved offsite (Trippler, 1996). We have no indication that the dredge material would have to be managed as a hazardous waste. With respect to the commenter's conclusions we offer the following response: The contaminants from the Tonka Toys site are known to be confined to the Tonka Toys site. Previous testing on the Lost Lake Dump site did not indicate the presence of TCE or breakdown products. The well installed for this project which contained the DCE was on the Tonka Toys site, not the dump site. There is no information indicating that PCBs are likely to be present at the Lost Lake Dump site. The testing plan was developed in conjunction with MPCA staff. Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-819 July 16, 1996 Page 4 The evaluation of the analytical data performed on the sediment data was performed as required by MPCA guidelines. The contaminant concentrations are as stated. The analytical methods were specified by MPCA and the detection limits were sufficient to measure the concentrations. Deviations from the plan were discussed with MPCA. The sampling plan was discussed in more detail in the above comments. The plan and number of samples was approved by MPCA. There is no indication that hazardous wastes will be generated as a result of disturbing soils. Response to Comments by Mr. Casey Item 9. Land Use The commenter indicated that "No where does Ms. Mader's letter indicate that Mr. Wendlund (sic) was asked to comment on the elevated levels of lead or mercury." This is true, but Jerry Flora of the MPCA Water Quality Division was asked to comment on the results of the toxics analysis and he indicated that they were not a problem (Mader, 1995, personal communication). In the same conversation, Ms. Mader indicated that the phosphorus might be a problem and she would follow that up with Mr. Wedlund. That review was described in Mr. Wedlund's May 24, 1995 memo. The commenter indicates that the sediment analysis results should be multiplied by 1000 prior to comparison with the standards. This is not according to MPCA guidance. The Braun Intertee report (Braun Intertec, 1995), noted in the first paragraph on page 5 that the sediment sample results were reported in milligrams per kilogram (rog/Kg) and Class 2b standards are in milligrams per liter (rog/L) or micrograms per liter (ug/L). Therefore the laboratory results and the standards are not directly comparable because one is a measure of the amount of contaminant per weight of solid material (i.e., the sediment) and the other the amount of contaminant per volume of liquid (i.e., the water). However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance for evaluating the potential for the sediment to release contaminants from the sediment to the water in excess of the standards is to compare the numeric value of the contaminant in the sediment expressed in mg/Kg to the numeric value of the standard expressed in ug/L. The comparisons are made in Table 2 in that manner. The sediment sample results should not be multiplied by 1000 in order to compare them to the standards according to MPCA. The method used for analysis of PAHs in sediment was required by MPCA. The numeric value of the detection limit for anthracene was greater than the numeric value of the chronic standard but less than the maximum standard. This was discussed with MPCA prior to analysis and they considered it acceptable. Chlorpyrifos was not a required analyte (see table 1) but was reported because it was one of the suite of chemicals which had a water quality standard for which results are obtained when using the analytical method FIolsin~on Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-B19 July 16, 1996 Page 5 Item 20. c. Groundwater - Potential for Contamination The commenter refers to "extremely high levels of lead and mercury". This is simply not true. The concentrations were compared to water quality standards according to MPCA guidelines and were determined by MPCA to not be a problem. Conclusions The commenter refers to "extraordinary high concentrations of toxic chemicals". true as discussed in the response to comments on Item 20 above. Again, this is not References Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., 1984a. Environmental Evaluation, Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site, SW Quad. of Co. Rd. 15 & Cypress Lane, Mound, Minnesota. June 11, 1984. Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., 1984b. Environmental Evaluation, Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site. November 7, 1984. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, 893 pp., 1995. Mader, 1995. Phone conversation with Judy Mader, MPCA, 5/23/95. Trippler, 1996. Phone conversation with Dale Trippler, MPCA, 7/15/96. Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-819 July 16, 1996 Page 6 We believe that we have satisfactorily addressed each of the comments. In closing, I would like to emphasize the fact that we worked closely with MPCA during all phases of the work. Several phone conversations and meetings were held with MPCA to develop the sampling plan, including sampling methods, locations, parameters, analytical methods, detections limits etc. The actual sampling plan was submitted to MPCA for review and approval prior to implementing the plan. Deviations from the plan were discussed with MPCA and in our report (Braun Intertec, 1995). In addition several phone conversations and a meeting were held with MPCA after the sample results were available to discuss the results so that we could address their concerns prior to finalizing the report. If you have any comments or questions about the contents of our response to the EAW comments, please feel free to call Rick at (612) 683-8752. Sincerely, Roger M. Carpenter Senior Environmental Scientist Richard M. Johnston Project Manager, Principal i:\wpf'dcs\babx\94\819\819.102 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, [NC. RECEIVED JUL I 9 1996 July 19, 1996 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Blvd., Suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 Subject: Responses to Comments Lost Lake Channel Restoration EAW Dear Bruce: We have prepared the following responses to comments generated by the Lost Lake Channel Restoration EAW. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (July 3, 1996) Comment 1: "In this respect, we are disappointed that the project described in the EAW does not contain a designated public access as one of its potential benefits. Inclusion of such an access would offer non-riparian citizens of the City of Mound, as well as citizens from other areas, those benefits being provided to riparian landowners. As you know, we have conveyed this belief to the City on previous occasions." Response 1' The City of Mound has elected not to include a public boat access in the project for the following reasons: (1) A public access would conflict with the intended project purpose, which is to re- establish the historic Lost Lake boat channel in furtherance of the revitalization of Mound's downtown area. The boat channel was used around the turn of the century to provide passenger steamboats with access to the amenities of Mound's downtown area. The current proposal is intended to re-establish downtown Mound's historic role as a retail and restaurant destination for people boating .on Lake Minnetonka. The additional vehicular and boat traffic (as well as the increased parking demand) that a public access would generate would detract from the downtown area's appeal and would be incompatible with the intended project purpose. (2) The City has made every effort to minimize the potential for disturbance-related impacts to wildlife in Lost Lake. The City believes that the additional boat traffic generated by a public access would unreasonably increase the potential for such impacts. 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 612-686-0151 · Fax 612-686-0369 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 2 (3) The City believes that adequate public access already exists in the general area. A public boat access already exists at Mound Bay Park, approximately one-half mile from Lost Lake. (4) The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has indicated that "[s]tate law and MCWD Rules prohibit dredging to create navigational access where none exists..." (see MCWD Comment 1 below). It is apparent that MCWD would consider a new City- proposed public boat access as being contrary to their rules. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (July 3, 1996) Comment 1: "It is the policy of the MCWD Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisherieS resources of surface waters, and surface water quality. State law and MCWD Rules prohibit dredging to create navigational access where none exists, and require that any dredging of existing navigational access constitute the minimal impact solution to achieve a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives." Response 1: The proposed project has been designed to enhance the overall resource value of Lost Lake as well as to re-establish the historic boat channel which connected (and still connects) downtown Mound to Lake Minnetonka. The affected portion of Lost Lake's shoreline has little natural character because it consists entirely of fill material which was historically placed in the lake to create the City road maintenance dump site as well as Auditors Road and its ancillary development. While the proposed project does involve recreational facilities and human use areas, it also includes the removal of 31,000 square feet of old fill and the restoration of natural character to about 665 lineal feet of shoreline which currently consists of fill slopes. With regard to navigational access, none of the proposed facilities would be contrary to state law or MCWD Rules by creating navigational access where none exists. The proposed project does not involve any boat access point and would only serve boats that have already gained navigational access to Lost Lake. Dredging of the Lost Lake channel constitutes a maintenance activity, since the channel still exists and is still navigable by small boats. We have reviewed both state and MCWD regulations that apply to excavation within public waters and find the following: MDNR Regulations MDNR regulations state that "[e]xcavation to provide maintenance of navigational channel projects shall be limited to the length, width and depth dimensions of the original channel"(Minn. Rules 6115.0201 Subp. 4(B)). The proposed channel dredge has been designed to match the channel's historic dimensions and, accordingly, complies with this provision. We have also reviewed MDNR regulations relating to excavation for harbors and boat slips and find that both the proposed transient and permanent docking facilities I i II B J I~, IL Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 3 appear to meet MDNR's specific standards for such activities (see 6115. 0201 Subp. 5). Any issues relating to these standards will be resolved with the MDNR during the protected waters permit process. With regard to the extension of navigation access, MDNR regulations prohibit navigational channel excavation where: (1) it is intended to gain access to navigable water depths where such access can reasonably be attained by alternative means which would result in less environmental impact; or (2) "...inland excavation is intended to extend riparian rights to nonriparian lands, or to promote the subdivision and development of nonriparian lands" (see Minn. Rules 6115.0200 Subp. 3 (A) and (B)). None of the proposed excavation work would fall within these prohibited classes of activities for the reasons set forth below. Access to Navigable Water Depths Neither the boat channel nor the proposed docking facilities will have an access point allowing boats to enter protected waters from adjacent uplands. These facilities will be used only by boats that have already obtained access to navigable water depths at alternative locations. Thus, these facilities are not intended to "gain access to navigable water depths". Extension of Riparian Rights to Nonriparian Lands Neither the boat channel nor the proposed docking facilities will extend riparian rights to nonriparian lands. The land involved in the construction of each facility is entirely City- owned and no subdividing is being proposed. All of the transient docks are proposed in locations that already have riparian frontage on Lost Lake; thus, no new riparian lands are being created in this location by the placement of the proposed docks. All of the land from which fill is being removed in the Auditors Road/Post Office area is City property with riparian frontage on Lost Lake. The removal of 14,000 square feet of fill from the Auditors Road/Post Office area does not create new riparian lands but rather restores the original shoreline of Lost Lake on lands that are already riparian. No subdivision of land will occur in this location and none of the restored shoreline would be used to dock boats. Similarly, the proposed dredging for the permanent docking facility will involve the removal of 17,000 square feet of historic fill material and will all be done entirely on existing riparian lands that are owned by the City of Mound. The docking facility will not entail any subdivision of land that would extend riparian rights to additional parcels. Neither the owners of boats using the permanent docking facility or any concessionaires Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 4 the City might contract with to operate the facility would gain any riparian rights; all such rights would continue to reside with the City of Mound. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Regulations The MCWD regulations state that "No dredging shall be permitted (1) Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. (2) Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes. (3) Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake. (4) Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. (5) Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore." The dredging of the boat channel is within the waterbody itself and therefore complies with all of these provisions. Dredging for transient and permanent boat docking areas would remove old fill material from areas which were naturally below the ordinary high water level of the waterbody. The. intent of this regulation appears to be to prevent the artificial enlargement of lakes and watercourses, and not to prevent the removal of old fill material. Further, the natural watercourse is not being manipulated by the proposed dredging; all dredging is within old fill areas. Since the dredging in old fill areas will be done to match the historical bottom profile of the waterbody, no increased seepage or subsurface drainage is anticipated. The shoreline within the old fill dredging area will all be lined with seawall so that erosion due to steep slopes will not be an issue. Also, the MCWD rules state that dredging activities which fall within categories described in #1-3 above may be permitted where the project complies with applicable DNR rules. As described above under "MDNR Regulations", the project does comply with the applicable DNR rules. The MCWD rules also state that "Dredging shall be permitted only for the following purposes: (1) To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements; or (2) To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access; or (3) To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants; or (4) To improve the public recreational, wildlife, or fisheries resources of surface waters." The dredging for the boat channel meets condition #1 above. Dredging in the area of previously-deposited fill material meets condition #4 since it is being done in part to construct a marina which would improve the public recreational use of the waterbody. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Comment 4: With respect to the old dump site/salt storage, aerial photographs from the 1940s seem to show an open water area near the proposed (future) 22 slip docking facility shown in Exhibit 4. In a meeting on March 16, 1995, MPCA staff indicated that it might Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 5 be better to restore that open area and not develop it as it may be spring-fed and a link to groundwater. A representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was also at the meeting and expressed some concerns about developing the area even though that proposal to do so is not part of the 1997 work. More investigation of that site is warranted before development goes forward. Response 4: The potential presence of springs in historic open water area is very unlikely due to the relatively flat topography and the similarity of lake surface elevations in the area surrounding Lost Lake. The landscape of the area contains no features that would generate a groundwater gradient sufficient to create a spring. All of the historic open water area was filled in the past, except for a remnant narrow band of open water which exists around portions of fill slope's margins. The configuration of the existing open water is very similar to other areas we have observed where organic soil has subsided due to the weight of immediately adjacent fills. During field reviews, no current evidence of groundwater discharge was observed. During a March field review (immediately following the meeting referred to by the commenter), no evidence of thin ice or open water was observed that might suggest significant groundwater discharge. More likely explanations for the historic presence of open water is that this area may have been deeper than other parts of Lost Lake and/or that muskrat feeding and house-building activity helped retain open water in that area. It is quite common for pockets of open water to repeatedly appear and disappear within a deep marsh in response to annual climatic variations and to fluctuations in muskrat populations. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (June 26, 1996) Comment 1' "Do we have "exotic cattail monocultures" in Lake Minnetonka?" Response 1: This term was used by mistake in the draft EAW. Cattails (Typha sp.) are not exotic plants but are native to our area. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (July 2, 1996) Comment 7: "Will there be an ongoing study of fisheries within the project boundary area during and after the construction phase of the project? If so, will the DNR be involved with this?" Response 7: Fisheries surveys are within the purview of the Minnesota DNR. It is not known whether the project area is within or near any areas in which the DNR currently conducts fish surveys. The City of Mound would be willing to cooperate in any studies of the project area fishery if the DNR deems that it is warranted. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 6 Comment 1: "Page 6, subparagraph 1: The EAW states, "At the north end of the canal, most of the property is retail/commercial with little or no green buffer between the development and the wetland. The City is . . . taking steps to eliminate the concern including.., developing a stormwater management plan." However, there is no evidence that the stormwater plan and construction pursuant to said plan will take place before the dredge occurs. The dredge, without stormwater management, will exacerbate the adverse effects of the runoff from downtown to Lake Minnetonka by eliminating the natural buffer that wetland vegetation provides." Response 1: The proposed project will create a vegetated upland buffer along the north edge of Lost Lake. This buffer will reduce the amount of untreated surface runoff that enters Lost Lake. Also, one element of the proposed dredging project is the re- establishment of a diverse wetland plant community along the north edge of the dredged area as well as a rooted aquatic plant community within the center of the mm-around portion of the channel. The combination of these measures will provide a more substantial vegetated buffer around Lost Lake than presently exists. Comment 2: "The draft EAW (page 7) asserts that the present channel will".., actually lend some diversity to an otherwise uniform wetland system. The boat channel has provided muskrats with direct access to the center of Lost Lake, as indicated by the substantial number of muskrat houses on either side of the channel. The muskrats have created more open water through their feeding and house building activities, which in turn has increased the value of this area for nesting and feeding waterfowl as well as for herons and other wading birds." In other words, the very area that is proposed to be dredged and that will have loud, intrusive boat traffic is the area that, at present, has the highest concentration of wildlife! Therefore, it is disingenuous for the EAW to assert that "... it is doubtful that the project will adversely affect wildlife populations. (EAW, page 8, paragraph 2.)" Response 2: A population is made up of many individuals and may experience the loss or displacement of a number of individuals without affecting the overall health of the population. The species observed at Lost Lake are common urban wildlife species which adapt well to human activity and are generally abundant both in Lost Lake and surrounding marshes. Displacement of some individual animals will undoubtedly occur; however, impacts due to this project will not affect populations of these species as a whole. ?~ Comment 3: "The EAW states, "Dredging activity will be co, ordinated to have the least ~impact on the nesting habits of known wildlife in the wetlan,d,. However, the EAW does (~' not specifically state when or how this will be accomplished. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 7 Response 3: The schedule for dredging will be coordinated with the MDNR Area Wildlife Manager to ensure that no unacceptable impacts to nesting wildlife occur. It is anticipated that the precise dates for dredging activities will be set forth in the MDNR protected waters permit that will be required for the project. Comment 4: "The EAW states,".., increased boat traffic may impact species whose nesting and feeding behavior occur in the channel and adjacent vegetation. In particular, waterfowl, wading birds (that are generally secretive), turtles and fish may limit their movements and breeding acclivities within and adjacent to the channel corridor . . ." [EAW, page 11 ]. As stated earlier in the EAW, the highest concentrations of wildlife are in the very corridor that will be dredged; the wildlife will also suffer additional intrusive boat traffic. The EAW is incomplete until this impact can be more carefully studied. Given these facts, it is illogical for the EAW to assert that".., it is doubtful that the project will adversely affect wildlife populations." (EAW, page 11.)" Response 4: See Response 2. Comment 5: "(2). Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Water Resources Management Plan (May 1996). Again, contrary to the unsubstantiated allegation in the EAW, the dredging of Lost Lake wetland is not compatible with this plan. For example, the Water Resources Management Plan states: (a) "Wetlands . . . provide the most valuable habitats for today's threatened or endangered species. These areas often support diverse water and land-based plant communities. They also serve as major migration routes for many species of wildlife." [Page 26.] (b) "Any number of activities can pollute groundwater supplies. Major concerns include abandoned or existing dumps..." [Page 37.] The "Mound Dump" and Tonka Toys Main Plant have been identified as potential sources of groundwater contamination. [See also Table 11-23, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.] (c) "Policy 2: Prohibit dredging in watercourses, waterbodies or wetland areas... which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes." [Page 90.] (d) "Goal 11: To protect existing wetlands and restore diminished or draining wetlands. [Page 94.] (e) "Policy 1: Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands." [Page 94.] (f) "Policy 3: Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands. [Page 95.] (g) "The District considers wetlands to be a highly valued resource which provides stormwater storage and water quality treatment function but also has inherent value as a natural resource." [Page 95.] (h) "Dredging projects can also degrade water quality and eliminate the natural appearance of shoreline..." [Page 96.] Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 8 (I) "Wetlands are considered by the District to be a highly valued resource which provides flood storage capacity, water quality treatment and wildlife habitat and value. The District has less than 50% of its pre-settlement wetlands remaining..." [Page 138.] Response 5: The MCWD has submitted comments on the EAW and has not indicated that the proposed project is incompatible with their Water Resources Management Plan. With regard to the specific issues raised by the commenter, we find the following: (a) The Lost Lake wetland is not known to provide habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have both been involved in early coordination efforts on the project and, to date, neither agency has expressed any concern about threatened or endangered species. These agencies are responsible for protecting state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, respectively. Lost Lake does not represent an important stopover or staging area for migratory waterfowl since the wetland is almost entirely choked with emergent vegetation and has virtually no open water. Again, if impacts to waterfowl during migration were a significant concern, we would anticipate a comment to that effect from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (b) Issues relating to the Mound Dump and Tonka Toys Main Plant are addressed in the response to MPCA comments. (c) The issue of navigational access is addressed under MDNR and MCWD responses above. 'r~'" k~~0 (d) The project will result in a net gain of 1~,000 square feet of wetland through the restoration of formerly filled areas. To date there has been no indication that additional compensatory mitigation will be required. If such measures become necessary, we anticipate that the details will be resolved during the applicable permit processes. (e) See "d" above. (f) See "d" above. (g) No activity associated with the project will reduce the Lost Lake wetland's ability to provide stormwater storage and water quality treatment functions, nor will the value of the wetland as a natural resource be reduced. (h) Although a temporary increase in turbidity is normally created during a dredging project, this will be a short-term and minor impact. The City of Mound will work with the MDNR to identify appropriate measures to prevent temporary turbidity from entering Lake Minnetonka. With regard to the shoreline of Lost Lake, there is little natural appearance to protect since the existing shoreline consists primarily of historically placed fill material. (i) Lost Lake wetland's flood storage capacity, water quality treatment and wildlife habitat value will not be appreciably affected by the project. Comment 6: "As I have elaborated above, the EAW is inaccurate and incomplete. A professional survey of flora and fauna should be undertaken during other times of the year to describe all of the natural resources that could be affected by the project." Response 6: Exhibit 9 of the EAW lists natural resources that are likely to occur within the channel in addition to species observed during a site visit by natural resource Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 9 professionals with degrees in botany and wildlife biology. To date, the professional botanists and wildlife biologists within the MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have not indicated any inadequacies in the biological analysis that has been done. It is unlikely that additional surveys would result in any appreciable difference in the list of species likely to occur in the project area. Thomas E. Casey (Exhibit A) Comment 7: "On page 1, the report asserts "Since abandonment of the street car boat operations, the channel has narrowed and aquatic plants have recolonized historically dredged areas." Comment: This proves that the effects of a dredge are long lasting. It has been over 80 years and the wetland has still not completely healed. The current dredge proposal threatens to do the same and significant environmental effects will result!" Response 7: The commenter appears to be indicating the existing boat channel has had an adverse effect on Lost Lake. As described in the Biological Survey report contained in the EAW, the channel has added some diversity to an otherwise monotypic cattail marsh and, in that regard, has provided some wildlife habitat values that otherwise would be absent. The commenter appears to recognize this fact in Comment 4 above, where it is acknowledged that the highest wildlife concentrations occur around the boat channel. The proposed channel dredge represents the maintenance of this existing channel. The City has offered to create some additional open water pockets within Lost Lake to add additional diversity away from the boat channel. Preliminary discussions with MDNR have resulted in their informal indication that this mitigation measure appears unnecessary and that they would prefer to restrict dredging activities to the channel area. Comment 8: "On page 2, the report states "The project site was reviewed on October 11, 1994 and May 15, 1995." Comment: The field survey was too late in the Spring to account for passing migratory waterfowl; most waterfowl that are not summer residents will have flown past the Lost Lake wetland by May 15th. To be fair, a three season inventory could have been accomplished. Furthermore, the report fails to note the time of day the survey took place, a factor that could have a bearing on what and how many fauna are observed, it is more likely that wildlife can be observed early in the morning or later in the evening." Response 8: See response 6 above. Comment 9: "On page 3, the report states, "... a search of this ecosystem earlier in the growing season would reveal additional common aquatic plant species, it is doubtful that species would be represented of significant size." Comment: The report fails to discuss the likelihood and importance of uncommon or rare plant species being found earlier in the growing season!" Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 10 Response 9: It is true that a search of this ecosystem earlier in the growing season would likely reveal small numbers of additional common aquatic plant species. However, there is virtually no likelihood that any uncommon or rare plant species would be found in the affected area. Hennepin County is known to harbor only two listed uncommon plant species that would utilize marshy lakes or their fringes. Polygonum arifolium (currently special concern but proposed for de-listing by the MDNR) is found on lake margins and was last observed in Hennepin County in 1974. If any suitable habitat for this species ever existed on the margins of Lost Lake, it would have been lost to past filling. Decodon verticillatus (special concern) inhabits the fringes of small lakes and swamps but has not been observed in Hennepin County since 1953. This species would similarly have been eliminated by filling if it ever existed along the affected portion of Lost Lake's margin. To date, the MDNR has not expressed any concerns about the potential presence of rare plant species in the project area. Comment 10: "On page 3, the report identifies only resident ducks and waterfowl. The report admits the inadequacy of the EAW. For example, "... it is highly probable that a variety of additional wildlife species utilize the wetland. The report also states that it is "... probable that Lost Lake also provides habitat for amphibians and reptile species fails to state the species and population numbers." Response 10: It is not necessary to identify and quantify every bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile species that utilizes an area in order to "describe fish and wildlife resources on or near" a project site as called for in an EAW. The Biological Survey report adequately describes the habitat quality and wildlife use of the area for purposes of "rapidly assess[ing] the environmental effects which may be associated with a proposed proj ect"(see Minn. Rules 4410.1000 Subp. 1). Comment 11: "On page 4, the report admits the inadequacy of the EAW. "No field investigations were undertaken on the use of the Lost Lake boat channel by fish." Yet, the report admits, "... it is likely.., that the open water portions of Lost Lake, such as the boat channel and docking areas, may provide limited spawning and feeding habitat for game fish species ..." The EAW implies that "limited" means minimal; but a confined area of space is always, by definition, "limited." In other words, by clever language, the EAW diminished the importance of Lost Lake as a fish spawning area without any field investigation." Response 11: The term "limited" in the Biological Survey report was intended to be synonymous with "minimal". Due its extremely dense cattail growth, shallow depth and very small open water area, Lost Lake provides little suitable spawning or feeding habitat for game fish. It is not necessary to carry out test-netting or other survey techniques to discern Lost Lake's limited fisheries value. To date the MDNR has not expressed any concerns over potential impacts to fish. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 11 Comment 12: "On page 4, the report discusses the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and implies that the Lost Lake wetland is not important habitat for this species. The very source that the report cites (Coffin, 1988) states, "Numerous small hunting areas, usually marshes and wet meadows, are also important." Indeed, Lost Lake wetland may qualify as important habitat for the red-shouldered hawk, a species on the list as state special concern!" Response 12: Red-shouldered hawks have not been reported in Hennepin County since 1923. This species requires large contiguous tracts of bottomland hardwood forest for nesting (Coffin, 1988), none of which exist in the Lost Lake area. Marshes and meadows do not provide important feeding habitat to red-shouldered hawks if they are not in proximity to suitable nesting habitat. Lost Lake provides no suitable habitat for this species. Comment 13: "On page 5, the report discusses the king rail (Rallus elegans), proposed to be upgraded from special concern to endangered status. (See DNR proposed revisions, finalized on November 15, 1995.) Indeed, the report admits that it is unlikely that the king rail is present in Lost Lake area; this is hardly a surprise given its proposed endangered status. What is a surprise is that the report does not suggest that a thorough survey be accomplished in the project area. Coffin, 1988, states, "King rails accept a wide variety of shallow, freshwater marshes ... Small potholes, such as those that are frequented by nesting ducks, appear attractive to the species. It has been suggested that its distribution may be dependent on the muskrat, whose activities in the marsh help create openings for feeding and drinking ... Programs aimed at preserving marshy wetlands benefit king rails as well as many other marsh dwellers. Increased efforts should be made to determine more precisely the population size and distribution of the species in Minnesota." (Coffin, at page 277.) Certainly, increased human activity caused by dredging and boat traffic will decrease the chances of the king rail ever being sighted in Lost Lake. The EAW also fails to address the impact of the dredge on king rail habitat." Response 13: The MDNR has not requested a survey for king rails at Lost Lake and has expressed no concern that they may be present. Further, the spring field review was conducted at a time when, were they using the area, king rails would likely be present and audible. Because of the species is so rarely observed in Minnesota and the project area is so disturbed, the likelihood that king rails utilize Lost Lake is too small to warrant intensive surveys. Comment 14: "On page 5, the report discusses the common-moorhen (Gallinula chloronopsis). The report states that this bird prefers cattail-bulrush marshes with patches of Phragmites, Carex and Sparganium. The report states that the common moorhen is unlikely to prefer Lost Lake habitat because of the predominance of cattails. Yet, the report on page 3 states, "It is likely that a search of this ecosystem earlier in the growing season would reveal additional aquatic species; however, due to the dense growth form of the cattails, it is doubtful that these species would be represented by populations of Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 12 significant size." In other words, if further investigation of Lost Lake occurred, other wetland plant species may be identified that are favorable to the common moorhen. Moreover, Coffin, 1988, states: "Large, expansive wetlands are not necessary; the species will utilize small marshes along the edges of lakes or rivers... Marsh preservation programs benefit the moorhen as well as many other marsh species." [Page 278.] Response 14: Response 13 also applies to the common moorhen. There is insufficient potential for the species to be present to warrant additional surveys and no such surveys have been requested by MDNR. Comment 15: "On page 5, the report discusses the snapping turtle (Chelydrm serpentina), a state "special concern" species. The report states the problem of commercial harvesting. Given the contaminants that are found in Lost Lake, the commercial harvesting of this turtle species is likely to be a threat to human health. In addition the dredge may be a threat to the population numbers of this state listed species. Response 15: It is extremely unlikely that any commercial harvest of snapping turtles is or ever will be occurring in Lost Lake. It is even less likely that any turtles potentially harvested in this area would be taken or consumed in such numbers so as to represent a human health hazard. If any harvest is occurring, the renewed use of the channel for boat traffic would likely reduce its use by turtle trappers. Snapping turtles are "one of our most frequently encountered reptiles" (Coffin, 1988). Other than in areas that are commercially harvested with some intensity, snapping turtles are typically very common and populations are not in jeopardy. Comment 16: "On page 5, the report states, "... restoration of the original boat channel and construction of transient and marina slips is not expected to meaningfully reduce the availability of habitat necessary to maintain viable populations of the plant, wildlife or fish species mentioned above." This conclusion is not supportable without an inventory of reptile, amphibian, and fish populations and a study of the impact of boat traffic on wildlife." Response 16: See Response 10. Comment 17: "On page 6, the report states that "... the channel and boat docking areas actually lend some diversity to the otherwise uniform wetland system." This is an incredible conclusion; there is no supportable evidence that the dredge and boat traffic will not affect the wetland fauna. Response 17: See Responses 1 through 16. Comment 18: "On page 6, the report states, "Lost Lake has experienced encroachment by purple loosestrife ... The proposed project should not result in any expansion or acceleration of purple loosestrife infestation since this plant colonizes heavily vegetated areas rather than open water." However, I have attached [as Exhibit C] a portion of the Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 13 Field Guide to Aquatic Exotic Plants and Animals Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (c) 1992. Please note that loosestrife spreads" ... along ... canals and drainage ditches." It thrives on disturbed, moist soils, often invading after construction activities." Response 18: The proposed dredging activity will occur in areas where purple loosestrife is already present. The proposed dredging will not affect any areas that do not already have purple loosestrife populations. Comment 19: "On page 7, the report opines potential mitigation measures such as "... excavating pockets of open water in other relatively undisturbed areas within Lost Lake." However, the EAW itself (on page 16) states that the DNR's current position is "... not to incorporate this measure into the project at this time because it creates additional disturbance." Response 19: The creation of open water pockets in monotypic cattail marshes is a common, accepted technique for creating additional open water and diversity in such systems. Both the MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commonly manage water levels in heavily vegetated marshes to generate this effect. Water levels in Lost Lake cannot be manipulated so excavation represents the only procedure by which additional open water can readily be created. At this juncture, the MDNR has not indicated that such measures will be necessary to mitigate impacts. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance regarding this project. Best regards, Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. .[QB July 16, 1996 RECEIWE13 JUL 1 8 Brace Chamberlain' Economic Development Coordinator city of Mound 5341 Maywo9d Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Close of EAW Comment Period for the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation project Dear Mr. Chamberlain: This letter is to remind you that the 30-day review and comment period for this EAW ended on July 3, 1996. A decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)'must now be made in accordance with the standards and procedures of part 44] 0.1700. 3~n EIS must be ordered if you find that the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. In making this decision you must compare the impacts that may.be reasonably expected to occur with the following criteria:' A. The type, extent, and reversibility of effects; B. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which effects can be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory authorities; and. D. The extent to which effects can be anticipated, and controlled as a result of other studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of previous EISs. In making the EIS decision the followihg procedural requirements must be met: The timeframe for the decision depends upon whether the decision will be made by a single individual or by a council, board, or other body that meets, only periodically. If by an individual, the decision is to be made within 15 working days of the expiration of the comment period. If by a body that'meets 0nAy periodically, the decision is to be made at the first meeting held between three-and 30 days after the close of the comment period. These timeframes may be extended for the reason cited in item 3 below. You must maintain a written record of some sort, including specific .findings of fact, which.. supports your decision. The record 'must include specific responses to all substantive, timely comments received on the EAW. '3. If you determine that you. lack information which is critical to a reasoned decision about the potential for or the significance of any possible environmental effects, you must proceed in one of two Ways. Either way requires a different notificatiOn process as outlined in points 4 and 5. [NVIBBNMENIII 001LlIYBOA01, 959 CtBAi SIll[I, Si. PAUL, MN 55155.612 296-2603 fAX 612 2ii-lUll 01Aff PROVIDED BY a. You must postpone the decision on the need for an EIS for up to 30 days so that you can obtain the information you need; or b. You may proceed to prepare an EIS and obtain the information as part of the EIS process. 4. Notification process if your decision is postponed: You must provide a written notice within five working days to the proposer, the EQB staff, and anyone who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. This notice must identify what further information you need to make your decision. 5. Notification process if your decision is to prepare an EIS: a. Timing and audiences: A notice of your decision to prepare an EIS is to be sent within five working days to the project proposer, EQB staff, all persons on the EAW distribution list, all persons who commented, and anyone else who requests notification. In addition to the notice, all persons who submitted timely, substantive comments must receive a copy of your response to their comments. The EQB will publish the notice of your decision in the EQB Monitor. b. Content: your notice must include your decision to prepare an EIS, your proposed scope of the EIS and the date, time and place of the scoping meeting. Please call me to coordinate the date of the scoping meeting with the publication date of the EQB Monitor: The scoping meeting must occur between 10 working days and 20 calendar days after publication of the notice in the EQB Monitor. You must also submit a press release with the scoping meeting notice to a local newspaper. Please contact me if you have any questions about the EIS need decision process. Sincerely, ~Gregg M. D o~i n~ Environmental Review Coordinator (612) 296-8253 or 1-800-657-3794 RESOLUTION FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) AS PREPARED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR AND OTHER CITY CONSULTANTS AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF COMMENTS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS REGARDING THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND FURTHER INDICATE THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) IS NOT WARRANTED WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Lost Lake Improvement Project as prepared by the Economic Development Coordinator in conjunction with Peterson Environmental and Braun Intenec, consultants to the City of Mound on this project; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission has reviewed the comments received from the various agencies and individuals who chose to comment on the EAW during the 30 day comment period; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission believes that the EAW is adequate in addressing the various environmental concerns and issues raised by the organizations and individuals who commented on the EAW; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission is very appreciative in receiving comments from these various agencies and individuals who have environmental issues to raise. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING: 1. The EAW be accepted as drafted by the Economic Development Coordinator and other City Consultants. 2. The comments submitted by various agencies and individuals be acknowledged as received, thanking those various agencies and individuals for commenting on the EAW. 3. Proceed with approving the EAW in order to make application to the various agencies for applicable permits to begin the lost lake improvement project pursuant to schedule. 4. The Economic Development Commission does not believe that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted. MOVED BY BREWER, SECONDED BY WILLETTE AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THIS RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AT ITS JULY 18, 1996 MEETING. Attest: City Manager Chair PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 11, 1996 REVIEW AND DISCUSS LOST LAKE EAW The memorandum from the City Manager was reviewed. The memo outlined that Park Commission discussion should take place based upon the following possible outcomes: P&OSC chooses not to send a recommendation to the City Council. P&OSC has no objection to the EAW and believes that an ElS is not warranted. P&OSC believes that an ElS is not warranted but suggests some modifications to the EAW. 4. P&OSC believes that an ElS should be conducted. Casey stated that Item #3 should actually read, "P&0SC believes there is important information lacking in the EAW, and the decision on whether or not to order and ElS should be postponed in order to obtain that information." Casey explained this would give the City 30 more days to collect more information. Casey reviewed that the whole premise for this EAW and the project going forward, is that there are not toxins that are going to be released in the dredge sediments. He noted that the Braun Intertec Report is flawed, Table II measures the sediment standards in "parts per million" and the Pollution Control Agency standards are "parts per billion." So they used the Watershed Quality rules as a basis to say that there is no problem and it is just slightly above for lead an mercury, when in fact they are off by a thousand. Casey also referred to the comments received from Catherine Zimmer-Lokken who is a hazardous waste officer and has a masters in public health, which addresses the "parts per million/billion" problem. She noted there are high concentrations of lead a mercury and they also failed to test for PCB's which are likely to be present with a dump previously located in this area. Casey stated he is not against rehabilitation of downtown Mound, and thinks businesses are important, but does not think they should go forward without further assessing the environmental impacts of this dredge when it is going to be invading an area that was a dump site. Casey is also concerned that purple Ioostrife can and may invade this area. Casey suggested that the Park Commission recommend that the Council order an ElS. Sark and Open Space Commission Minutes July 11, 1996 Pederson agreed with Casey's concerns and stated that she is astounded and amazed with the inconsistencies with the reports. She stated that she wants the Council and those involved in the decision making process to be aware of the National Geographic article in the February 1996 issue where it discusses holding ponds for all the pollution from the roads, the oil, mercury and lead that comes off of automobiles, and if this project does go through, they should have a holding pond for this project, and not maybe later. Pederson agrees they need an ElS. Casey stated that is another concern of his is that there is no insurance that the City will implement a storm water management plan prior to the time of the dredge. Goode expressed a concern that the dredge may affect the water supply for the City, and is concerned that the high concentration of lead could be a public health issue if it gets into the drinking water. MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Casey to recommend that the City Council that an ElS should be conducted due to inconsistencies in the EAW, and to look at all the affects of the dredge, not only on the wetland, but for the possible contamination of ground water throughout, and that a decision on the approval of the dredge be held until the results of the ElS are made public and a public hearing is held. Motion carried unanimously. Darling recommended that Casey send a condensed form of his letter to The Laker on behalf of the Park Commission. Casey requested that the Park Commission receive a copy of Bruce Chamberlain's comments and response to the comments that will be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on July 23rd. RECEIVED J U L 1 7 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. [] I, il J,, - / CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES 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, August 13. 1996 to consider an amendment to the Mound zoning Ordinance establishing additional criteria pertaining to nonconforming uses, Section 350:420. The proposed provisions will allow certain improvements to residential properties without the issuance of a variance, or without the issuance of an additional variance in certain cases where variances have been previously issued. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Peggy/Ja~neJt, Plafining Secretary Published in "The Laker" July 27, 1996. printed on recycled paper C RECEIVED JUL 5 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-204, Phone: (612) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 ° TDD (612) 281-1290 July 2, 1996 Dear Mayor Polston and Members of the Mound City Council; By now, you are probably aware of the rights of way issue facing cities in Minnesota. US West's challenge to local management of the public rights of way is one of the most critical issues cities have faced in years. It was a topic of considerable discussion at the Annual Conference, where member cities supported the League Board of Directors decision to move forward with an aggressive work program and financing plan to counter this challenge. We need your city to make a special payment to this fund and help put the work plan into action. The work plan developed by the Rights of Way Task Force and approved by the Board could cost $325,000 or more. This assumes that a large portion of the work plan will be coordinated by and implemented through League staff. The Board has agreed to allocate $125,000 from the current League budget for the work plan and is asking member cities to voluntarily pay $200,000. Based on your city's 1995-96 League dues, your suggested minimum payment is $709. Please consider this request in July and submit your payment by August 15, 1996 if at all possible. If each city meets their minimum payment, the $200,000 target is reachable. However, because it is unlikely that all cities will join this voluntary effort, we encourage members to allocate more if this initiative is of particular importance to them. Two important points should be made: First, this is a voluntary payment. As a member of the League of Minnesota Cities, you are not required to take part in this effort. However, if total city payments fall significantly short of the $200,000 goal, the League will not be able to fully undertake the work plan. Second, your voluntary payment should not be Confused with your League membership dues which will be billed at the beginning of September. The Board of Directors and I understand that this issue must be weighed against the priorities in your city. However, we believe that the prospect of losing local control of public property warrants this extraordinary effort. This is a complicated issue, please consider it carefully. Enclosed is a brief information sheet to help you in your deliberations. If you have any questions, contact me at (218) 643-1431, League Executive Director Jim Miller at (612) 280- 1205 or (800) 925-1122, or any member of the Board of Directors. Sincerely, Blaine C. Hill President, League of Minnesota Cities °~cc: City Manager, A~tJ2:t~t~6~l~Ty/.q~.yimXt~TrO Com.mon questions about C pubhc-rights of way ........ Q W hy did local management of public rights of way become such an issue? A-In February, US West challenged a l--~kRedwood Falls ordinance that set standards for installing fiber optic cable in the public fight of way. The ordinance charges a small per foot fee, requires the cable to be encased in concrete conduit, or, if that isn't done, limits the city's liability in case the cable is damaged. US West asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to take over jurisdiction of city rights of way, and set aside any local regulations. Then, US West sued the city of Redwood Falls in District Court. US West asked the court to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance, and allow them to lay their fiber optic cable pending resolution of the matter before the PUC. QDidn 't the District Court rule in favor of Redwood Falls ? es. The League intervened on behalf of edwood Falls early in the proceedings and hired outside legal counsel with expertise in utility law. Those efforts paid off when a Fifth District Court Judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by US West. In the order dismissing the suit, the judge stated essentially that the state law creating the PUC authorized it to regulate telephone service providers but did not take away cities' right to impose reasonable regulations and to charge a reasonable franchise fee for the use of their streets and services. The judge wrote "...The public utility commission regulates telephone companies, not cities." QDoesn 't that settle things? A-Not necessarily. The District Court ruling .tr-~probably will have 'little bearing on the PUC ruling, which is expected later this summer. US West may also appeal the District Court ruling. Regardless of what happens in these two arenas, the Legislature will be looking at this issue when the 1997 session begins in January. QWhy is this such an important issue? Th 1 fth A-re imp ications o is case are enormous. ./-nkAs deregulation and competition among telecommunication and utility providers continues, there will be more and more demand for access to the ground under city streets. All kinds of businesses and utilities make use of that scarce space - telephone companies, cable television companies, gas companies, power companies - and so on. If cities are not allowed to manage the use of the right of way, streets could be tom up regularly and underground facilities could become a tangled maze. Imagine your city completing a major repaving project, only to have the street tom up by a utility looking to install lines. Imagine the phone calls to city hall from irate residents if streets are blocked off two or three times a year. Imagine your frustration when it becomes obvious that local taxpayers are being forced to subsidize private industry and pay higher taxes to build and maintain city streets ....... Q So what is the League of Minnesota Cities doing? A-As the magnitude of this issue became xr-~clear, the League Board of Directors appointed a Rights of Way Task Force to look at what should be done. Through the course of several meetings, the Task Force developed a work program that involves legal, legislative, and public information strategies to protect cities' role in managing the public fight of way. The Task Force estimates that full implementation of the work program could cost as much as $325,000. The Board has agreed to finance this work program by allocating $125,000 from the current League budget and asking member cities to voluntarily allocate $200,000. Q$200, 000 is a lot of money. What is the League going to do with all of that? A-The work plan includes legal .t Xrepresentation, work with legislative leaders, and an extensive statewide public information campaign. While League staff will take on the bulk of this work, it's likely that outside assistance will be needed. Q How did you decide how much you want our city to pay? mpYour suggested payment is based on a ercentage of your city's 1995-96 League dues. QDo we have to pay? How will the payment affect our dues? A-No city if required to pay. This is strictly a _/-~voluntary payment. Also, it's entirely separate from the League dues statement your city will receive in September. Ql~T~e~What if our city decides not to pay? required to take part in this effort. However, if total city payments fall significantly short of the $200,000 goal, the League will not be able to fully undertake the work plan. QCan our citypay more? A-Certainly. In fact, we encourage members · l~to allocate more to this fund if this initiative is of particular importance to them. If all member cities meet their minimum payment, the $200,000 target is reachable - but it's unlikely that every city will join this voluntary effort. Q Afier we pay, how can we stay up to date on the issue? A-We will keep you informed of any ./-~.developments through articles in Cities Bulletin, direct mailings, and broadcast faxes. QClearly, ourpayment is onlypart of the solution. What else can we do? A-The best thing city officials can do is stay ./-~.informed, and pass that information along to as many others as possible. Discuss fights of way with your local editors and reporters; make local control a campaign issue for your House and Senate candidates; talk to your local Chamber of Commerce about the business impact of tom-up streets; let taxpayers know you're working to protect their investment in streets. QI'm still confused. Who shouM I call? A-_If you have more questions, please contact · 2KLeague Executive Director Jim Miller at (612) 280-1205 or (800) 925-I 122, or any member of the Board of Directors. It ,,11 [] I il ,1~, I t., CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0500 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 16, 1996 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK SUBJECT: GARDEN LEASE Leo and Beverly Wallis, 1668 Canary Lane, Mound, have applied again for a garden lease. In the past they have applied for the lease one year at a time. This time they are applying for a 10 year lease. The property is known as: Lots 1, 2, 3, & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood. This city property is located north of their address on Canary Lane. I have prepared a lease agreement for 10 years for $1. A motion of approval is needed by the Council. IS printed on recycled paper ~II~gmHrg, 3f~ ~ld~.. 3RI) ..~ ~)' ~U'. JULY THE CITY OF MOUND, A MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , ZB 96 · ~r~y o! th ~-d ~, ~,~-._., ~.~.~.~LY AND LEO WALLIS .~ ~$ ~ ~ ~, ~. MINNESOTA ~ ~: LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 22, BLOCK $, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 12 0223 1ST oI.......EA..R...g..H_ ................ ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... air~ .....go aad w~ tAe ~aid £~,~o~ ..... to pay aa ~ for ~ =~x~,; ~ th ~o! }1 lONE DOLLAR} AND OTHER GOOD & VALUABLE CONSIDERATION IT IS SPECIFICALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE LESSEES SHALL ONLY HAVE A RIGHT TO USE THE AFOREDESCRIBED LANDS AND THAT ONLY USE THAT THEY MAY PUT THIS PROPERTY TO IS TO'PLANT A GARDEN· THE LESSEES FURTHER AGREE THAT THEY WILL MAINTAIN THE SITE MOWING THE GRASS, CUTTING THE WEEDS AND KEEPING THE SITE CLEAR OF LITTER DURING THE TERM OF THIS LEASE. THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LESSEES MAY USE THIS GROUND IS TO PLANT A VEGETABLE GARDEN, WHICH MAY NOT BE USED AS A COMMERCIAL GARDEN PLOT, AND THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE,PARKING OR OTHER USES OF THIS PROPERTY BY THE LESSEES. ~o,....,. ~ ~ a~ ~ ~.~ of t~ ~ r~ ~, a~ ~ ~ ~joy t~ a~TM ~t~ ~rrg~r I~ afor~ prgm~ ~ t~ ~ ~......, .................... ~ ~ ~i~, i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LEO WALLIS BEVERLY WALLIS CITY MANAGER, CITY OF MOUND BILLS .July 23, 1996 BATCH 6072 Total Bills $202,129.95 $202,129.95 .-) CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT June 1996 50.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND June 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,280,640 0 0 5,800 250 2,995 77,100 17,763 58,935 890,740 22,615 68,725 48,250 786 4,523 60,000 7,420 31,815 35,200 4,038 6,574 43,5OO 0 0 10,000 1,039 6,027 2,4517230 ~ 179 594 307,570 15,544 168,885 108,320 21,066 62,188 1,430,000 150,941 692,230 410,000 35,577 189,334 766,500 71,414 392,512 5,100 400 2,290 70,800 (407) 67,825 (1,280,640) 0.00% (2,805) 51.64% (18,165) 76.44% (822,015) 7.72% (43,727) 9.37% (28,185) 53.03% (28,626) 18.68% (43,500) 0.00% (3,973) 60.27% (2,271,636) 7.33% (138,685) 54.91% (46,132) 57.41% (737,770) 48.41% (220,666) 46.18% (373,988) 51.21 % (2,81 O) 44.90% (2,975) 95.80% 07/10/96 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT June 1996 50.00% June 1996 BUDGET EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 68,730 5,006 Pro motions 4,000 4,000 Cable TV 600 147 City Manager/Clerk 185,030 11,345 Elections 11,300 75 Assessing 54,450 2 Finance 163,600 18,043 Computer 22,000 0 Legal 1 06,440 7,860 Police 804,640 59,185 Civil Defense 3,780 197 Planning/Inspections 167,320 13,385 Streets 398,840 40,107 City Property 92,790 9,231 Parks 135,300 10,255 Sum ruer Recreation 29,700 0 Contingencies 40,000 329 Transfers 155,310 11,784 YTD PERCENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 35,277 33,453 51.33% 4,000 0 100.00% 397 203 66.17% 69,578 115,452 37.60% 1,747 9,553 15.46% 453 53,997 0.83% 78,188 85,412 47.79% 10,263 11,737 46.65% 34,211 72,229 32.14% 378,711 425,929 47.07% 1,524 2,256 40.32% 72,344 94,976 43.24% 221,782 1 77,058 55.61% 47,381 45,409 51.06% 54,966 80,334 40.63% 0 29,700 0.00% 3,295 36,705 8.24% 70,695 84,615 45.52% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~443,830 190,951 1 ~084~812 1 ~359~018 44.39% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 Recycling Fund 122,420 Liquor Fund 205,930 Water Fund 413,410 Sewer Fund 963,180 Cemetery Fund 5,570 Docks Fund 37,470 25,210 143,233 1 64,337 46.57% 15,050 76,828 45,592 62.76% 16,482 109,857 96,073 53.35% 26,294 167,786 245,624 40.59% 98,015 539,447 423,733 56.01% 530 1,823 3,747 32.73% 4,423 21,010 16,460 56.07% exp95 07/10/96 G.B. League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence RECEIVED JUL 145 University Avenue ~C~est, St. Paul, TIN 55103-2044 Phone: (612) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 ° TDD (612) 281-1290 July 1, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Managers, Administrators, Clerks, Cities over 5,000 population James F. Miller, Executive Director ~,o /t~ ~ NLC Congress of Cities, December 7-10, 1996 - San Antonio, Texas Registration - Complete Immediately A brochure outlining the conference program and registration information for the 1996 NLC Congress of Cities is enclosed. It is extremely important that hotel reservations be made as soon as possible. The earlier your city returns registration forms and requests for hotel accommodations, the more likely you will receive your first choice. Please note that LMC has reserved 55 rooms at the Hyatt Regency San Antonio and 45 rooms at the San Antonio Marriott Riverwalk for Minnesota delegates. To stay at one of these, write "Minnesota bloc" on your hotel selection form and designate which is your first and second choice. Note that both are within walking distance of the convention center. The reservation deadline for the "Minnesota Bloc" in August 2. Of course, you may select any hotel if you do not wish to stay with the Minnesota delegation. Conference Program Highlights As in previous years, there are several pre-conference training seminars listed in the brochure. These do provide worthwhile opportunities for city officials to get additional training and leadership skills. Most do involve separate registration and costs. Also, please note that we will host a breakfast with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities on Sunday, December 7, 1996. More information about the site, program and cost will be forthcoming. If the League can be of any assistance to you, please contact us. Enc. AN EQUAL OPPORTIfNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIgSION JULY 8, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orr Burma, Council Representative Mark Hanus, Building official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was: Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle. The following people were also in attendance: John Hubler, Jim Brunzell, Julie Brunzell, Brad Biermann, Sara Biermann, Todd Rask, Thomas Albert, Joe Stibal, Georgianna Stibal, Liz Cloutier, Patti Foxwell, Robert Foxwell, Glenn Melena, and Reuben Hartman. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of June 24, 1996 were presented for approval. MOTION made by weiland, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 24, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ~MENDM~NT FOR V~RIANCE STREAMLINING Building official, Jon Sutherland, briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and indicated that it has already been extensively reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. If the ordinance is adopted, staff will monitor the impact of these provisions over the next year and report the findings back to both groups. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. Voss referred to the portion of the proposed ordinance which states, ". . provided that the principal structure is in sound condition as 'determined by the Mound Building official" and expressed a concern that the interpretation of what is "sound condition" may change, depending on who is the building official. Voss also commented that it will be difficult to take away this ordinance amendment after a year review, even if it is found that it was not a large benefit to the City. He does not expect the sunset law to work. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Voss asked the Building official if this ordinance amendment will save staff time. Sutherland commented that initially it will take staff time to figure the percentages of setbacks, etc., but feels that in the long run it will help and save staff time. Hanus stated that by having a sunset date will allow staff time to get comfortable with it, and it allows us to loosen it up, or to eliminate it. Hanus is not overly concerned with staff time. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, I996 Voss questioned how we will know if time is saved or added? And if a time study is completed, he noted that this will require time by staff to complete. He does not foresee receiving realistic figures. Mueller stated that they have spent a lot of time on this ordinance amendment and feels a bigger problem still exists, in that when people buy properties they are not made aware of the nonconforming status of their property. Buyers are "unaware." The City needs to come up with a reasonable way to let people know what they are buying. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment for streamlining variances, as proposed. Mueller commented that this is a good idea and believes it will work in the long run and it works towards the goal to reduce variances, however, feels that truth in zoning would be a better way to deal with this. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Mueller, Hanus, Burma, Glister, and Michael. Those opposed were: Weiland, ross and Reifschneider. Reifschneider commented that his reason for being opposed to the ordinance amendment is that previous numbers did not show that this would be a large benefit in reducing the number of variances. Weiland agreed. CASE 96-29: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, JOHN HUBLER, 5816 GB~dTDVIEW BLVD. t LOT It MOUND SHORES~ PID 14-117-24 13 0003 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to substantially remodel an existing dwelling by adding a 28' x 34' second floor addition and a 4' x 8' deck. Variances are required for the proposed construction because the existing home has a nonconforming setbacks, as follows: required existinq/prop, variance north front yard - house 20' north front yard - garage 20' south side yard - house 6' lakeside - deck 50' 3.8' 16.2' 2.1' 17.9' 5.8' .2' 36' 14' The north front yard setback variances for this case are significant in number, but relatively insignificant in actual impact since the home abuts an unimproved public right-of-way that receives limited public usage. 2 Planning Commission M/nutes July 8, I~96 The nonconforming lakeshore setback of 36' to the deck is due to a small dredged area in the shoreline, most of the lakeshore is approximately 45' from the edge of the deck. The existing deck will not be modified as part of this request. The homes immediately south of the subject property are closer to the lake than the Hubler home. The existing home and garage are in good condition, and because of the configuration of the house, expansion into a second story makes sense. Construction of the proposed addition will not further encroach on any of the existing nonconforming setbacks. On the basis of practical difficulty, staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the remodeling of the existing home subject to the condition that the finished floor elevation of the lowest level of the existing home (crawl space) be raised to a minimum elevation of 942.0 consistent with Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Sutherland substantiated the requirement to raise the lowest floor of the dwelling by noting sections from City Code Section 300:15, Floodplain Overlay Regulations. Subdivision 8. c. was specifically reviewed, "When the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions to the interior and exterior of a nonconforming structure exceeds 50 percent of the Assessor's market value of the structure, the structure shall be made to comply with the standards of Subdivision 4 of this ordinance. The cost of alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the City's initial floodplain ordinance shall be calculated at current cost in making this determination." Sutherland noted that in previous cases, all but one has been required to be raised out of the floodplain. Sutherland commented that the applicant would prefer to seek the variance to raise the structure, but staff's recommendation is to require it meet the ordinance. Reifschneider clarified that the applicant could put 4 inches of concrete in the crawl space and this would make the lowest floor conforming. Sutherland confirmed that this would work, and noted that the crawl space is 4'3" high. Sutherland emphasized that if the addition and alterations are less than 50% of the existing value, they do not have to raise the dwelling, however, this would be another structure that will need to be reported to FEMA that is located in the floodplain. John Hubler, owner and applicant, stated they have lived in this house for 13-14 years, they have a sump pump in the crawl space, but they have never plugged it in because there has never been a need for it. They do not have draintile either, and they have never had water in their crawl space. They have never had sewage in their crawl space either, unlike some of his neighbors. 3 i Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Hubler noted that his original plan was to raise the house and convert the crawl space into the lower floor and make a split level home, however, due to the elevation of the floor in the crawl space did not think this was an option. He explained that the second story addition is the quickest, simplest and most cost effective way to add square footage to the house. Hubler believes the cost of the existing structure is more than 50 percent of what the proposed construction will cost. Sutherland stated that the 50% issue is still a question that needs to be answered. He explained that you do not go by how much it will cost the homeowner, but by what the value of the new construction will be. Hubler stated that he installed the wood retaining at the shoreline to create a swimming area for his kids. The Commission questioned why a split entry would not work. It was determined that if they add four inches to the floor in the crawl space and raise the second story it would work, and they would not have to pay flood insurance. Hubler stated that he would still like the option of either a second story addition or a split entry. Sutherland stated that staff would recommend approval of either option as long as they meet the floor elevation requirement and they stay within footprint as proposed. Hubler asked if the 10' x 10' mechanical area can remain below the elevation of 942. The Building Official confirmed that this area must also meeting the minimum floor elevation requirement. Sutherland also stated that he would like the applicant to submit plans for each option prior to the City Council review of this case to avoid any misunderstandings. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as requested for either option of a split level or second floor addition subject to the lowest floor elevation being raised to meet the minimum elevation of 942, and subject to the footprint not changing. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1996 CASE 96-35: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CHRIS BRaWDL, 4842 WInRHIRR BLVD. t LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON PLACEr PID 24-117-24 14 006~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to add a 20' x 28' second floor addition over an existing garage. The subject dwelling unit is one portion of a twin home and there are no similar improvements planned for the other half of the structure. The proposed improvement will change the front elevation of the building. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 In 1986, the City of Mound approved a variance for this lot to allow the home to be built with a 35 foot lakeshore setback. The variance was granted due to the existence of a metropolitan sanitary sewer lift station that is located adjacent to Wilshire Blvd. The proposed improvement will not increase the amount of encroachment into the nonconforming lakeshore setback. Since the expansion of the structure does not increase the amount of the nonconforming setback, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance. Variance approval at this time is consistent with the actions that were taken by the City in 1986. Sutherland confirmed that this dwelling is not located in the floodplain. MOTION made by Weiland, se¢on4ed by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carrie4 unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1996. CASE 96-36= VARIANCE FOR DECKt JOE & GEORGIANNE STIB~L, 4723 B~aCHSIDE RO]tD, LOT 3 & 1/2 OF 2, BLOCK 8, SH~DYWOOD POI~t PID 18= 117-23 23 0046 Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicants have requested an "after-the-fact" variance for a deck that was constructed without a building permit. The new 8' x 16' deck replaced a 9' x 23' deck along the western side of the home. An outdoor spa is located adjacent to the deck. A variance for the spa also needs to be addressed since it does not meet required setbacks. At the lowest point to the right-of-way, the deck has a setback of 15 feet. The code requires a 20 foot setback to Lakeside Lane since the home is on a corner lot, resulting in a 5 foot variance. A finding of practical difficulty could be rendered in this case since the design of the home and the placement of the patio door make the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa. If the Planning Commission finds that practical difficulty applies to this request, approval of the variance for the deck and spa is recommended subject to the submission of all required building permit application materials and appropriate fees, including penalties. Reifschneider commented that the deck looks better, and noted that they could take into consideration the extra distance from the property line to the actual location of the curb. 5 , I ,,I I I Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, with the finding that practical difficulty exists due to the design of the home and the placement of the patio door which makes the west side of the home a logical location for the deck and spa, and because this lot is a corner lot, and there is a distance of 5 feet +/- from the property line to the curb. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1996. CASE 96-37: STREET VACATION - COBDEN LANE (PUBLIC HEARING) ROBERT FOXWELL~ 5090 WiNDSOR ROkD~ LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTEr PID 25- 117-24 12 0234 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Engineer's memorandum. Sutherland reviewed the history of a previous request to vacate this portion of Cobden Lane. In late 1992 and early 1993, as part of the platting procedures for Teal Pointe, a request to vacate portions of Cobden Lane came before the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of neighbors, including owners of property adjacent to Cobden Lane spoke out against the proposed vacation of Cobden Lane and the preliminary plat of Teal Pointe. The current vacation request covers the exact area of Cobden Lane that failed approval in January 1993 due to lack of a 4/5 majority vote. The right-of-way in question is very steep and it is highly unlikely that a street would ever be constructed. All the platted lots adjacent to this portion of Cobden Lane have frontage on an improved street, except Lots 1 and 2, Block 14, Whipple. It appears the most logical way to gain access to these lots would be from the end of Drummond Road. This parcel is not served with either sanitary sewer or watermain. The City watermains in both Drummond Road and Windsor Road are dead end mains and it is conceivable that the City may some day wish to construct a loop from Drummond to Windsor by way of Cobden Lane right-of-way. At the previous hearing, the subject of a public walkway within this right-of-way was also discussed. Even though it is unlikely, a street would ever be constructed in this section of Cobden Lane right-of-way, staff recommendation is for denial of the vacation request for the following reasons: The proposed vacation does not appear to be in the public's best interest. The right-of-way may be needed in the future for a watermain loop. 3. Adjacent parcel does not front on an improved City street. 6 Planning Commission Hinutes July 8, I996 e The right-of-way could be used for a public walkway in the future. Voss questioned how wide of an area would be needed for the city to install utilities. Sutherland noted that it depends on the depth and type of utility, and they could require as much as 30 feet. Mueller referred to reason #3 and commented that the vacation of Cobden will not affect the fact that the adjacent parcel (109) currently does not have frontage on an improved road, in fact it would eliminate the corner lot requirements, which have more restrictive setbacks and tend to require variances more often. Mueller suggested that they could vacate the road and require easements, and emphasized that this would help for zoning purposes. Vacating the road and requiring that easements be retained was discussed. It was noted that if easements were placed on the vacated road, the adjacent owners could not build on the easements, but they could build up to it. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Glen Melina of 5139 Windsor stated that he is not in favor of the vacation, and he would like to see this area kept "as is" and would like to see a walkway. Bob Fox-well, applicant, stated that he has a contract to purchase Lot 4 in Teal Pointe which is located to the east of Cobden Lane. He explained that Lot 4 has a 30 foot setback requirement from Cobden Lane which makes the property impossible to build on, it would allow for only a 27 foot wide house. He emphasized that due to topography, the house would have to be constructed towards the front of the lot. He will not object to a walkway or utility easement, and believes the property will never be used for a road. If the road is vacated, it would allow for a 50 foot wide building footprint, and will increase both adjacent lot sizes. He stressed that parcel 109 would probably get it's road access from Drummond, not Cobden, and by vacating the road it would make that lot more useable too. Hanus stated that he is not opposed to retaining easements if the road is vacated. Hanus questioned liability concerns if a walkway easement is retained and the area is not cleaned up or improved. Brad Biermann, 5106 Windsor Road stated that his property is adjacent to a portion of Cobden proposed to be vacated, so he would gain 15 feet, however, he feels he would be losing 30 feet if it were vacated. He is opposed to the vacations and wants to retain the 30 foot buffer and the ability to walk there. He would like to see it stay as city property se he can be sure it will not get built on. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 Hanus stated that the City has control of platted right-of-ways but they do not own them. VOSS stated that if the road is vacated, then there is a guarantee that a road will never be constructed. Burma stated that the City has the right to put a road in unless it is vacated. Jim Brunzell, 5101 Windsor Road, stated that the only interest this vacation will serve is the applicant's interest, not the public's interest. He does not feel a 10 foot wide walkway would compare to the 30 feet they have now. Todd Rask, 5109 Drummond Road stated that he walks his dogs down there, and this area gives access in the winter to the lake to ice fish. He is opposed to the vacation and likes the buffer provided by the maples or oaks. He noted that if the property is vacated, the owners could cut the trees down. Thomas Albert, 5116 Drummond Road supports his neighbors and opposes the vacation and stated that he likes the buffer. Reuben Hartman, 5124 Windsor Road, has resided at his current house for 17 years, and is strictly against the road, he wants to see the trees remain and would like to see it remain "as is". Voss emphasized that by retaining the road, it will probably be improved in the future because this area will show a need for it. Applicant, Mr. Foxwell, stated that he sympathizes and respects the neighbor's concerns. He wants to keep as many trees as possible and also wants to retain a buffer. He believes they can build a house on Lot 4 without cutting any trees that are more than 6 inches in diameter. He questions if it is not in the interest of the public to vacate this area to serve as a buffer. Mueller stated that it could be possible to require a nature conservation easement which would not permit the removal of trees and will help protect drainage and erosion control issues. Mueller asked the applicant if he would be in favor of the vacation subject to a nature conservation easement, utility easement, and walkway easement being placed on the property. Mr. Fox-well stated he has no problem with the easements. Mr. Brunzell stated that even if there is a possibility a road would be constructed there someday, he would rather take the chance and not have the road vacated. Mr. Biermann agreed. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. 8 July Planning Commission Minutes Michael sees good reasons to vacate Cobden, but also hears that the neighbors do not want it vacated. Burma stated that he has not heard that not vacating it would be in the best interest, and feels it would be in the best interest of both sides to vacate the road with the easements. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the street vacation as recommended by staff. Voss stated, for the benefit of the public, that he is afraid the road will go in, and suggested some other action should be taken so this area stays in its pristine condition. Mueller stated that he will vote against the motion because he feels the neighbors concerns can be addressed by requiring the nature conservation easement, walkway easement and utility easement. Michael agrees, but commented that the public does not agree. Mueller suggested to the applicant that if the vacation is not approved that he still has the option of applying for a variance to the setback to Cobden, and noted that he would be in favor of some sort of variance. Weiland agreed, because Cobden is unimproved. MOTION carried $ to 3. Those in favor were: Reifschneider, ross, Weiland, Michael, and Glister. Those opposed were Burma, Hanus, and Mueller. Hanus commented that he has some further questions that he wants to ask the City Engineer, and suspects he will have that opportunity at the Council meeting. He feels that every issue they address can be taken care of with an easement. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 13, 1996. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Glister asked Hanus about the Baylor Case, and asked about Baylor's "rebuttal's to the Planning Commission's decisions." Hanus requested the Secretary to supply the Commission with a copy of Baylor's "rebuttal's". MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 9 J ,J ~ I !1 J,, I Il,, PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 11, 1996 ' ' Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Bill Darling, Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, Mary Goode, Rita Pederson, and Bev Botko, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Janis Geffre was absent and excused. The following persons were also in attendance: Frank Ahrens, Sandi Effertz, Tom Effertz, Lida Miller, Wanda Stuerman, Dune Stuerman, Ron McCombs, Bob Shidla, and Mark Goldberg. MINUTES Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Botko to approve the minutes of the June 13, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Meyer requested time to give a report on the Community Ice Skating Rink. Ahrens announced that she has to leave after item 5, Dock Fees. Meyer requested a report from Ahrens before she leaves regarding the tax forfeit property which was released for sale by the Council. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH #8 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the staff report. City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private encroachments located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. The City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to look at the process for dealing with structures on the commons (i.e. buildings, flagpoles, decks, etc.), and City staff is withholding all action on these type of structures until the Council reviews the recommendation of the task force and gives staff further direction. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #8, subject to the conditions as noted in the table. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Park and Open Space Commission Hinutes July II, 1996 Hold any action, pending recommendation from Commons Task Force. 42406 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR TODD BRANDSTETTER - STAIRWAY - FLAG POLE APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. The applicant was not present. The Parks Director indicated that Mr. Brandstetter had not been contacted. The neighbors announced that Mr. Brandstetter has moved and the property is under new ownership. MOTION made by Darling that the Mound Park and Open Space Commission not review anything in Batch #8, either recommend, or take any other actions regarding public land permits until the Mound City Council makes a decision regarding the authority and involvement of the Commons Task Force on such issues. Seconded by Goode. Ahrens referenced the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on page 14 of the packet where the Council addressed this issue. Darling stated that his concern is that the last time they reviewed this Batch, the Park Commission asked the Council to decide on the issue of who has the authority of the Commons Task Force and what is the direction, and at that time they made a decision not to look at public land permits, and that decision has not yet made made by the Council, so he sees no reason to continue looking at the public land permits with the issues outstanding. Ahrens stated that the COW Minutes did reflect that the Council did discuss this situation and it was the Council's opinion that Park and Open Space Commission ought to proceed with any items that were not specifically buildings, but that stairways, retaining walls and the such should still be under the purview of the Park Commission until the Task Force came back with a recommendation with respect to other encroachments, and most of Batch #8 is stairways. Darlings stated that the issues are still the same, if the Park and Open Space Commission does not approve what is recommended, the people still have the right to object to their recommendation and the Council will approve the permits pending resolution of the Commons Task Force. He thinks they need to send a message again to the City Council that it is time to make a decision and to stop ignoring this issue. He does not see why the Park Commission should be put in the position to be the bad guys when they have absolutely no authority whatsoever, and then they are made to look like fools because the Council will approve the permit regardless. Casey referred to the motion made by the Park Commission on May 9, 1996 shown on page 15 of their packet, which states, "Darling moved that the Park Commission not make any further recommendations for Batch #8 until the City Council determines if the Commons Task Force or the Park Commission should address the issues relating to private structures on public lands. Byrnes seconded the motion .... Motion carried 4-2-1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Geffre, ,~ ,I I I I I~, I Ii,, Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 11, 1996 Darling, and Pederson. Those opposed were Casey and Goode. Ahrens abstained." · . )arling stated that he still sees this as a commons issue, it is the same Batch, and we have seen no resolution from the City Council regarding the direction of the Commons Task Force, what authority they have, and what authority the Mound Park and Open Space Commission has. Casey clarified that Darling is suggesting that the Council determine whether or not the Commons Task Force has concurrent jurisdiction over these issues or whether or not they have sole advisory authority over these issues pertaining to structures as opposed to the Park Commission. Goode referred to the Staff Report for Batch//8 which shows that five out of the eight dock sites that it says "Hold any action, pending recommendation from Commons Task Force." So any action they take is subject to review by the Commons Task Force, and it is redundant and a waste of their time to discuss it. Casey has an issue with what the Commons Task Force is suppose to do. However, he does not see the Task Force as something that is authorized by Ordinance, unlike the Park Commission which is authorized to review Park and Open Space Commission issues which includes docks and commons issues, etc. Outside the purview of our Ordinance, a Task Force was formed that he views that circumvents the ordinance by suggesting that somehow they have no authority over certain issues pending their decisions, and he thinks that contradicts the ordinance at least in spirit, so has some similar concerns with Darling, although maybe they should address the structures that are not in question which they would probably approve of anyway. Ahrens added that the COW minutes does say that the discussion included the Building Official and Parks Director, and it was the consensus of the entire Council to pursue non-building type encroachments. The Task Force's purview is specifically the survey with respect to docks and encroachments on the commons, and they gave the Task Force direction to continue to discuss how to deal with those encroachments, excluding stairways and retaining walls. She stated that there was a resident present at the last Council meeting that was upset they did not get a permit for their stairway because they had company coming for the 4th of July and they did not have a stairway to get to their dock. Ahrens referred to the June Park Commission minutes, where at the end of the meeting, when she was not present, state, "Darling expressed a concern that the Park Commission Council Representative is not communicating the Park Commissions motions and concerns onto the Council." Ahrens stated that the Motion made at the May Park Commission meeting regarding the processing of public land permits was taken to the City Council and it was discussed and those Council minutes were provided to the Park Commission, so she does take issue with the fact that the minutes say it was not brought to the City Council, because they were, and she feels the COW minutes on page 14 of the packet are proof. Casey stated that he opposed the motion back in May, and he thinks they ought to move forward and make recommendations as people are here and they want to speak, and he feels the Commission still has some input. He understands Darling's point, but thinks the Park Commission should take care of business and worry about the Commons Task Force jurisdiction Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July II, 1996 at another time. Botko agrees that the Park Commission should review the permits. Goode commented that in May they were told it did not matter how they voted, that it would wait until it went to the Task Force, so instead of spending the time discussing and reviewing these permits and going out and looking at them, is really a waste of time. Casey clarified that they are not being asked to vote on the structures that the Commons Task Force is taking issue with. Darling noted that there is a big difference between a "discussion" and "consensus" and a "decision" and a "motion that is passed." And, the Planning Commission had to do the same thing to get the attention of the City Council, all the way to the point of going on strike and not addressing anything. The Park Commission can continue to play their game or they can send a strong message that it is time to make a decision. He thinks it is time to send a message. Ahrens called the question. MOTION failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Darling, Goode and Meyer. Those opposed were: Casey, Botko, Pederson, and Ahrens. MOTION made by Ahrens to set aside this permit until we contact the new owner, rather than issue the permit to the past resident. Botko seconded. Motion carried 6-0-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Casey, Meyer, Botko and Pederson. Darling Abstained. 42461 4747 ISLAND VIEW DR BRADLEY MILLER - STAIRWAY - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.' MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Goode, to recommend approval of the permit, as recommended by staff. Casey commented that he fails to see safety or security reasons for the light according to the policy adopted for "Guidelines for Lights on Public Lands." Byrnes arrived. Ahrens asked if this light is shielded? Staff stated that it could be made part of the approval that it be shielded. Ahrens noted that it is a very long stairway, and thinks applicant would argue that it is a safety issue. Ahrens accepted an amendment to her motion to require a shield on the light. Motion carried 6-0-2. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Goode, Casey, Meyer, Botko and Pederson. Darling and Byrnes Abstained. Byrnes stated that she abstained because she did not hear all the discussion. 4 I,I I I I Park and Open Space Co~ission Minutes July 11, 1996 42511 4753 ISLAND VIEW DR CHRIS BRIGHT (contacted) I- STAIRWAY - RETAINING WALL ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE. IN NEED OF MINOR REPAIRS FOR ACCEPTABLE CONDITION, LOOSE STONES ON TREADS. PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.e The applicant was not present. Ahrens asked if the applicant concurs with the recommendation. Fackler stated that the applicant was aware of the recommendation. MOTION made by Ahrens, that presuming the applicant was contacted and is aware of the recommendation, she recommended approval as recommended by staff. Motion seconded by Pederson. Casey commented that he sees no substantial security or safety reason to allow the electric. Motion carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 42556 4757 ISLAND VIEW DR TOM EFFERTZ SHARES SITE WITH: Ir:ROY GEISE, 4764 IVD (contacted) - STAIRWAY - RETAINING WALL - ELECTRIC OUTLET APPROVE WITH CONDITION THAT A GRIPABLE HANDRAIL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.° Tom and Sandi Effertz were present. Mr. Effertz stated that they will repair the handrail, and that they have already furnished the Building Official with a copy of the State Electrical Inspector's report on the electrical when it was installed four years ago. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Botko, to recommend approval of the permit as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 42586 4763 ISLAND VIEW DR DEBORAH MATHEWS (contacted) - STAIRWAY o PLATFORM - RETAINING WALL - FLAG POLE - ELECTRIC, LOW VOLTAGE APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE (MARGINAL CONDITION) PLAN FOR RESTORATION NEEDED. APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* REMOVE LOOSE ELECTRICAL WIRE. ,,~jl'he applicant was not present. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July II, 1996 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Botko to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. 42626 4767 ISLAND VIEW DR RONALD MCCOMBS (contacted) - STAIRWAY - PLATFORM - ELECTRIC LIGHT - WATER PUMP - RETAINING WALL APPROVE (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). APPROVE PENDING STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* APPROVE UPPER WALL (ACCEPTABLE CONDITION). LOWER WALL IN NEED OF REPAIR OR REMOVAL. NEED PLAN FOR RESTORATION. Ronald McCombs was present. Mr. McCombs explained that his lights are very Iow wattage, are shielded, and are approved outdoor fixtures. He installed the lights 15 years ago and installed them for safety issues only. He agrees with staff recommendation, except for the lower retaining wall which staff recommended "repair or removal." He is concerned that if the wall is removed there will be problems with erosion, and stated that it would be difficult to repair. He stated that the retaining walls were installed 19 or 20 years ago when the bank eroded during a rain storm. He installed four walls at his own expense and brought in about ten dump truck loads of fill. They tried to get the City to help them with the issue, but received none. They found ground cover that stays on the hills, and they like it natural. He does not want to take responsibility for the walls, and stated that if the City can repair them, but does not feel they are his problem. He stated that this land is literally unusable, and does not Qe~d'the City should ask people to take care of it, and that this shoreline will never be pristine, and[it has never been pristine. Casey stated again that he is opposed to staff recommendation because he has not found safety or security reasons for the lights. MOTION made by Botko, seconded by Pederson, to recommend approval as recommended by staff. Sandy Effertz stated that this area is very dark at night and there is a safety reason for the lights. Meyer agrees that it would cause more damage to repair or remove retaining wall. Ahrens asked if it would be better to leave the wall until it falls over? She suggested that the remaining vegetation may be enough to hold the hillside back. Botko accepted an amendment to her motion to recommend that the lower wall remain until such time it fails. MOTION carried 6-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode and Byrnes. Casey was opposed and Darling abstained. ~ n SPace Commissio. ~. ~' , I MOTION made by Ahrens, Seconded by Pederson, to recommend apProval, as recommended by staff. Motion Carried 7-1· Those in favor were: Ahrens, Botko, Meyer, Pederson, Goode, Byrnes, and Case· Darling abstained. JAMEs MILLER Lidia Miller stated that th L'?~A'rFO~ I,, r~'STORATION retaining Wall and they agree w/th staff recommendation. She emphasized the need for both lights for safety reasons. Meyer commented that they have a martin house full of sparrows, and that sparrows raise cain w/th all other song birds, and Sparrows are not native to this area. MOTION made by Ahre roe_c..°mmended by staff ,n,s_,..seconded by BOtko -- · ,u[Ko, Meyer ~--, · ~vJo[Jon Carried R.1 1 tu recommend apProval . abstained.---' ,-uuerson, Goode and -- - ' ' Those in favo- - · dS oyrnes C ..... ~ were· Ahr-,o · a~uy Was Opnos__, ' . -..o, These Cases will be reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1996. ~' uu and Darling :~EQUEST FROM El ~EAGu~ ~-,- .-- Ve have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the aseball field at Phi/brook Park, at their expense, and to allow Continued Use of the field. The 'Ogram is for 13 Year Olds and is a new OpPortunity for Youth participation. this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes -=Y are planning. This request also raises COncerns about the need for: protective fencing for yers on the bench and for Spectators, an OVerhang on the backstop for foul balls, bathrooms, Ome run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the ]hborhood should also be Considered. Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and late I have not seen any m/S-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors. Shid/a, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League was present. ~Y asked if the neighbors Were notified. They Were not. 7 July 11, 1996 park and open space commission Minutes Mr. Shidla explained that they plan to install 20 to 30 feet of fencing down each path line, and asked if maybe they could have the backstoP from S~nson Park transferred to this park. He commented that the length of field is adequate. They plan to expand the infield by cutting back the grass another 15 to 20 feet, which is back to its original size. This work will be volunteered and they will pay for the improvements with money from fundraisers. Shidla stated that they foresee two gameS per week. The both the men and women Ahrens quest!oned Pr°iected use. Secretary indicated that before the new Lions fields were completed, leagues utilized this field on Monday and Wednesday evenings. Byrnes commented that they should do anything they can to improve this town for the youth, especially 13 year olds who need organized activities, and we should encourage sports. Fackler stated that he would like to be notified prior to any work commencing on the field. Meyer agreed with Byrnes that the City should support their youth. Meyer would like to see the City help the Baberuth association in restoring the field, and maybe they can include money in a future parkS budget for a new backstOp. Fackler commented, that the satellites are already supplied by the City at this park, and there is a drinking fountain. MoTiON made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the request to make improvementS to the ball field at Philbrook Park, subiect to the League working with the Parks Director and subiect to the approval of the Parks Department. Motion carried unanimouslY. to The CommOns Task Force is currently looking into the fee schedule for the dockS program determine the financial impact of city owned dockS on the budget. Attached is a work sheet that was received on June 27, 1996 that will be used at their next meeting on July 18th and will possibly be revised. The Parks Director recommended that discussions on dock fees should wait until they receive a recommendation from the CommOns Task Force and also until the City Finance DirectOr ha.' time to review their recommendation so a concise report can be provided. There wilt stilt be tim~ to bring all this information to you and allow for a public hearing. MOTION made bY Botko, seconded by Pederson to table discussion on this item as recommended by the Parks Director. Motion carried unanimouSlY- 8 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July lI, 1996 TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY Ahrens reviewed that Councilmember Jessen initiated discussion on the release of this property stating that Mound already has a plan in affect for five of the highest Priority parcels, and because this parcel does have potential to be a building site suggested it be put back on the tax roles. Meyer stated that he had drafted letter to the Council and wanted the Commission to get a copy of it. He reviewed that his letter included statistics from the Metropolitan Council which encourages cities to provided a minimum area of park land per 1,000 residents. Meyer figures that Mound is way below the park land averages. Meyer requested a copy of his letter be put in the next Park Commission packet. Ahrens requested that "verbatim" minutes from the Council meeting also be included in the packet to help explain how the council figured that these numbers did not include wetland areas. Casey commented that he would like to see us, as a community, see how much more land we want to give up for building, because we should not give land away without knowing what we want. We should designate what parcels to keep and what not to keep. Ahrens was excused from the meeting. 1997 BUDGET UPDATE & REVIEW OF CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the 1997 Capital Outlay Requests. Casey questioned why the City is~pay for the new multiple docks. Fackler stated that the concept is that by supplying the dock we are actually reducing the number of docks, and if we provide slips, the number of boats will also be restricted. So far there have been no problems with the one multiple dock installed. He noted that they still need to determine what affect these multiple docks will have on the budget. It is a question if the current fees will sustain the cost of these docks. Meyer asked about new dock decking and dock bumpers for Mound Bay Park. Fackler commented that the bumpers on the transient dock are 6 to 7 years old and some are missing, and the decking on the dock is the original decking and is older than 10 years and needs to be replaced for safety reasons. Meyer asked if it is necessary to supply bumpers since most boaters carry their own. Goode asked about the community ice skating rink. Fackler explained that the staff time and minor supplies needed will not be capital outlay items but will be incorporate~nto the main budget. As far as excavation, grading and seeding, they are waiting to see what the school district plans to do with the building. The School board is currently reviewing this issue and should know within the next 30 days. It may not be feasible to do this work. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July II, 1996 Darling asked what became of all their budget requests. budget request, as follows: The Parks Director reviewed each 1. Skating Rink: Has been answered, are waiting for school's decision on what they will do with the property. 2. Parks Program: Funding for the parks program will be incorporated into the Parks Program budget and is not a capital outlay item. 3. Lifeguard Program: Funding for the lifeguard program will be incorporated into the Parks Program budget and is not a capital outlay item. The safety equipment purchases have been taken care of. The lifeguards will be using cellular phones instead of radios. 4. NCA signs/improvements. There has been $4,500 assigned in the 1996 budget in the general fund. 5. Painting Mound Bay Depot: The building needs new siding, not paint, and this cost was estimated at $30,000. The City Manager has already cut this item from his request. 6. Encourage Indian heritage: He needs to know what type of plaque in order to determine a cost. 7. Light for skating rink is on-hold. Casey requested the Park and Open Space Commission receive a copy of the operating budget. REVIEW AND DISCUSS LOST LAKE EAW The memorandum from the City Manager was reviewed. The memo outlined that Park Commission discussion should take place based upon the following possible outcomes: 1. P&OSC chooses not to send a recommendation to the City Council. 2. P&OSC has no objection to the EAW and believes that an ElS is not warranted. 3. P&OSC believes that an ElS is not warranted but suggests some modifications to the EAW. 4. P&OSC believes that an ElS should be conducted. Casey stated that Item//3 should actually read, "P&OSC believes there is important information lacking in the EAW, and the decision on whether or not to order and ElS should be postponed in order to obtain that information." Casey explained this would give the City 30 more days to collect more information. 10 Park and Open Space Commission Ninutes July II, 1996 Casey reviewed that the whole premise for this EAW and the project going forward, is that there ~.~-..are not toxins that are going to be released in the dredge sediments. He noted that the Braun ,~tertec Report is flawed, Table II measures the sediment standards in "parts per million" and the Pollution Control Agency standards are "parts per billion." So they used the Watershed Quality rules as a basis to say that there is no problem and it is just slightly above for lead an mercury, when in fact they are off by a thousand. Casey also referred to the comments received from Catherine Zimmer-Lokken who is a hazardous waste officer and has a masters in public health, which addresses the "parts per million/billion" problem. She noted there are high concentrations of lead a mercury and they also failed to test for PCB's which are likely to be present with a dump previously located in this area. Casey stated he is not against rehabilitation of downtown Mound, and thinks businesses are important, but does not think they should go forward without further assessing the environmental impacts of this dredge when it is going to be invading an area that was a dump site. Casey is also concerned that purple Ioostrife can and may invade this area. Casey suggested that the Park Commission recommend that the Council order an ElS. Pederson agreed with Casey's concerns and stated that she is astounded and amazed with the inconsistencies with the reports. She stated that she wants the Council and those involved in ,--.the decision making process to be aware of the National Geographic article in the February 1996 .ssue where it discusses holding ponds for all the pollution from the roads, the oil, mercury and lead that comes off of automobiles, and if this project does go through, they should have a holding pond for this project, and not maybe later. Pederson agrees they need an ElS. Casey stated that is another concern of his is that there is no insurance that the City will implement a storm water management plan prior to the time of the dredge. Goode expressed a concern that the dredge may affect the water supply for the City, and is concerned that the high concentration of lead could be a public health issue if it gets into the drinking water. MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Casey to recommend that the City Council that an ElS should be conducted due to inconsistencies in the EAW, and to look at all the affects of the dredge, not only on the wetland, but for the possible contamination of ground water throughout, and that a decision on the approval of the dredge be held until the results of the ElS are made public and a public hearing is held. Motion carried unanimously. Darling recommended that Casey send a condensed form of his letter to The Laker on behalf of the Park Commission. 11 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 1i, I996 Casey requested that the Park Commission receive a copy of Bruce Chamberlain's comments an¢. response to the comments that will be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on July 23rd, COMMUNITY SKATING RINK Meyer noted that the Parks Director previously touched on this issue, and stated that they are waiting on the school board to make a decision as to what they are going to do with the property. Mound did not want to get involved in developing a rink if it would be short lived. He feels they are making good progress. COMMONS TASK FORCE UPDATE The next meeting will be on July 18, at City Hall from 7:30 to 9:30. Topics of discussion will include encroachments and the dock fee schedule. PARKS DIRECTOR REPORT The Commission asked why at Pembroke Beach there are no buoys or ropes. Fackler explained that the ropes tend to collect the milfoil floating in the area and it gets tangled,.so they removed them. Darling asked if Fackler has received a response to their motion that requested they be heard a a COW meeting regarding their frustrations with the City Council Representative not communicating their messages to the Council. Fackler stated that he has not received a response, but confirmed that the minutes were copied to the City Manager, DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT Nothing specific was reported. MOTION by Goode, seconded by Darling to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 12