Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-11-26
AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *.Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA - At this time items can be added to the agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *.CONSENT AGENDA,. PAGE Do APPROVE MINUTES OF THE 11/12/96 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. .............................. 4239-4250 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE 11/19/96 COMMH'TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. ~ ........................... 4251-425'~ YARIANCE FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING, GREG AND MARTHA COTE, 1601 GULL LANE, WOODLAND POINT CASE//96-65. ............................................... 4254-4271 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE LOST LAKE CANAL AND GREENWAY PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN MOUND .................................. 4272 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED REDESIGN OF THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS. ...................................... 4273-4274 APPLICATION FOR BINGO PERMIT - OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH. ........................................... 4275 PAYMENT OF THE BILLS. ..................................... 4276-4286 4236 AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE 2 4. I 6. I 7. b PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SHERWOOD DRIVE ................................................ 4287-4298 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM R-1 TO R-lA. (WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT) ................................. 4299-4301 APPLICATIONS FOR NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS "WINTERFEST' TEMPORARY BEER PERMIT AND QUASI PUBLIC SIGN ....................... 4302-4307 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATIONS OF CURRENT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT (HRA) MEMBERS AND APPOINTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE THE MOUND HRA ............................................ 4308-4312 APPROVAL OF DOCK APPLICATION FORMS FOR 1997 ........................ 4313-4325 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: FINANCIAL REPORT FOR OCTOBER, 1996, AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. 4326-4327 Bo PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF 11/14/96 ................................................ 4328-4337 Co ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF 10/17/96 ......................................... 4338-4339 ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE: ANNUAL TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY TO BE HELD TUESDAY, 12/3/96, 6:30 PM, AT THE DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS TREE ...................................... 4340 Eo CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FOR THANKSGIVING ON THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, 11/28 & 29. .REMINDER: TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, 12/4/96 AT 7:30 PM. REMINDER: NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OR SECOND MEETING OF DECEMBER WILL BE HELD. ONLY REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER IS 12/10. Ho REMINDER: ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY IS SUNDAY, DECEMBER 15TH AT AL AND ALMA'S. YOU RECEIVED YOUR INFIVATION IN YOUR COW PACKET. PLEASE RSVP TO LINDk OR JILL BY 12/11. 4237 M/NUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCEL- NOVEMBER 12, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at~341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney David Kennedy, City Planner Mark Koegler, Economic Development Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, Councilmember Elect Leah Weycker and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Susan Cathers, Mitch Knutson, Judy Mader, Mark and Barb Brewer, Janet Brewer, Bill and Dorothy Netka, Bev Botko, Rod Crasen, Harley Jordan, Patricia Hagglund, Leigh Hartert, Chuck Carlson, Dave Hostefler, Bruce Dodds, Marilyn Hostetler, Paul Meisel, Ron Peterson, Roger Carpenter, Randy Moriarty, Dallas Jensen, Jerry Longpre, Fran and Duane Leisinger, and Shirley Andersen. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *.Consent Agenda: The Council discussed the Consent Agenda and decided to consider all of the Minutes separately. They also removed the minor subdivision for Moriarty/Baumgarten to discuss separately. - APPROVE ~MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17 1996 CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Jensen requested clarification as to who spoke within two paragraphs. City Manager stated he had received a fax from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District containing comments they want added to the Minutes of 10-17. He said the fax basically confirms the contents of the Minutes, but they wanted it restated and added. Mayor Polston stated if there was no obj6ction, the Watershed comments would be added to the Minutes. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus, to approve the Minutes of the October 17, 1996 Continued City Council Meeting as amended. The vote carried 4-1, Ahrens abstained as she was not present at the meeting. 1.1 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Hanus stated the item regarding the Public Lands Permit for Ahrens was pulled from the Consent Agenda and acted upon after Councilmember Jessen arrived after the consent agenda. He also requested the time she arrived be noted. Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, to approve the Minutes of the October 22, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting as amended. The vote carried 4-1, Ahrens abstained. 1.2 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE CANVASS BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6 1996. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the November 6, 1996 Canvass Board as proposed. Mayor Polston asked if any other items should be removed from the Consent Agenda, with the exception of the minor subdivision for Moriarty/Baumgarten. There were none. He asked for a motion to approve the following consent agenda. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously to approve the following *Consent Agenda. *1.3 RESOLUTION//96-113 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT TO ALLOW A CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 18, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS PID 22-117- 24 44 0033, CASE//96-66. Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. · 1.4 RESOLUTION//96-114 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 2155 CARDINAL LANE, LOT 23, BLOCK 8, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0065, PZCASE//96-61. Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. · 1.5 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING ~ ~ R~O~ ~OPERTIES FROM R-1 TO R-IA. SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1996. Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. · 1.6 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1996 SEALCOAT PROGRAM._ 2 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. '1.7 APPROVE BINGO PERMIT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT AUXILIARY. Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. '1.8 APPROVE TREE REMOVAL LICENSE FOR ~WRAMCO INC Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. · 1.9 PAYMENT OF BH.LS. Ahrens, Jensen, unanimous. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR _LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD 3.ND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD. PZ CASE ~/96-31 Councilmember Jensen could not support the resolution as it was written. She suggested the following change: Item 'c' under the Now, Therefore Be it Resolved, "A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shc, uld shall be submitted..." Jensen continued, "This is a resolution approving a minor subdivision, which takes two lots and creates three lots. The two lots, or sites, as exist today, I would like to have this reflected in the package that we send to the DNR. The DNR says that if we approve this resolution, they want to have documentation of why we approved it, and I am not sure what all of that documentation consists of, but the Minutes for this particular meeting had a substantial addition made to them and I want to make sure that what I am saying is also part of what the DNR receives. It is my position that the two sites exist today and each of those sites have a hardship or a practical difficulty due to the fact that structures have been on those lots for sometime. They were on those lots prior to the passage of the Shoreland Management Plan. The fact that those two existing lots have these hardships on them, does not create a hardship or practical difficulty that would then be resolved through the creation of a third lot. Which is why I am opposed to the creation of a third lot. We are creating a lot, that by its very existence would require that a structure be built too close to the bluff." Mayor Polston asked if there were more comments. Hanus stated he confirmed 'l.c' being changed to 'shall'. The last point of the fifth Whereas, where setbacks are mentioned on Tract C, that provision should be stricken because it references a variance if the structure remains. However, item 1.f requires the house to be removed. These 3 4,3,// Minutes - Mound City Council - November I2, 1996 statements are in conflict with each other. As long as the house will be removed before the resolution is filed, the previous point is a non-issue. There were no other changes. The Mayor asked for a motion. Hanus moved, Ahrens seconded a motion approving the following resolution as amended: RESOLUTION g96-116 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8 & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGlt ROAD, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048. PZ CASE//96-31. A roll call vote was called. The motion carried 3-2. Ahrens, Hanus and Polston voting in favor, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. Discussion with the Mayor and City Attorney followed regarding the need for a roll call vote on the Payment of the Bills. The attorney said it was not needed on the Bills, but should be done for a subdivision 1.11 VARIANCE AND MINOR SUBDIVISION, ROBERTA NELSON, 4739 & 4755 BEDFORD ROAD, CASE g96-63. City Planner Mark Koegler summarized the item, stating it was a complicated item, he would give a simplistic explanation. The item came before the Planning Commission for consideration of waiver of platting and some variances to correct an encroachment problem that was on an adjacent lot, specifically a garage area. This problem has been bouncing around for 20 years. There was recently a real estate transaction involving the property and in order for the title clearance to occur, we needed to rectify the encroachment. The parties have agreed to a minor subdivision. The request does include some variances. The subdivision would create a new line that separates the properties putting both of the structures on their respective lots. The easement issue would be dropped. Also some of the subdivision issues would no longer be needed. This alternative was supported unanimously by the Planning Commission and it does have staff support. The resolution has blanks that can now be filled in as the survey has now arrived. A condition of approval should be included that requires proof of filing the resolution for the 1992 subdivision. There needs to be a few blanks filled in which are a staff procedure. Staff and Planning Commission recommendation is for approval of the minor subdivision as proposed as well as the side yard setback variances for both structures. Hanus referred to the legal descriptions that were handed out. Polston asked about the square feet of lot area. Koegler responded the lots size is far in excess of the minimum lot size, it is 123,542 square feet in the one and 19,122 square feet in the other case. 4 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 Jessen moved, Ahrens seconded a motion to approve the following resolution as amended: RESOLUTION//96-115 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 4739 & 4755 BEDFORD ROAD LOTS 7, 8, 24, 25 & 1/2 OF 6 & 27, BLOCK 13, WYCHWOOD, PID'S 19-117-23 32 0214 & 0205, P&Z CASE//96-63. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 PUBLIC HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. City Manager Ed Shukle introduced Bruce Chamberlain, Assistant Planner, stating he would give opening remarks and that it was a public hearing. Bruce Chamberlain: "The public hearing was being held on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration because of the federal funding for the Lost Lake Canal project as well as the Lost Lake Greenway project. The two projects are the subject of the Environmental Assessment and it pert~ns to the canal dredging and the greenway project around the north perimeter. He informed the public that there was a meeting held with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on October 17, 1996. During that meeting there was discussion on the rules on the part of the Watershed District as well as general concern issues people have with the project. Out of that meeting came a couple of changes to the design that is in the packet. The changes were not completely defined, outcome of this meeting will help define the changes. On November 19th, this EA will be going to the City Council, Planning Commission, EDC and Park Commission and the public, to look at proposed design changes that incorporate the issues that the Watershed District has. Basically, the change includes eliminating the area that was proposed that has the permanent docking facility as well as eliminating the area proposed to be dredged for the transient docking area. We will be combining those two docking facilities within the turn around area itself, so there will not be a dredge beyond the historic turnaround of the canal. Before the meeting on the 19th, he will be working with the agencies and staff keeping them up to date and aware of what is happening with the design changes and getting feedback and input prior to Council review on the 19th of November. The Mayor asked if there were questions for Bruce from the Council. There were none. Mayor Polston opened the public heating asking if there was anyone who wished to speak either for or against the Lost Lake Canal and Greenway projects. Dallas Jensen, 2684 Wilshire Blvd. "I have been a resident in Mound for 20 years. In those twenty years I have made many good friendships in the community. Conversations coming from those friendships usually amounting to what is going to happen in Mound. We see a dying community. I think this is one of the most exciting plans that has ever come our way. It is a bold plan, no question about it. I think of the City, roughly ten years ago, that really didn't have a plan. And what have you got, a grape turned into a raisin. I think this is a beautiful Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 plan. It has a great deal of merit. Certainly, there is room for changes along the time frame that they have bracketed for this. I want you to know that I totally support this plan. I think it is a great shot of adrenalin for this community." Sue Cathers, 3008 Highview Lane. "I have been a resident of Mound my entire life. I have seen it deteriorate over the years and I too, support this plan. I think that the Mound Visions has put a lot of work and effort and study into this. I worked on the Design Team a few years ago and I think it is a great idea. I don't know of anybody else that has any better of an idea. Last, but not least, my mom was the one that was hit at the crosswalk a few weeks ago. I think this helps the pedestrians too." Jerry Longpre, 2631 Granger Lane. "I came here 35 years ago. I remember we had a Chamber that at that time was trying to think of something that could be done with Lost lake. I remember a picture of Dick Schwert standing there in the weeds and something was going to get done. And, you know, we all felt and we all knew that the future of Mound was tied in with the Lake. So finally, we are doing something about it. I just think it's super." Mayor Polston asked if there were any more comments. There were none. He closed the public hearing and returned the item to the City Council. Mayor Polston: "I would like to say thank you to the people who worked on this, not only on the Economic Development Commission, but to all of the other 40-50-60 volunteers who have worked hard and given of themselves for a number of years on this project. I see a lot of them here tonight. Liz has served on the Economic Development Commission as our liasion. I can't say how proud I am of the people and of Bruce, who have brought this thing to the point that it is at now. I take my hat off to you. I am really looking forward to the project moving forward. Are there any other thoughts?" Councilmember Hanus: "Just to echo those same thoughts. A lot of people put a lot of work into it for a long period of time. It's fight on the brink now and we are about to see something happen. I am very happy to see it and very happy to see the public involvement in the project alSO." Councilmember Jessen: "I will say the same thing. I won't have much more chance to say it. So, I will say it now. I am very proud of all of you that have worked so hard on it. I am so pleased to see it moving forward and I will be standing back there cheering for it all of the way." Mayor Polston: "To those people who are with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and are here tonight, I see some of them, I appreciate you coming back to Mound to visit with us. We appreciate the diligence and hard work that you have put in so far on the project. Like we talked about at our workshop, there is nothing etched in concrete. We are willing to work to do whatever we can. I think this is one giant step for the City of Mound and for the west Lake Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 area. With that I will shut up and let somebody else talk." Jessen: "What do we need to do ' '~" here. Shukle: "We need a motion to approve the .. correct? Tell us what we need." Chamberlain: "Actually there is no action that is required on the part of the Council. As I mentioned at the beginning of the public hearing, this is on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration. It is up to them to review the comments that were made this evening as well as previous comments that were made at previous meetings. To make their input and review of the Environmental Assessment. To make this part of the official documentation of that document." Jensen: "So the Federal Highway .. will get all of this documentation.." Chamberlain: "Correct. verbatim Minutes." Jensen: "Then, we hope they are going to come up with the finding of no significant impact?" Chamberlain: "Correct. That is one of the options. The other option is that they request project modifications or require an Environmental Impact Statement." Jensen: "So they could still do that?" Chamberlain: "They could, yes." Jensen: "Assuming that they don't. Then we are going to be ready to move on this in the spring, correct?" Chamberlain: "The process that we are undertaking is that we will be looking at the design modifications in a week. We will be, hopefully, submitting permits to all of the permitting agencies in two weeks, and then look at a 60-90 day turn around for most of those permits. In the meantime, the Environmental Assessment documentation will continue to move through the channels that it has to move through with the Federal Government and State Government. Yes, hopefully, we are prepared for construction whenever it causes the least environmental impact to begin the project, which we think will be June." Jensen: "It is really exciting to see this thing moving forward and I wanted to add those comments as well. It seems that we have been looking at this for a long time. I have only spent two years with the EDC, and I commend all of them for the work that they have put into making this happen, or to help make this happen. I remember sitting in a few meetings where we would talk among ourselves about when will something happen, will something ever happen. People were saying nothing is ever going to happen. I remember some suggestions about let's put a bulldozer out there and move it around a little bit. Maybe it will help people get a positive 7 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 attitude. It is really moving forward and it is truly exciting. I have talked to all of the people who have made this happen. I am really excited for Mound. Ahrens: "I too want to echo the comments and commendations of my fellow Councilmembers. I just want to know Ed, that two foot high stack of studies that were done over twenty-five years before I got on the Council, that you gave me, can I throw them away now?" Shukle: "Wait until they actually dig into the channel and then light them on fire." Jessen: "Bruce, does this need anything further as an official approval by the Council?" Chamberlain: "Not by the Council, no." Discussion dealt whether the public hearing had been closed. It had. City Attorney David Kennedy: "Bruce, do you think it would it be inappropriate for the Council to adopt a resolution saying we think this is great? I sense that, it probably wouldn't hurt the process, but it certainly would not harm it." Chamberlain: "I don't see a problem with it at all. It is something that can be made part of the public record that the Council is behind this project. That can be incorporated into documentation that we have." Attorney: "Perhaps the staff can be directed to prepare .. Polston: "Phyllis, since is action may be the last that you take on this project, would you like to offer a motion to ..." Jessen: "I'd love to. We are going to make it a resolution?" Polston: "Yes." Jessen: "I would like to move that as a Council, give our full support behind the Lost Lake Canal and Greenway Project." Ahrens: "Second." Polston: "All in favor, say aye." The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. Polston: "You folks on the Economic Development Commission, I tell ya, and all of the volunteers that worked on this project, you have my thanks and my hat is off to you. I certainly hope that we are moving ahead and the Federal Highway Commission will look favorably upon the project. Thanks for your efforts and for coming tonight." 8 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 1.13 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SHERWOOr~ DRIVE. (To be rescheduled to 11-26-96) City Manager Ed Shukle suggested to the Mayor to open the public hearing and to continue it until November 26th. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against this improvement to Sherwood Drive. There was no one. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing on proposed improvements to Sherwood Drive until November 26, 1996. 1.14 _PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED FEE INCREASES FOR CERTAIN LICENSE?; AND PERIVIITS. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the proposed 1997 budget contained fee and license increases based upon the cost of doing business as well as what other local or metropolitan area cities are charging for similar services. Under the requirements of the State Statute, the liquor license increases do require a public hearing. The remainder of the fees listed are not subject to a public hearing. Assuming the Council adopts the proposed increase or some form of the fees after the hearing, the Council can direct the staff to prepare the proper ordinance amendments that could be approved in December for effective date in January. Also, we are incorporating in the fees the building permit fees, which conform to the 1994 UBC code. We are currently under the 1988 UBC code. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing. He asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the increase of certain fees. Chuck Carlson, owner of Mound Lanes, stated he has the only bowling alley in town and he pays $10 a lane now, the season is actually only seven months long. He felt it unfair to double the per lane fee to $20. There is no time involved or inspections done by the City. There was no one else that wanted to speak regarding the proposed fee increases. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Jensen inquired why the fee for an un-neutered dog did not raise as much percentage wise as did the fee for a neutered dog. Consensus was to set the new fee at $15 for neutered and $25 for un-neutered dogs. Mayor Polston suggested keeping the fee at $10 per lane and billiard table for 1997. Council agreed. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to direct the city attorney to prepare ordinance amendments incorporating the proposed increases in fees for the December 10, 1996 Budget Hearing. The · 7 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 1.15 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Mayor Polston asked if there were any comments from citizens. Duane Leisinger, Manager of the Mound Legion, asked the Council why the bowling alley, Mound Lanes had a sign saying "OUND LANE" over the door. He asked if something could be done to get it completed, it did not look good. City Manager Ed Shukle stated Mr. Carlson applied for improvements to his building. The way the sign code is written, it defines his street address as being on Cypress Lane, versus what appears to be the front of his building on Shoreline Drive. The building is set back and doesn't have Shoreline frontage. Under the code, he is able to apply for a sign variance. The Planning Commission and Council would have to recognize the street frontage is really on Cypress and that the size of the sign would need a variance because of the lettering. It is Mr. Shukle's understanding the applicant chose not to go through with the rest of the application and has only put up a portion of the sign. He suggested asking Mr. Carlson what he intends to do. There were no more comments or suggestions. 1.16 RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA)._ City Manager Ed Shukle stated the City of Mound recently joined the SRA. There was no fee. Councilmember Hanus is Mound's delegate to the SRA. He returned with a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Amended Joint Agreement. Attorney Kennedy stated the changes in the joint powers agreement are minor ones. The changes are recognizing past practice, changing names, simply modernizing the document. The only substance change in the agreement is the granted authority for the SRA to act on behalf of all of the municipalities in the organization if they so request to contract for the provision of utility services in the future. The reason that was done, the board of the SRA feels, that down the pike, the opportunities for cities to purchase utility power on their own is going to be enhanced greatly by deregulation. Ahrens moved, Hanus seconded the approval of the following resolution as proposed: RESOLUTION//96-117 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN'THE AGREEMENT. The vote carried 4-1. Jensen abstained. 10 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 ADD-ON 1.17 APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION FOR SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the American Legion has applied to the City for a Sunday Liquor License. The Legion is working with Hennepin County on kitchen updates which are needed in order to be open on Sundays. We have checked with the County and the work is not completed, a permit has not been issued by them. The Minnesota Liquor Control Board will not issue any license until the County has inspected the facility and issued some type of food permit and the City has also approved. The type of food permit issued by the County indicates whether the State will issue a Sunday Liquor License. If the County issues a Food Handler's Permit, no Sunday Liquor License will be issued. If the County issues a small or full menu food permit, the County could issue a Sunday Liquor License. At this point, the work is not yet complete. The Council could approve the Sunday Liquor License pending the other agencies inspection and approval or wait until the work is completed. The application to the State cannot be submitted until the work is complete and the County issues a food permit. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the application of the Mound American Legion Post //398 for a Sunday Liquor License contingent upon Hennepin County Health Department inspection and approval when the work is complete. 1.18 INFORMATION/M[qCELLANEOUS. A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 10/28/96. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 11/4/96. Eo ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) RE: ANNUAL POLICY ADOPTION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATI'ENDING. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE LAST COUNCIL PACKET. REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11TH IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERAN'S DAY. 11 Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 Fe REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 1996, 7:30 PM. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 pm. City Manager Attest: 12 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE- NOVEMBER 19, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Jessen. Also present: Bruce Chambe}lain, Economic Development Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Ed Shukle, City Manager; Leah Weycker, Councilmember-Elect; David Goode; Mary Goode; and Rita Pederson. Pro osed Redesi n of the Lost Lake Im rovement Pro'eet Ed Shukle, City Manager introduced this topic by indicating that the Economic Development Coordinator has developed a redesign of the Lost Lake Improvement Project. He indicated that Chamberlain and himself had met with representatives of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), DNR and LMCD regarding the proposed redesign. Basically, the revisions call for a 70 foot wide Lost Lake Canal rather than the earlier proposal of 50 feet. The number of docks has been reduced from 34 to 27. The tm-around area remains the same except the upland areas are not to be dredged and the fishing pier as proposed previously has been eliminated. The pier now becomes basically an observation platform or circular pier and dredging will occur right up to the structure which is located on land m~d not extended out into the water. There will be a "gangway" from "finger-like" docks to the observation platform or what is now called a circular pier. The Council consensus was supportive of the revisions and asked that a resolution be prepared for formal adoption at the next regular meeting. _Update on Auditor's Road Improvement Projecl Ed Shukle, City Manager, updated the Council on the status of the right of way acquisition along the proposed Auditor's Road. Also discussed was the relocation of the Post Office. Discussion focused on the type of structure the post office is planning. More information regarding this topic will be brought back to a future meeting. Lineal Footage - Dock Program_ Jim Fackler, Parks Director was present to discuss with the Council the multiple dock license application to be made to the LMCD for 1997. Discussion focused on the number of boat storage units to be counted for purposes of the application. The agreed upon number was 620. The Council also asked that Tom Reese, LMCD Representative, be contacted regarding the'~ charged for boat storage units that are not actually used. ra fees that are Committee of the Whole Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 2 Proposed Revisions to 1997 Proposed Budget Ed Shukle, City Manager, reviewed the proposed revisions as discussed at the October Committee of the Whole meeting. He pointed out that although the staff did not recommend a zero percent increase in the tax levy, the staff was honoring the request from the Council regarding this issue. He indicated that the revisions included a reduction in the General Fund balance to bring it closer to 35% of the General Fund expenditures and a projected increase in building permit fees due to the adoption of the 1994 schedule of the Uniform Building Code. Based upon these factors, the staff prepared a revised budget in the General Fund to reflect a zero increase in the tax levy from 1996 to 1997. In addition, $25,000 was added back into the Recycling Budget to pay for the annual cleanup days. Also discussed was the Park and Open Space Commission discussion of the proposed budget. The Commission had disagreed with purchasing a flail mower for the Parks department. They did not believe it was necessary to spend dollars to cut weeds. The Commission also asked that the Council not spend any money from the Park Dedication Fund for the Mound Depot Improvements or for the Bluffs Beach Improvements. The Commission believes that these expenditures should be paid from other sources and the Park Dedication Fund should be used for land acquisition for parks only. · ' 's and decided that the flail mower should The Council discussed the Commission recommendations remain and that the Depot improvements should be paid for from the Park Dedication Fund. They decided that the Bluffs Beach Improvements would be paid from the Park Dedication Fund but that fund would be paid back $3,000 per year for 5 years from the Municipal Liquor Store Fund. Update on Westonka Community_ Center. Ed Shukle, City Manager, updated the Council on what he knew regarding the School District's proposed administration building to be located on the Shirley Hills site. He introduced the idea of the City of Mound issuing a general obligation bond, following a bond referendum, to finance the construction of a new Senior Center to be located on the Shirley Hills site adjacent or attached to the new administration building being planned by the School District· The City Council consensus was to support this concept and to move forward on the issue. Shukle also pointed out that the other area cities who participate through CDBG or other means in the operation of the current center also financially support the new Senior Center in some capacity. '-_ da" "Consent Agenda" - "Approval o~.qeen . Ed Shukle, City Manager, pointed out some observations about this matter since it was put in place about a month ago. He stated that the Council needs to decide what is to remain on the consent agenda and then vote on that agenda with a roll call vote. Following that action, the Council need Committee of the Whole Minutes November 19, 1996 Page 3 to go back and deal with the items that were removed from the consent agenda. He pointed out that the Council is doing the opposite and discussing the items they want pulled from the consent agenda before they act on the consent agenda. He also pointed out that the Council needs to approve the agenda (both consent and otherwise) before proceeding which brings out any items that were added administratively prior to the meeting, during the meeting or at the end of the meeting. This type of procedure provides for a more open process of dealing with local government issues. The Council agreed with this approach and indicated that they intend to follow the City Manager's recommendations. Annual Christmas Party Ed Shukle pointed out the invitation in the Council's packet. The party is scheduled for Sunday, December 15, 1996, A1 and Alma's. Other Business Councilmember Ahrens distributed a letter to the editor from Tom Casey, Chair, Park and Open Space Commission. Councilmember Hanus distributed a proposal for the City Council to think about regarding the creation of a dock commission. His proposal incorporates the idea of reducing the size of the Park and Open Space Commission and possibly using some of the members from the Park and Open Space Commission to be part of the new dock commission. This proposal will be discussed in greater detail at the January Committee of the Whole meeting. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. It was noted that there will not be a Committee of the Whole meeting in December. City Manager RF..SOLUTION #96- . RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A WMVER OF PLATTING AND RELATED SETBACK VARIANCES 1601 GULL LANE LOTS 1 - 4, BLOCK 12, WOODLAND POINT, PID 13-117-24 12 0238 P&Z CASE//96-65 WHEREAS, the owners, Greg & Martha Cote, have applied for a Waiver of Platting and related setback variances to allow the separation of Lots 1 and 2 from 3 and 4, and; WHEREAS, the applicants are seeking a waiver of platting in order to correct a combination of property that occurred in error. City records indicate that Lots 1,2,3 and 4 were one parcel in 1963. In 1984, Lots 1 and 2 were separated from Lots 3 and 4. In 1986, the four lots were combined once again by Hennepin County. The combination in 1986 should not have occurred since Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 were not totally in common ownership, and; WItEREAS, 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, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the waiver of platting includes a variance request due to the following existing nonconforming setbacks: Principal Structure - Front 16.5 ' 20 ' 3.5 ' Detached Garage - Rear 3.9 ' 4 ' .1 ' Detached Garage - Side 3 ' 4 ' 1 ' WHEREAS, both of the resulting parcels meet the minimum lot area requirements and the variance situation that has been present since at least 1984 remains unchanged, and; WHEREAS, the requested variances are consistent with the criteria for granting variances found in Section 330:170 of the Mound City Code, and; the sewer for the existing house located on Lots 1 and 2 is connected to the main WHEREAS, in front of LOt 3, and; WHEREAS, there is no existing sewer stub-in for Lots 1 and 2, and; WHEREAS, this situation would not exist today if it were not an error made by Hennepin County who allowed the property to be reeombined in 1986, and; WHEREAS, thePlanning Commissionhas reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the requested Waiver of Platting and the following related variances: Proposed Resolution Cote P. 2 Existing Required ~ Principal Structure - Front 16.5 ' 20 ' 3.5 ' Detached Garage - Rear 3.9 ' 4 ' .1 ' Detached Garage - Side 3 ' 4 ' 1 ' Approval of this Waiver of Platting is subject to the condition that prior to release of this resolution for filing, the sewer locations must be corrected, or some type of financial guarantee be established to insure that it is completed. 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 24' x 22' detached garage. This Waiver of Platting and variance are granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 12, Woodland Point, PID 13-I 17-24 12 0238. The property is approved to be separated as follows: Parcel A: Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Woodland Point. Parcel B: Lots 3 and 4, Block 12, Woodland Point. This Waiver of Platting and 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. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. RECEIVED N 0V 1 2 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSR Telephone Engineers 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Planners Surveyors MEMORANDU DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 8, 1996 Jon Suthefland, Building Official John Cameron, City Engineer ~. City of Mound Waiver of Platting - Case #96-65 MFRA #8902 As requested, I have reviewed this request and the minutes from the November 4th Planning Commission meeting and have the following comments and recommendations. Enclosed is a copy of the survey with the existing sewer main, watermain and services shown on it. Myself and Greg Skinner both feel this existing service is located too far into lot 3 to be covered by an easement and left as the service for the existing house when lots 3 and 4 are separated from lots 1 and 2. A new service should be installed and the existing one disconnected and saved for the future use of lots 3 and 4. At the same time, a new water service needs to be installed for lots 3 and 4. Past policy has required that these services be installed prior to the release of any resolution for recording or some time of financial guarantee provided to ensure future installation. We would recommend this condition be included in any approvals. c:main:8902:mcmol 1-8 ~,5~:~ An Equal Opportunity Employer CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for' Denotes iron mnm,m~mf GENERAL NOTES MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1996 1601 GUI.L '~.aNEt LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 12~ WOODLAND POINT, ~- - o2a city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicants are seeking a waiver of platting and variances in order to correct a combination of property that occurred in error, city records indicate that Lots 1,2,3 and 4 were one parcel in 1963. In 1984, Lots 1 and 2 were separated from Lots 3 and 4. In 1986, the four lots were combined once again by Hennepin County. The combination in 1986 should not have occurred since Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 were not totally in common ownership. In order to rectify the situation, a waiver of platting is being requested to separate the parcels along the lot line that is common to Lots 2 and 3. The waiver of platting includes a variance request due to existing nonconforming setbacks. Approval of the subject request is the easiest way to rectify the existing problem. Both of the resulting parcels meet the minimum lot area requirements and the variance situation that has been present since at least 1984 remains unchanged. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Waiver of Platting including the following variances for Lots i and 2: - the principal structure is setback 16.5 feet from the front lot line resulting in a 3.5 foot variance - the detached garage is setback 3.9 feet from the rear lot line resulting in a .1 foot setback variance - the detached garage is setback 3 feet +/- from the side lot line resulting in a 1 foot setback variance If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, a motion should include the finding that the requested variances are consistent with the criteria for granting variances found in Section 330:170 of the Mound city Code. In addition, Koegler reviewed the Sewer and Water Superintendent's memorandum. The sewer for the existing house located on Lots 1 and 2 is connected to the main in front of Lot 3.. staff recommended the existing sewer service be disconnected and reconnected to the main in front of Lots 1 and 2. There is no existing sewer stub-in for Lots 1 and 2. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Prior to release of the resolution approving the Waiver, the sewer locations must be corrected, or some type of financial guarantee be established to insure that it is completed. Applicant, Martha Cote, explained that Lots 3 and 4 were bought on a contract for deed and is now owned by four people, one of which is deceased. Cote asked why the sewer needs to be changed. She stated that the sewer works, and asked who decided on that location to begin with? The City Planner stated that in 1963 this property was all one piece so whoever owned the property had free reign to put the sewer wherever in front of this property. Sutherland stated, in the past when this property was separated and combined, the City may not have been aware of the sewer location. Sutherland noted that the recommendation to relocate the sewer comes from the City Engineer, and it is City policy to always try to get utility services located on the same parcel. Cote stated that this condition adds an additional financial burden on them and asked how much this change will cost. Staff informed the applicant that they could get bids from local contractors. Cote stated that they are trying to sell their house and this causes extra problems. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the waiver and variances as recommended by staff. Hanus commented that he would like staff to include in the resolution a finding that this situation would not exist today if it were not an error made by Hennepin County who allowed the property to be recombined in 1986. Koegler suggested that the Commission may want to add to the recommendation that if it is found that the location of the sewer encroachment onto Lot 3 is minor, the applicant could also create a utility easement acceptable to the City Attorney and Engineer. Burma and Clapsaddle accepted an amendment to the motion to include the suggestion of the Planner Motion carried unanimously. · This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 26, 1996. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 31, 1996 SUBJECT: Waiver of Platting and Variances APPLICANT: Gregory Cote and Martha Cote CASE NUMBER: 96-65 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5ff LOCATION: 1601 Gull Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are seeking a waiver of platting and variances in order to correct a combination of property that occurred in error. City records indicate that Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 were one parcel in 1963. In 1984, Lots 1 and 2 were separated from Lots 3 and 4. In 1986, the four lots were combined once again by Hennepin County. The combination in 1986 should not have occurred since Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 were not totally in common ownership. In order to rectify the situation, a waiver of platting is being requested to separate the parcels along the lot line that is common to Lots 2 and 3. The waiver of platting includes a variance request because the structure that is located on Lots 1 and 2 is non-conforming because of the front yard setback of the principal structure (Gull Lane - 16.5' in lieu of 20') and the existing detached garage has a non-conforming rear yard setback (3.9' in lieu of 4'). Additionally, it appears that once the property has been divided again, the existing garage will also have a non-conforming side yard setback (3' in lieu of 4'). COMMENTS: Approval of the subject request is the easiest way to rectify the existing problem. Both of the resulting parcels meet the minimum lot area requirements and the variance situations that have been present since at least 1984 remain unchanged. Alternative approaches would be to require a minor subdivision the would relocate the common lot line between Lots 2 and 3, one foot to the south thereby alleviating the side yard setback variance for the garage, or require relocation of the garage to a conforming position on LOt 2. Although both of these are viable options, they seem extreme in this case since it was a Hennepin County error that allowed the property to be recombined in 1986 and the structure locations have not changed. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Cote Planning Report October 31, 1996 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Waiver of Platting including the following variances: Principal Structure - Lots 1 and 2 -- 3.5 foot front yard variance Detached Garage - Lots 1 and 2 --. 1 foot rear yard variance Detached Garage - Lots 1 and 2 -- 1 foot side yard variance If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, a motion should include the finding that the requested variances are consistent with the criteria for granting variances found in Section 330:170 of the Mound City Code. 42e,/ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 31,1996 Planning Commission, Applicant & Staff Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent 1601 Gull Lane, Waiver of Platting Application The sewer for existing house located on Lots 1 and 2 is connected to the main in front of Lot 3. Staff recommends the existing sewer service be disconnected and reconnected to the main in front of Lots 1 and 2. There is no existing sewer stub-in for Lots 1 and 2. Prior to release of the resolution approving the Waiver, the sewer locations must be corrected, or some type of financial guarantee be established to insure that it is completed. There is no existing stub-in for water for Lots 3 and 4. printed on recycled paper draflprinted 9/20/96 Application for I, IlL ..W~R OF PLATTING Ci~ of Mound, 5341 'Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ity Council Date.-_ Distribution: ~ City Planner DNR -- " Public Works ~% - City Engineer · Please type or print the following information: ..... PROPERTY Subject Addrass_~_-- INFORMATION 55364 Application Fee:~ Escrow Deposit: ~ Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT PROPERTY APPLICANT OWNER (if other than applicant) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Circle: R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 8-1 B-2 B-3 Are there existing structures on the property;' (~ / no Do the existing structures comply with the zoning ordinance for setbacks, hardcover, etc.? The applicant is: ?~_.owner other: yes / ~ Phone (H)~~j~ Name (m) Address Phone (H) ~ (W) (M) N.m. - Address Phone (H) (W) .(M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( I no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This appTn must ba signed bi, a__ll owners of the sub/act property, or an explanation given why this b not the case. O.~wn.e.r's Sig~atu~ ~ Date ' - - Uwner s Signature ... Date 42 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~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 Address I~01 ilL{U_ /_jqlG&.~ Lot~ t ~i~,bt ~_ Block I~ Subdivision ~¢~ a~ ~ ZONING DIST~CT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (I-I) OWNER) (w) (M)_ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? 93~ 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.): (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, p. 2 I, 11~ 1~, Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulat/ons 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 Front Yard: ( N S(~ W ) ~.~ ft. I(~,~" ft. ~ ,~""' ft. Side Yard: ( N~E W ) .-~. ft. .~.4'or-') ft. .[. ft. Side Y~d: ( N S E W ) ft. ' ft. ft. R~Y~d: (NSEC) _ ~ ft. ~,~ ft. ~l ~eside: ( N S E W ) - ft. - ft. ft. ' (NSEW) a. ft. ft. Strut Frontage: ft. ft. ~t Size: ft. H~dcover: sq ft sq ft sq ff sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district.'? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (x~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 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? No ~. If yes, explain: Yes (), 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature~ Applicant's Signature~ Date [O/( ri( C~{.o (Rev. 22/8/95) I i C E RTI F ICAT~E.. 0_F_.__S U RV.~__y_ -2 / : Denotes GENERAL NOTES ,mn mnn, ,?~_n.! ..... CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IIPROPER7 ADDRESS: OWNER S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA I SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record') ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) ,I · 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. LENGTH WIDTH SO FT HOUSE ~...~X ,~O = r7~O ~ ,.X t& = tO~ ,.. DETACHED BLDGS ___~, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. I~ x ~.Z. = ~02- ,,. X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~ x ,~ = ~ X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening bewveen boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER(indicate difference) ............................... City of Mound Re: Separation of property located at 1601 Gull Lane. To Whom it May Concern; This letter is to accompany the request for land separation.~ In 1986, the property was originally acquired by Greg Cote and Linda Russeth as separate parcels, becoming fee owners on the original of Lots 1 and 2 and purchased Lots 3 and 4 on a Contract for Deed. When they filed for homestead, and through the process of approval through the City and County, the properties were combined into one legal descriptionof Lots 1 thru 4 and given one PID. There obviously was an oversight in the approval as there are two separate fee owners of these properties. A Quit Claim deed was given by Linda Russeth to Greg Cote for Lots 1 and 2. It was when we recorded that deed that the County proceeded with a lot separation that has been denied by the City of Mound. Also, we have been told that we need a variance for the garage that is on the original of Lots 1 and 2. This garage was in place long before these properties were combined into one parcel. County personnel has told us that the approval of the merger was ultimately the decision of the City and City personnel has told us the ultimate decision is that of the County. I would like to know where the accountability of this decision does lie as the situation still stands that the properties never should have been combined in the first place with separate fee owners. We are requesting that the application for separation is granted and if it will not be granted, we would like to go further into the matter of how this was allowed in the first place. Secondly, we would like to know if the variance is still required for the garage and if so, is this setback requirement one that was in place prior to April of 1986. if this requirement has been in place prior to April 1986, this will then be a matter for the Title Insurance company. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Martha Cote Encl. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 15, 1996 John Cameron, City Engineer Peggy James, Secretary .F~ Request for Lot Separation Lots I - 4, Block 12, Woodland Point 1601 Gull Lane The owner of the subject property has requested that lots 3 & 4 be separated from lots I & 2, please note the attached plat map. Our records indicate that as early as 1963, Lots I - 4 were one parcel, then in 1984 Lots 1 & 2 were separated from Lots 3 & 4, and then in 1986 they were combined again. Please review this information and call Jon Sutherland to discuss. Thank you. Enclosures printed on recycled paper ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO ECTION llOUSE ......... SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S E W GARAGE, SIIED ..... ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 6~ B1 7w500/0 B2 20,000/80 - B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. Il 30,000/100 ~D~GIPROPOSED 50' R 30' '") OR OTHER DETACIIED BUILDINGS VARIANCE J FRONT , '-F This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of the re uire · · . . . . .Planning Department at 472-0600. q merits outhned tn the Csty of Mound Zomng Ordsnance. For further reformation, contact the City of Mound , 27/ O ~ ~" -- O O November 26, 1996 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND EXPRESSING STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE LOST LAKE CANAL AND GREENWAY PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN MOUND WHEREAS, the City of Mound has conducted a 5 year planning process called Mound Visions involving extensive citizen participation; and, WHEREAS, the primary emphasis of the Mound Visions design concept is to refocus downtown on the Lost Lake area; and, WHEREAS, the design concept was adopted by the City Council in the spring of 1992 as the framework for future public investment and solicitation of private investment; and, WHEREAS, extensive environmental and ecological testing and study has been conducted in the project area finding no significant concerns; and, WHEREAS, the project being proposed is believed to have very positive social, economic and environmental impacts on the community; and, WHEREAS, an official public hearing held on November 12, 1996 displayed overwhelming public support for the projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by unanimous decision of the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: A The City of Mound strongly supports the completion of the Lost Lake Canal and Greenway projects. B. The City of Mound will coordinate closely with permitting and funding agencies through the course of the projects to ensure smooth and successful completion. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION g96- [~ November 26, 1996 RESOLUTION TO MODIFY THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE LOST LAKE CANAL AND GREENWAY PROJECTS project; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mound has prepared proposed construction plans for the WHEREAS, the City has used those plans to gather feedback on the projects in a variety of ways from the public and permitting agencies; and, WHEREAS, the public has displayed overwhelming support for this project; and, WHEREAS, through open communication with permitting agencies, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District raised concerns about aspects of the project as designed; and, WHEREAS, since the concerns were raised, the City has worked closely with these other agencies to develop alternative solutions which maintain the flavor and intent of the original plan but result in less environmental impact and are in closer compliance with agency rules; and, WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed proposed plan modifications with agency staff and representatives and received very positive feedback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the cityof Mound, Minnesota: mo Councilmember The City of Mound endorses plan modification as reflected in the construction plan shown in attachment "A" to this resolution. The City of Mound will proceed with permit applications and preparation of detailed construction plans and specifications according to this plan. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 19, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK OUR LADY OF THE LAKE - BINGO PERMIT Our Lady of the Lake Church is applying for an Exemption from Lawful Gambling License for their Las Vegas Night that is scheduled for February 1, 1997. They are planning bingo and a raffle. Forms and insurance are current. ls BILLS November 26, 1996 BATCH 6112 Total Bills $153,701.24 $153,701.24 0 0 '" C C: 0 C o 42~1 C C" 0 C 0 0 © C. 0 0 .~, '" E.: C.'? C C 0 0 "8 ,,-4 C.? C, 0 0 0 -s"- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-062O Publish in the Laker October 29, 1996 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Mound will meet in the council chambers of the city hall at 7:30 pm, on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 to consider the making of improvements on Sherwood Drive pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed is Sherwood Drive. The estimated cost of such improvement is $61,800. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Linda Strong, CMC, Acting City Clerk McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors September 19, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Proposed Street Improvements Sherwood Drive MFRA #11482 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are submitting a Preliminary Engineering Report for proposed street improvements on Sherwood Drive. If you have any questions or need additional information on this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosures ~,~,~ An Equal Opportunit7 Employer GENERAI~ Sherwood Drive was constructed by a private developer in 1966 when the plat Sherwood Shores was created. The street was constructed with a bituminous surface and bituminous curb that directed nm-off from the cul-de-sac to Commerce Boulevard (County Road 110). This street was not considered for reconstruction when the other streets were done from 1978 to 1981 since it was already bituminous and only 12 to 14 years old. The sanitary sewer and watermain were also installed by the Developer in 1966. This street is now 30 years old and is need of major repairs or reconstruction. With the patching, seal coat and general disintegration, very little of the old curb is left to contain and direct mn-off. A few of the homes were constructed with driveways that sloped away from the street and are experiencing water problems. STREET DESIGN The existing street surface and base would be removed to an acceptable subgrade. Any salvageable gravel base would be reused in the new street construction. The existing street is approximately 30 feet wide, whereas the proposed width would be 28 feet from back of curb to back of curb. This is the standard width used in the City for the last 20 years and allows for parking on one side only. The typical street section to be used will consist of a minimum of 6" Class 5 Gravel, 2" of Bituminous Base and a 1-1/2" Bituminous Wearing Course. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER The curb used would be the City's standard surmountable concrete curb and gutter with 3 foot concrete aprons at all driveways. The driveways disturbed by the construction will be restored in kind and the particular ones experiencing run-offproblems will be given special attention. The proposed street grade will be very close to what exists, thus the new curbs will be installed to match the existing yards as close as possible. All boulevard areas disturbed by the construction will be restored with 4" of black dirt and new sod. STORM SEWER No additional storm sewer is proposed for this project. In the mid 1980's, when Hennepin County upgraded County Koad 110, they installed new catch basins on Sherwood Drive at the end of the curb radiuses from 110. We are proposing to start the street reconstruction at this point. The entire length of Sherwood Drive is only 600 feet which is well under the allowable distance to drain water in the concrete gutters. We would recommend that the existing sanitary sewer line be televised prior to the street construction. This would allow for repair~pipe is discovered. The only other utility work proposed would be the adjustment of manhole castings and valve boxes to match the new bituminous surface. COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost of the street reconstruction as described herein is ~ A detailed breakdown of the costs are included with this report. The estimated cost are for 1997 construction and include 30% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs. COST ESTIMATE STREET CONSTRUCTION _ SHERWOOD DRIVE ITEM QUANTIT'![ .[~!LT_P_}kLC~ Bituminous Removal 2,300 SY $ 1.00/SY Common Excavation 400 CY $ 4.00/CY Concrete Curb & Gutter 1,350 LF $ 7.00/LF Concrete Driveway Aprons 860 SF $ 3.00/SF Class 5 Gravel 870 TN $ 10.00/TN Bituminous Base 230 TN $ 28.00/TN Bituminous Wear 170 TN $ 32.00/TN Driveway Restoration 160 SY $ 10.00/SY Manhole Adjustment 4 EA $ 200.00/EA Gate Valve Adjustment 1 EA $ 150.00/EA Black Dirt 100 CY $ 7.00/CY Sod 1,000 SY $ 3.50/SY Contingencies (10%) Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Cost (30%) Total Estimated Project Cost ESTIMATED TOTAL $ 2,300.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 9,450.00 $ 2,580.00 $ 8,700.00 $ 6,440.00 $ 5,440.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 800.00 $ 150.00 $ 700.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 61,800.00 ASSESSMENTS It has been the City's policy to assess most of the cost of the improvements to the benefiting properties. When the large reconstruction projects were done in the late 70's and early 80's, the City Contributed 1 mill, which calculated to 1 to 1-12/% of the total cost of the project. For purposes of this report, we have included the area of the City right-of-way in the assessment formula as a suggested City's share of the project. This would be approximately 3% of the total cost of the project. In 1976 the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolution No. 76-77. The assessment criteria is as follows: a. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on front footage (front and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40 front feet. b. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. c. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit basis. Since 1976 the City Council has added the following refinements to the policy. 1. Triangle Lots - Lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be assessed for footage on the long side only. Multiple units are assessed on the basis of 3/4 unit per each residential unit in the building (example: a 50 unit apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus area). Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and square footage will be reduced by 50 percent. 4. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which have previously been assessed for another street improvement project will be assessed for footage only. 5. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage on the 10ng side and the average length of the other two sides. 6. The cost of driveway entrances over 12 feet wide are assessed directly to the property owner. 7. 1996 2'27P~ MCC~MBS FRANK ROOS No. 9823 ?. 2/2 The following is a breakdown of how the area, frontage and unit charges were calculated. Total Project Co~ to.be Assessed ~;61.800.00 Total Cost for area charge Total Cost for frontage charge Total Cost for unit charge Total Project Cost to be assessed $61,800.00 X 30% : $18,540.00 $61,800.00 x 30% -- 218,540.00 $61,800.00 x 40% = $~ $61,800.00 -Area Charge : $18,540.00 + 307,160 S.S'. = $ 0.06/SF · ' Frontage Charge = $18,540.00 + 1,296.52 L.F. = $14.30/LF - Unit Charge = $24,720.00 + I2 units = $2,060.00/Unit The following proposed assessm~t spread was prepared using the City's street improvement assessment policy. PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMEi~ Lot 1 13-117-24 23 0033 $1,030.00 $1,842.27 $ 0.00 $ 2,872.27 LOt2 13-117-24230034 $ 2,060.00 $ 1,430.00 $ 1,302.00 $ 4,792.00 Lot3 13-117-24230035 $ 2,060.00 $ 1,428.57 $ 1,078.80 $ 4,567.37 Lot4 13-117-24230036 $ 2,060.00 $1,287.00 $ 1,077.60 $ 4,424.60 Lot5 13-117-24230037 $ 2,060.00 $1,287.00 $ 1,748,40 $ 5,095.40 Lot 6 13-117-24 23 0038 $ 2,060.00 $ 1,623.77 $ 1,822.80 $ 5,506.57 Lot 7 13-117-24 23 0039 $ 2,060.00 $ 670.67 $ 2,306.40 $ 5,037,07 Lot 8 13-117-2423 0040 $ 2,060.00 $ 670.67 $ 2,455.20 ,$ 5,185.87 RLS LotB 13-117-24230029 $ 2,060.00 $ 2,592.59 $ 2,529.60 $ 7,182.19 RLS Lot C 13-117-24 23 0030 $ 2,060.00 $ 2,265.41 $ 669.60 $ 4,995.01 RLS LotD 13-117-24230031 $ 2,060.00 $1,144.00 $ 706,80 $ 3,910.80 RLS Lot E 13-11%24 23 0032 $ 1,030.00 $1,393.39 $ 0.00 $ 2,423.39 RLS Part Lot B 13-11%24 23 0028 $ 2,060.00 $ 904.90 $ 6'32.40 $ 3,597.30 City Sham (R/W) $ 2.100.0(} Totals $24,720.00 $18,540.24 $18,429.60 $61,689.84 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This street is 30 years old and has fulfilled the normal life expectancy for a residential street of that particular design. Substantial maintenance savings will be realized from the proposed improvement and it will also solve some water problems that a couple homes are experiencing. It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. cSmain:\11482~'pt9-19 ATION ~: E'XHJBITiA ; : November 26, 1996 RESOLUTION//96- RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND pREPARATION OF PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SHERWOOD DRIVE WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted September 24, 1996 setting a public hearing date of November 12, 1996, continued on November 26, 1996 on the proposed improvement of Sherwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, a notice was mailed ten days prior and a notice was published two weeks prior to the hearing and the hearing was held on November 26, 1996, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted September 24, 1996 and pursuant to a petition of affected property owners. 3. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk September 24, 1996 RESOLUTION//96-98A RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC FP, ZARING ON SFlqzRWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENT WI:rlZ. REAS, pursuant to resolution of the Mound City Council adopted August 27, 1996, a report has been prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. with reference to the improvement of Sherwood Drive and this report was received by the Council on September 24, 1996. NOW, TI~,REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TI:rE CITY COUNCIL OF TI:W. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $61,800. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 12th day of November, 1996, in the Council chambers of the City Hall at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Moved by Ahrens, seconded by Iensen, unanimously carried. Adopted by the Council this 24h day of September, 1996. Attest: Acting City C*-lerk Mayor RESOLUTION//96-86A RF_,SOL~ON ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE IMPRO~ OF SHERWOOD DRIVE August 27, 1996 BE IT RESOLVED BY, the City Council of the City of Mound: A certain petition requesting .the improvement of Sherwood Drive has been filed with the City Council on August 27, 1996, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. Tiffs declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. The petition is hereby referred to McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., and that company is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary was as 'to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Polston and Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Akrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None seconded by Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk Resolution adopted: August 27, 1996 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 RETRACTION OF A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE//96-68 RETRACTION OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES FROM R-1 TO R-lA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the applicant has withdrawn his request to consider a Modification to the Zoning Map from R-1 Single Family Residential (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). This public hearing which was scheduled for Tuesday, Novelnber 26, 1996 at the City of Mound has been cancelled. This hearing involved the properties located at 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land), 5510 Three Points Blvd., and 5470 Three Points Blvd. If you have any questions regarding this retraction you may call Peggy at the City of Mound, 472-0600. Published in "The Laker" on November 16, 1996. Peggy J~n~s, ~lanni~g Secretary prJnted on rocycled p,'~pc, r CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES FROM R-! TO R-lA 5341 MAYtNOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE//96-68 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, NOVEMBER 26, 1996 to consider a Modification to the Zoning Map from R-1 Single Family Residential (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), for the property as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25, "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from the southwest'comer of said Lot 25. PID 13- 117-24 22 0249. 5510 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the West 100 feet of the South 250 feet of said Lot 25 and of the East 50 feet of the South 250 feet of Lot 26 lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0246. 5470 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said LOt 25 lying South of a line run East at a right angle with the West line of said Lot 25 from a point thereon 318.29 feet North from the SW comer of said Lot 25 and lying N of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0250. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Peggy ]~m~e~ffPlanfiing Secretary Published in "The Laker" on November 9, 1996. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property by November 15, 1996. ~,~ ~ printed on recycled paper I (20) DOC NO ~ 40 ........... H (265) !m . (17) -,. ~ (271)~ ALE~AMDE 7pl OF LOT 77 (ZSl) 5 (22) ,2. (250) PART OF LOT 28 (15) 729 APT OWN NO 8 SEAHORSE CONDOI PART OF LOT 25 ,,-4' rO'~6. ~-..__ r,~. ~--~?HREE I (27) PART OF iL ( 5G-24 5) (253-25~) I 9 (47) (4) NOIE, DETAIL OF "NRR I SON d:~/ ;E RECORDi ~' CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 22, 1996 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK SUBJECT: WINTERFEST The Northwest Tonka Lions are planning the Westonka Winterfest event. The scheduled dates are January 10-12, 1997. They are requesting a Temporary Beer Permit and a Quasi Public Sign Permit. No dance is planned. They are also planning to have the fireworks that did not happen at City Days. I have spoken with Pat Harding of the Hennepin County Water Patrol and they will not be allowed to shoot the fireworks off on the ice. He has spoken with Bob Bittle regarding the fireworks. They will have to be shot off of the shoreline. Security has not been arranged as of yet. We were unable to reach Skip Johnson of the fireworks company. Communications will continue. The insurance for the Lions is in order. I have not received insurance from the fireworks company. 1s printed on recycled paper NOV-11-96 NON 17:29 PNEUIIATIO OONTROLS FA× ..N.O.,. _6125579775 P.~ ~0~2{.0.5,,, $2,00 per .~y.~ al~r Dates Permit Will Be'U,~I- - .~ .m T~ ~on~ubvc,Days... ::. ~3a~ ~OOD RO~ MO~, ~OTA . R ALE f NOV-II-96 I~ON 17:30 PN£UI~TIO CONTROLS F~X NO, 6125579775 P.,9.4./qS.. o~er. ~asuzt cl~n~S up Of ~he pa~ a~ea. APPROVAL ~ol:Lce Dept. NOV-II-96 NON 17:30 PNEUtIRTIC OONTEOLS .__F.~.~ ..N.0.:._6125579775 P, 03/05 '-" SIGN_PERMIT APPLICATION ' -~'~/~'07 . . . QUA~I PU;ILT_C FUNCTION., PO;T48(.E $1G~" '--. -/$/&&~ . City of Mound, 534,1 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 ' Phone: 472-0600 FAX; 472-0620 Poaable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functiorts, The period of use shall not exceed ten (1 O] consecutive days and requires apDroval of'the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other Dremises as aDDroved by the Cit~ Council when granting the permit. A permit Is however ' exempt from all fees. ~'/~ M~'/<' ~z/' DA~$ O~ USE: DESCRIBEREASON/ /1 /- !111111111111111ti!11IIIIIIIIIIIII/1111111I!111111II!111/I/!1111tli/111111//II H~NN~I~N COUNTY S~I~K~'~'*~ OFFTC£ WAT~II I~ATROL I~'CZ:AL, ]EVEMT PERIIXT ~t~IsL'I'CI%T~'OM I WRXTTEN FZRMISSTOM TS ~QUXRED FROM THE CXTY OR M~XC~PALXTY XM WHI~ ~ THZ~ E~ IS TO BE ~. F~SE ~TT~CH WRITTEN ~E~Zg~XON TO ~I~ The ~ollowing insolation is necessary ~o insure ~e proper and Aecurat, issuance o~ your De--it- Plea=e complete ~is fo~ in ~" en~lreuy,, ant re~urn i~ to our o~ice a% P 0 BOX 187 (dldl ShoFoline Dr), ~pFing Park ~ SS38~, (612)471-8528, fax (612)471-0314, at leas= ~r=v (30~ divm.Dr~oF ~, . PIWeoo PRINT or. TYPE DATE(S) OF EVENT: EVI~NT LOC ION (~ cc' ic A~ a in St Dd f ' ei~ : WAS T~I. EVIICt ~ELD ~ ~OU~ Y~AR, Ye.~No~. . ' ~O~TACT PERSON: Es=imated Participant A=tendance: ~,.~ Estimated Spectator At~endance~ '~~ Will Alcoholic beverages be sold or allowed? Yes~No_._ FROM : R3 BITLE ASSOCFA× 612472 5459 PHON~ NO. : P01 sold? ~J_}_~o__ ~) : .... , ~t~c~u~es do ~ou intend' ~ place on wa~ecl ic~~ or unususal haz~r~ ~o p~ci--~ o- --n--M organ~za=%ion fgr safe_~y purposes: "f ~/h ~,_6, t (~(~ , , , Is ~he Hennepin Councy S.~eriffs Water Patrol office recfues=e4 for con~rol of vh¥) ? .... guidelines given with your applica~ion musk be =o£1oveGo TITLE 4~o7 November 26, 1996 RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATIONS OF CURRENT MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT (lIRA) BOARD MEMBERS AND APPOINTING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE AS THE MOUND HRA WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); and, WHEREAS, the City Council has appointed citizens to serve as board members of the HRA for many years; and, WHEREAS, many volunteers have graciously accepted serving on the HRA board during those years to oversee the Indian Knoll Manor subsidized housing project and to oversee other housing and redevelopment matters in the City of Mound; and, WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Mayor and City Council that replacing members who have chosen to resign or not wish to be reappointed to another term has been difficult; and, WHEREAS, recently, a majority of members on the HRA board have chosen to resign from the board leaving the HRA with no board to oversee the Indian Knoll Manor facility or to conduct other business of the HRA; and, WHEREAS, these events have prompted the Mayor and City Council to evaluate the HRA as a separate board from the City Council and to look at other alternatives to conduct the business of the HRA. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, upon careful consideration, has determined that in the best interests of the City of Mound, it should accept the resignations of the current HRA board members effective December 31, 1996. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound hereby appoints itself to serve as the HRA Board of Directors in the following capacity following that date: Mayor Bob Polston Councilmembers Chair Andrea Ahrens Mark Hanus Liz Jensen Leah Weycker (Currently Councilmember-Elect to sworn in as a Councilmember on January 14, 1997) be Proposed Resolution Mound HRA Page 2 This resolution was moved by The following vote was recorded: BE IT FURTI-IER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council are to serve as the HRA Board as long as they are on the City Council. s~onded by. Ayes Nays Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk RECEIVED NOV 1 RECEIVED REC, EIVEO l;OV 1 9 199§ PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINI.rrF OF A MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1996 PROPOSED CHANGE TO 1997 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS Parks Director, Jim Fackler, informed the Commission that the Commons Task Force has requested that a notice be included with the mailing of the 1997 dock application forms. The Notice will inform dock holders that they have the ability to combine two adjacent dock site and install one combined use dock. This has been done in previous years, but is not general knowledge of dock site holders. The Task Force believes if this is promoted it would aid in reducing congestion of docking areas. It was suggested this information be printed on a separate sheet in order to draw more attention, and mailed with the 1997 application forms. The Notice states: In order to help reduce congestion of docking areas, dock site homers are allowed to install one 'combined use dock ~ with an adjacent dock site homer. One dock may be installed on two sites. 4 Park and Open Space Corn~nission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 - Both dock holders would pay for their individual sites. The design and installation of the dock will need to be approved by the Dock Inspector. The site holders may return to their original single dock configuration anytime throughout the boating season. This change will require approval of the City Council. Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of this change to the dock forms. (Commissioner Mary Goode arrived.) Goode asked if reducing the number of docks would cause a problem with the City's LMCD license. Faclder stated that the LMCD is only concerned with the number of boats, not the number of docks. Ahrens expressed a concern that someone may be able to install a dock on the vacant site. Fackler confirmed that this could not happen. Ahrens questioned the incentive for people to combine their docks. McCaffrey commented that it is easier for two people to maintain one dock. Ahrens commented, if the concern is about congestion, maybe the fee should be reduced for those who combine their docks. Casey suggested that they could try a financial incentive next year after they see what kind of response comes from this notice. Pederson commented that twice this year they have heard complaints about congestion and suggested they consider reducing the number of dock sites. Faclder commented that two complaints from 450 dock site holders is not significant. Fackler noted that the Task Force is addressing this issue. Reducing the fee for combined use docks was discussed. It was determined that if additional incentive is needed next year, then they can look at reducing the fee. The multiple-slip dock program was briefly reviewed. Faclder noted that the Task Force will be reviewing the proposed program with the Commission in December. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Goode, to recommend approval of the "Notice" to be mailed with the 1997 Dock Application Forms. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-O620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: November 5, 1996 ,.'" Park and Open Space Commissi~,X, r~ Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ ~ Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector [ ' SUBJECT: Additional Information to be Added to 1997 Dock Application Forms Staff has been asked by the Commons Task Force to include information with the 1997 dock application forms describing the ability for two adjacent dock site holders to install one combined use dock. This has been done in previous years, but is not general knowledge of dock site holders. The Task Force believes if this is promoted it would aid in reducing congestion of docking areas. Both dock holders would pay for their individual sites. The design and installation of the dock would need approval by the Dock Inspector. The dock site holders may return to their original single dock configurations anytime throughout the boating season. It was suggested this information be printed on a separate sheet in order to draw more attention, and mailed with the 1997 application forms. A sample "Notice" is attached for your review. This information could be included in the informational letter that is sent with the dock application. This change will require approval of the City Council. Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of this change to the dock forms. JF:pj cc: Commons Task Force 11-7-96 printed on recycled paper NOTICE In order to help reduce congestion of docking areas, dock site holders with an adjacent dock are allowed to install one "combined use dock" site holder. One dock may be installed on two sites. Both dock holders would pay for their individual sites. The design and installation of the dock will need to be approved by the Dock Inspector. The site holders may return to their original single dock configuration anytime throughout the boating season. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A M'EETING MAY 9, 1996 REVIEW 1997 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey reviewed that there are no changes, other than dates. He referred to a statement in City Code Section 437 which needs to either be added to the dock application form or deleted from the ordinance, it reads, "The application shall contain a reminder and/or warning to the applicant that a dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock." Ahrens was temporarily excused from the meefi_~g_: N made by Casey, seconded by Darling to recommend approval' the.199_7 Dock Application Forms as submitted, including the change in dati~y~ a?d adding a ast~a~ement to the dock application form as required by C .Code Section 437.05, Subd. 4, as follows: "A dock license will not be issued for .any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairwa,, or otherwise approved by staff. Motion carried unanimously. returned. 43/7 1997 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1997, (must be postmarked by February 28, 1997). Applications received on March 1, 1997 and befor9 April 1 are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the third (3rd) priority category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31st will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will'be placed in a third (3rd) priorty category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal application BY FEBRUARY 28, 1997 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by March 31. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See information on back for senior citizen rates. All information pertaining to you must be completed or the application will be denied. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS ! ! RENEWAL: 1996 Dock Site # NEW APPLICATION: Indicate preferred area: ~ i *Summer Resident ' '~ Permanent Resident (owner) , ..., ' ' ' I Renter ' Owner (paying fee for renter) , ~ , *SUMMER RESIDENT'S MAILING ADDRESS: S NAME OFPERSONSHARINGDOCK: H MOUND STREET ADDRESS: ~ HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: E CHECK ONE: I__I Permanent Resident (Owner) I__I Summer Resident Renter · . ~ ~ ~ ~ .',"" "~ '~ ~ ~L~ "~, '"" ~ ~'~ !' "" "'"" ~':' ~'~' ~' ':':' ~' ~: ~: ~' ~ '~ ~' ~' ~' ~ '"" :~' '~' ~'~ ~ ~'~':~' ~'~'~'~ '~ ~'~"':'" ~:~'~'~' ~'" ~'~' ~' "'" ~'~' ~"'~' ~ ~ ~ ':':~' ~'~'~ ~ ~ ~:' ~' ""'" ~ ~ ~':': ~' ~' ~:' ~':'~'~'~'~ List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft License Number, make and size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses: BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FI~ 1 2 4/jet ski L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long $ 7.50 $1~.25 $15.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $18.75 over 40' and up to 48' long = $22.50 over. 48' feet long = $30.00 Permits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof of boat ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. 1997 Dock License Application This is an application only. No dock can be installed until a location is granted. TYPE OF DOCK I-- Straight Dock L or T Dock ..................... U or H Dock (not available in all areas) ........ straight dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock ! I., I . BASIC FE~ $150.00 $200.00 $235.00 'U' or 'H' Dock !' ..... I I,, I I_ I FEE AND LEGALITY OF DOCK WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR OR PARK COMMISSION. SENIOR CITIZENS (65 years or older at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50. Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, i.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus $30.00 share fee. SENIOR CITIZEN NAME BIRTH DATE BASIC FEE: 81-3260 $ SHARED DOCK $30.00:81-3260 $ L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: 81-3200 $ LIGHT FEE: LATE PENALTIES: TOTAL DUE: 81-3260 $ 81-3260 $ XX-XXXX $ (MAKE CHECKSPAYABL£TO:C1TYOF MOUND) LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd. 2 f., if this license is Bot renewed at ~ (February 28, 1997), the licensee must completel---y remove the li---cense~' dock ~ appurtenance from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. Also, if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. Also, City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 4 states, "A dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock, unless otherwise approved by staff.,, DATE Signature DATE Signature (shared dock holder) RETURN THIS APPLICATION WITH APPLICABLE FEE AND COPY OF MN LICENSE TO THE CITY OF MOUND BY FEBRUARY 2$TH. December 29, 1995 Dear Dock License Applicant: Enclosed is your 1997 Dock License Application Form. The dock fees for 1997 have remained the same as 1995. Following are some general rules relating to your dock license, Permits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof of boat ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. (The Dock Ordinance is available for viewing at City Hall.) DUE DATE: a. All 1997 Dock License Applications must be received by FEBRUARY 28, 1997, (must be postmarked by February 28, 1997). Applications received on March 1, 1997 and before April I are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the third (3rd) priority category. b. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31st will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category. c. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal application by FEBRUARY 28, 1997 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by March 31. FEES: The base fee is based on the shape of your dock and ranges from $150.00 to $235,00. Interpretation of the type of dock installed and applicable fee may need to be determined by the Dock Inspector or Park Commission. L.M.C.D. Fees. The City of Mound is required to pay to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District an annual "boat fee", This fee is based on the length of EACH watercraft stored at your dock as noted on the application. Share fee. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Letter to Applicant Page 2 Senior citizens are eligible for reduced rates. Senior Citizens (65 years or older at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire. Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, plus the $30.00 share fee. WATERCRAFT LICENSES REQUIRED. A copy of the Minnesota Watercraft License is required to be submitted for each boat or watercraft to be stored at your dock, including boats of shared dock holders. A DOCK LICENSE WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION. No dock can be installed until a dock location site is granted by the Dock Inspector Licenses and permits are Non-Transferable, Dock licenses issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS. A permit is required for construction of any kind on any public lands, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public lands, such as: stairways, retaining walls, trimming of trees, etc. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving a special Maintenance Permit from the City, in accordance with Section 320 of the City Code. Applications for remodeling, maintaining or repairing existing boathouses, retaining walls, stonework, decks, landscaping, trimming of trees or brush, or other types of improvements on public lands may be obtained from the Building Department. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER Install your own dock that meets City specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Aquatic plants that are protected by law require permits prior to removal. Remove Eurasian Water Milfoil from the shoreline around your dock. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other materials cannot be stored on public land during the boating season, and must be removed by June 1. Letter to Applicant Page 3 Winter dock storage is allowed in most areas, if neat and orderly, not obstructing area or creating a hazard. Response to request to correct infractions must be made during the time stated or dock permit will be in jeopardy. The use of fertilizer, weed killers, herbicides and pesticides on public land is discouraged. Chemical drift and runoff ADVERSELY affects the quality of our lakes and wetlands. It is very important that all the information asked for on the application be completed, including information on a shared dock holder. If your application is received incomplete, this will delay granting of your permit. Please feel free to call or write the Parks Department at City Hall with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector pJ Enclosures 1997 MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICAT/ON CITY OF MOUND, 5341MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return by February 29. Applications received after this date are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. Renewals not received by April 1, NO PERMIT will be issued for this year. All information pertaining to you must be filled in or permit will be delayed. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS 1996 BUOY LICENSE Permanent Resident (owner) Owner (paying fee for renter) *SUMMER RESIDENT'SMAILINGADDRESS: HOME PHONE WORK PHONE *Summer Resident Renter REQUIRED INFORMATION: List owner, watercraft license number, type of watercraft, length of watercraft, and L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. No permit will be issued without a photocopy of your DNR watercraft license. OWNER'S NAME WATERCRAFr LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long = $12.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $30.00 over 20' and up to 24' long = $18.00 over 40' and up to 47' long = $36.00 over 24' and up to 32' long = $24.00 over 48' feet long = $48.00 1997 License Fee for a sailboat mooring buoy site will be $150.00 plus the correct L.M.C.D. boat fee for the season. DESCRIBE LOCATION OF BUOY SITE: Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance, City Code Section 437, shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. I understand if I allow boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my site, I violate City Code Section 437. This is an application only. No buoy can be installed until a location is granted by the Dock Inspector. SIGNATURE DATE FEE PAID $ PENALTY $ 1997 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 PHONE: 472-0600 NAME OF APPLICANT: ADDRESS: BUSINESS NAME: BUSINESS ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK ADDITION PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION: 1. A scaled drawing showing the size, shape, and type of dock proposed, and the location and type of buoy(s) to be used. 2. A scaled drawing showing off-street parking provided for each three rental boat stalls, buoys or slips. 3. A statement outlining the manner, extent and degree of use contemplated for the dock proposed. 4. Payment of permit fee must be included with this application. 5. All applications received on or after March i shall be subject to a late fee of $20. NEW APPLICANT FEE .............. $200.00 BASIC RENEWAL FEE .............. $150.00 NUMBER OF SLIPS IN WATER X $5.00 = NUMBER OF BOATS STORED ON LAN-----~ X $2.60 = TOTAL .................... BUSINESS NAME DATE APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE March 8, 1993 Mr. William Niccum 4841 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: SETON VIEW 1993 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE Dear Mr. Niccum: I have not received your 1993 Commercial Dock License Application. There is no fee for your association, however, you are required to apply every year. Please complete the enclosed application and forward to me. I must have these by March 15, 1993 as I will be presenting these for City Council approval and forwarding them to the LMCD. Respectfully, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector TM:pj Enclosure CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Oct. 1996 83.33% GENERALFUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Oct. 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,280,640 0 654,743 (625,897) 51.13% 5,800 25 3,410 (2,390) 58.79% 77,100 11,393 114,454 37,354 148.45% 890,740 16,189 558,217 (332,523) 62.67% 48,250 837 8,534 (39,716) 17.69% 60,000 9,520 61,709 1,709 102.85% 35,200 140 13,262 (21,938) 37.68% 43,500 0 0 (43,500) 0.00% 10,000 1,418 11,108 1,108 111.08% TOTAL REVENUE 2~451,230 39,522 1,425,437, ~1.025,793) 58.15% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 307,570 54,250 306,681 (889) 99.71% 108,320 5,250 98,424 (9,896) 90.86% 1,430,000 123,342 1,245,791 (184,209) 87.12% 410,000 48,729 353,890 (56,110) 86.31% 766,500 68,736 659,981 (106,519) 86.10% 5,100 2,800 5,090 (10) 99.80% 70,800 79 69,077 (1,723) 97.57% 11114/96 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND UDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Oct. 1 996 83.33% Oct. 1996 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 68,730 Promotions 4,000 Cable TV 600 City Manager/Clerk 185,030 Elections 11,300 Assessing 54,450 Finance 163,600 Computer 22,000 Legal 106,440 Police 804,640 Civil Defense 3,780 Planning/Inspections 167,320 Streets 398,840 City Property 92,790 Parks 135,300 Sum ruer Recreation 29,700 Contingencies 40,000 Transfers 155,310 5,630 0 100 12,155 218 2 12 519 I 322 4 619 65 643 I 362 13 784 30 022 15,165 8,917 30,082 72 11,781 VARIANCE PERCENT EXPENDED 55,777 12,953 81.15% 4,000 0 1 00.00% 644 (44) 1 07.33% 124,573 60,457 67.33% 5,912 5,388 52.32% 57,195 (2,745) 105.04% 132,692 30,908 81.11% 13,568 8,432 61.67% 57,870 48,570 54.37% 668,571 136,069 83.09% 4,220 (440) 111.64% 129,791 37,529 77.57% 326,232 72,608 81.80% 79,098 13,692 85.24% 111,105 24,195 82.12% 30,082 (382) 101.29% 3,881 36,119 9.70% 117,825 37,485 75.86% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~443,830 213,393 1 ~923~036 .520,794 78.69% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 83,782 284,550 23,020 92.52% Recycling Fund 122,420 14,317 123,684 (1,264) 101.03% Liquor Fund 205,930 19,574 181,467 24,463 88.12% Water Fund 413,410 34,653 305,958 107,452 74.01% Sewer Fund 963,180 76,291 871,397 91,783 90.47% Cemetery Fund 5,570 385 3,718 1,852 66.75% Docks Fund 37,470 2,360 33,620 3,850 89.73% exp95 11/14/96 G.B. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMIqSION MINUTES OF A MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1996 Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Vice Chair Bill Darling, Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Pederson, Mary Goode, City Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Faclder, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Also in attendance were: Dr. Bonnie Menken, Mike Gardner, Robert Lien, Dan & Sand° Strot, Leah Weyker, and three other unidentified people. Darling announced a correction called in to him by Mary Goode who informed him she would be late to the meeting. Page 7, line 4, should read "She does not feel they should hold u_lt work on upland development." Meyer noted a correction on page 11, the amount of money for "City staff for flooding, snow plowing, and..." should be $4,500, not $5,000. Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Darling to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES The following items were added to the agenda: 8.a. TIME AND TIME KEEPER 8.b. FISHING DOCKS DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL MOTION ON PAGE 65 OF THE PACKET RELATING TO THE LOST LAKE CANAL DREDGE PROJECT PUBLIC ltEARING: DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES FOR 1997 Parks Director, Jim Faclder, reviewed the changes proposed to the Dock Location Map for 1997 and noted that the "Attachment" has been amended accordingly: Nonabutting dock sites 51000 and 51525 will be deleted. These docks were located within dedicated Brighton Common (Shoreline Type C, abutting property owners only). There have been no docks at these locations for several years. The two new dock sites on Longford Road as approved by the City Council on July 9, 1996 will be added and classified as Type C. 3. The new multiple-slip dock sites will be added. ,mt Park and Open Space Corntnission Minutes November 14, 1996 Chair Casey opened the public hearing. Bonnie Menken of 1720 Dove Lane expressed a concern regarding the dock spacing on Wiota Common. She stated that because the docks are too close together there is a safety issue and the shoreline appears cluttered. The Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey stated that the dock spacing on Wiota is 30 feet which is consistent with the balance of the program. Menken asked if the number of docks in that area could be reduced and the sites spread out. The Parks Director noted that the docks can be placed anywhere within the 30 foot site, and sometimes the location of the dock within the site can be adjusted. Menken asked that staff enforce the 30 foot spacing. The Parks Director stated that staff will work with her in the Spring when marking the dock sites in this area. Mike Gardner, resident at 1599 Bluebird Lane, asked if there are going to be any nonabutting dock licenses issued next year in Woodland Point along Jennings Bay. The Parks Director noted that one joint use dock at the end of Woodland Road will be issued a license and there is another nonabutting site just north of there that will also get a license. Gardner stated, according to the court decision, the extension of Woodland Road down to the lake is not city owned property. Fackler stated that he would rather not get into a discussion on this. Fackler commented that the description he saw was that its only "as the property lines extend to the lake," and only the commons abutting the six litigants property are at issue. Gardner stated, based on the attorney's comments, Woodland Road ends 90 feet from the lake and there is no extension there to the City, and as litigants, last year we were willing to authorize a person having a dock at the end of Woodland Road with two boats as long as it was a City owned dock and the City was going to pull the dock back in, and the City Council agreed to this. He added that the City never put a dock out, it was private parties that put the dock out, and the dock was not removed. He does not feel the City has the right to allow a dock to be put out in that location. Fackler suggested that Mr. Gardner put his specific questions in writing so he can refer them to the City Attorney. Fackler commented that he has not seen any documentation which states where Woodland Road ends. Gardner asked if the City is going to issue a dock license for a dock at the end of Woodland Road. Fackler stated that they plan to issue a licenses the same as last year. Gardner asked Fackler if he has read the letter he is referring to. Fackler stated that he is not aware of what letter Gardner is referring to. Gardner summarized what was agreed upon last year with the City Council which was that they would allow a dock to be located at the end of Woodland Road as long as the City put it in and out. Instead what was installed was a private dock that was a large 'L' shaped dock, and there was never a boat stored on the dock. He stated he had written a letter to Ed Shukle regarding the dock and never got a response, and the agreement was for 1996, not 1997. Ahrens recalled that the Council agreed to allow a dock at the end of Woodland Road for the 1996 boating season. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Casey conf'u'med that the Dock Location Map Attachment includes the dock site at the end of Woodland Road. Faclder noted that all dock sites in Woodland Point are listed on the Dock Location Map Attachment, including Mr. Gardner's site and the other litigants. Faclder summarized, the question remains whether the six litigant's sites should be included with the City's LMCD multiple dock license, and if this area is not included in the City's multiple license, the LMCD would require dock spacing at every 50 feet. Fackler stated it is his understanding that there is more litigation going on with the residents in Woodland Point and there is no exact answer at this time. Gardner stated that he is not concerned about the LMCD because the commons adjacent to his property has been deeded to his parcel. Fackler commented that if these sites were removed from the dock program, other parties would be affected. Casey suggested that they could approve the map subject to further review by the City because the Park Commission cannot answer Mr. Gardner's questions. Fackler stated that he would like Mr. Gardner to submit copies of the letters he has mentioned so the City can review the information. Ahrens recalled, that the court judgement said that the commons abutting the properties of the six litigants was privately held and the City did not have the authority to run the program on that commons. She feels they need a legal opinion from the attorney, based on the decision on the outcome of the six litigants, what is recommended that they do in front of the remaining parcels. Ahrens does not feel the Park Commission has enough information at this point to make a recommendation on the locations on this particular commons. Fackler stated that before the Commission decides to remove the Woodland Point dock sites from the map, we need to understand how this will affect the rest of the dock program as it relates to the LMCD license and the amount of lineal footage in the program. Faclder reiterated that he would like the information from Mr. Gardner which he has mentioned relating to the dock at the end of Woodland Road and relating to the commons being deeded to his property. Mr. Gardner stated that he will provide the City with a copy of this information. Meyer expressed a concern about dock spacing and suggested they try to spread out the docks. Fackler commented that the Commons Task for is looking at adding additional multiple-slip dock systems which will hopefully help relieve congestion. Fackler stated that the Commons Task Force will be reviewing their recommendation with the Park Commission in December. Gardner stated that last year they recommended a multiple-slip dock be installed at Canary Beach. Fackler stated that the people in that area were not interested in having a multiple dock. Ahrens stated that there is nothing precluding the City from modifying or making adjustments to the Dock Location Map at any other time during the year. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Leah Weyker, 1586 Bluebird Lane, stated that she recalls different things than Mr. Gardner. She stated that they did not agree to a multiple dock during their ten weeks of mediation. She feels that the Dock Location Map should be approved as presented. Weyker stated that the use of the Commons is still in question, and it was determined that the Commons is dedicated to the neighborhood. Weyker commented that the Map states the dock sites are still in question, and read out loud the verbiage written on the map: Referring to the dock sites located in front of the six litigant's properties, the map states, "Dock Sites... are subject to a court order that precludes from using for dock purposes." and, Referring to all the dock sites on Wawonaissa Common, the map states, "Dock Sites g00490 -/901560: a court decision may have a bearing on these dock sites, which the City Council will continue to review into the future." Ahrens agrees that the verbiage on the map suffices for now and still applies. Weyker commented that the court decision opened more questions than answers, and there is still litigation pending. Chair Casey closed the public hearing. Fackler agreed that the comments as written on the map are adequate. Ahrens requested that the verbiage on the map be included in the Council packet. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Darling to recommend approval of the Dock Location Map for 1997 as presented, with the changes noted by staff. Motion carried unanimously. .PROPOSED CHANGE TO 1997 DOCK APPLICATION FORM~ Parks Director, Jim Fackler, informed the Commission that the Commons Task Force has requested that a notice be included with the mailing of the 1997 dock application forms. The Notice will inform dock holders that they have the ability to combine two adjacent dock site and install one combined use dock. This has been done in previous years, but is not general knowledge of dock site holders. The Task Force believes if this is promoted it would aid in reducing congestion of docking areas. It was suggested this information be printed on a separate sheet in order to draw more attention, and mailed with the 1997 application forms. The Notice states: In order to help reduce congestion of docking areas, dock site holders are allowed to install one 'combined use dock" with an adjacent dock site holder. One dock may be installed on two sites. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Both dock holders would pay for their individual sites. The design and installation of the dock will need to be approved by the Dock Inspector. The site holders may return to their original single dock configuration anytime throughout the boating season. This change will require approval of the City Council. Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of this change to the dock forms. (Commissioner Mary Goode arrived.) Goode asked if reducing the number of docks would cause a problem with the City's LMCD license. Fackler stated that the LMCD is only concerned with the number of boats, not the number of docks. Ahrens expressed a concern that someone may be able to install a dock on the vacant site. Faclder confirmed that this could not happen. Ahrens questioned the incentive for people to combine their docks. McCaffrey commented that it is easier for two people to maintain one dock. Ahrens commented, if the concern is about congestion, maybe the fee should be reduced for those who combine their docks. Casey suggested that they could try a financial incentive next year after they see what kind of response comes from this notice. Pederson commented that twice this year they have heard complaints about congestion and suggested they consider reducing the number of dock sites. Faclder commented that two complaints from 450 dock site holders is not significant. Faclder noted that the Task Force is addressing this issue. Reducing the fee for combined use docks was discussed. It was determined that if additional incentive is needed next year, then they can look at reducing the fee. The multiple-slip dock program was briefly reviewed. Faclder noted that the Task Force will be reviewing the proposed program with the Commission in December. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Goode, to recommend approval of the "Notice" to be mailed with the 1997 Dock Application Forms. Motion carried unardmously. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 .COMMUNITY SKATING RINK UPDATE Meyer updated the Commission on the proposed community skating rink. On Tuesday he met with City Manager, Ed Shulde, and discussed issues/concerns that the City still has. He also met with the Minnetrista Park Commission, they are looking for more detailed information on costs. He will be meeting with them again. Casey referred to the Parks Director's memorandum and questioned Meyer if he is okay with the 1997 budget as it relates to the skating rink. Meyer said it was fair, and they will know more next season. Darling asked if the Park Commission can help Meyer put together the Joint Powers Agreement. Meyer stated that he already has a meeting setup with Community Services and the Hockey Association to discuss it. Meyer stated that the community rink will not happen this winter, but the Hockey Association will again have a small open skating area for the public. PROPOSED 1997 PARKS BUDGET AND CAPITAL OUTLAY Meyer noted that the City Newsletter stated that there was an increase in the Parks Budget and was wondering why. Casey asked Faclder to explain the capital outlay request for $25,000. Fackler stated that this is for a flail mower which is a full size tractor with a side attachment to mow the boulevards, vacant lots, etc. Four to Five years ago the tractor they used was beyond repair, since then they have either contracted the mowing to be done, or they let it go. Complaints have been received and the Council has looked at mowing versus spraying chemicals. The chemical treatments are too expensive. In past years the expense of the mower was not conducive to the budget, and since the problem is still there, the City Manager directed him to see if it could be incorporated into the budget. The cost to contract the mowing, versus the number of complaints received, versus the cost of the flail mower was discussed. It was questioned if this could be a part of the Street Department budget. Fackler noted that it is difficult to get contractors who have the time to come out when you need them and feels it is better to have control and do the mowing yourself. Casey commented that this is a lot of money being spent for views and aesthetics. He believes the City may get the same number of complaints when the weeds are cut and feels it is a waste of natural resources, and the mowers create noise and gas pollution. Casey questioned if the City has actually received legitimate complaints? He feels that to mow the boulevards, etc. is an environmental degradation, and feels the depot improvements would be a better expense to come out of capital outlay. He is not in favor of paying for the Depot improvements out of the Park and Open Space Cornrrdssion Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Park dedication fund. Casey feels the park dedication fund should be used to purchase additional land rather than decorate what we already have. Goode questioned the life expectancy of the flail mower and maintenance issues. Faclder commented that the mower should last for 20 years. Darling stated that he is in favor of seeing the boulevards mowed, however, would rather see a youth employment group paid for the mowing. The City's policies regarding the park dedication fund and capital outlay were reviewed. Fackler stated that State law determines how the park dedication fund may be used. Ahrens stated that it is the policy of the City to use capital outlay to purchase capital, tangible things that cost $500 or more, and not to use it on staff time. Ahrens stated that capital improvement items are not taken out of individual departments, but is all encompassing. Fackler mentioned that there is also a safety issue to consider if the boulevards do not get mowed. Pederson commented on the $15,000 budgeted for Bluffs Beach improvements and asked how these improvements rate versus improving the depot or versus a skating rink. Pederson also expressed a concern that the improvements to Bluffs Beach will prohibit snowmobile access. It was noted that the improvements to Bluffs Beach have already been approved by the Park Commission. It was questioned if it is appropriate that the improvements be paid for out of the park dedication fund. MOTION made by Casey that the flail mower be removed from the budget, that the Depot improvements be moved from the park dedication fund to capital outlay, and that the Bluffs Beach improvements not be paid for out of the park dedication fund. Motion seconded by Meyer. Geffre agrees that the park dedication fund should be used for the purchase of land, and does not see the fund growing, and would like to see the money remain in that fund. Darling suggested an amendment to the motion to move the depot improvements to capital outlay, remove the Bluffs Beach improvements and remove the flail mower from capital outlay and move to Temporary Salaries so the money can be used for summer youth employment to cut the sides of the roads. Casey did not accept the amendment because he does not necessarily agree that the road sides should be cut. Goode suggested they vote on the issues separately. Casey and Meyer withdrew their motion. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Pederson to remove the flail mower purchase from the capital outlay fund. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Darling commented that he would like to see the funds reallocated to Temporary Salaries for summer youth employment. It was suggested that this could be a separate motion. MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Casey, Pederson, Geffre, Meyer, Goode, Byrnes, Botko and Darling. Ahrens abstained. Ahrens commented that she will abstain on all votes relating to the budget. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Goode to recommend that the $30,000 depot improvements be moved out of the park dedication fund and into the capital outlay fund. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Casey, Pederson, Geffre, Meyer, Goode, Byrnes, Botko and Darling. Ahrens abstained. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Casey, to remove the Bluffs Beach improvements out of the park dedication fund. Geffre commented that she has a strong feeling for the park dedication fund, and if the improvements cannot be made to Bluffs Beach this year, then so be it. Goode suggested that the motion reflect that they are in favor of the improvements, but that they do not want it paid for by the park dedication fund. MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Casey, Pederson, Geffre, Meyer, Goode, Byrnes, Botko and Darling. Ahrens abstained. MOTION by Goode to recommend to the City Council that the park dedication fund be used for the acquisition of land for park use. Seconded by Geffre. Byrnes does not think they should limit what they use of the park dedication fund for, because they may decide to use that money to improve Lost Lake in the future. Ahrens recalled that the park dedication fund paid for the NCA study. Ahrens disagrees that the fund should only be used for land acquisition. Geffre noted that in the future the City may have the opportunity to purchase the land adjacent to Lost Lake, and she would rather see the fund used for that than for park improvements. Darling stated that he does not like the fact that it was arbitrarily decided that something be paid for out of the park dedication fund and the Commission was unaware of this. He feels the Commission should have the opportunity to review what is paid for out of the park dedication fund. Geffre agreed that the park commission should be able to recommend when money is spent out of the park dedication fund. Casey commented that they can change their decision in the future on what the fund is used for, but at least they can send the message now that the money is important. 8 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 Faclder noted that when the Commission makes recommendations for park improvements they should recommend at that time what fund the improvements should come out of. Faclder reminded the Commission that the citizens think this improvement is going to get done. Darling suggested a friendly amendment to the previous motion: Any proposed expenditure of park dedication funds be submitted to the Parks and Open Space Commission for recommendation prior to submission to the City Council and that the primary purpose of the park dedication fund be for the acquisition of park land." Casey feels that the word "primary" is a little loose. Goode thinks the amendment is fine because it is only a recommendation. Geffre rescinded her second. The motion was withdrawn. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Goode to recommend to the City Council that any proposed expenditure of park dedication funds be submitted to the Parks and Open Space Commission for recommendation prior to submission to the City Council and that the primary purpose of the park dedication fund be for the acquisition of park land. Motion carried 5 to 4. Those in favor were: Goode, Darling, Geffre, Meyer and Pederson. Those opposed were Ahrens, Byrnes, Botko and Casey. Casey commented that he is in favor of the concept, the reason he was opposed is because the language was not strong enough. Chair Casey announced that it was almost 10:00 and asked if someone wanted to make a motion to extend the work rules to adjourn after 10:00. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to adjourn the meeting at 10:00. Meyer stated that he would like to see more time since there have been some items on the agenda that have been tabled several times. Casey agreed and commented that since they only meet once a month, he is willing to put in another half hour. Darling supports the motion if they could discuss 8.A Time and Time Keeper so in the future they can move things along faster. Byrnes stated that she has kept track of the time spent on each agenda item, and feels too much time is spent on each item. MOTION carried 5 to 4. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Botko, Ahrens, Pederson, and Darling. Those opposed were: Geffre, Meyer, Casey and Goode. 9 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. November 14, 1996 MOTION made by Darling to discuss agenda item 8.A. Time and Time Keeper next. Seconded by Botko. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Botko, Byrnes, Casey, Geffre, Goode, Pederson and Ahreus. Meyer was opposed. TIME KEEPER MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Byrnes that time be allocated to each agenda item that gets us through in a time frame, and if we get to the end of the time associated with that item it be tabled to the end of the meeting, if there is time available to talk about it, it will be discussed, otherwise it will be put off until the next meeting. Casey thinks that before we do this, maybe the Commission should entertain the idea of at least every other month the Commission having an additional meeting. If the motion is approved, he will need help as a chair to move things along faster, but is afraid that not everyone will get heard and people will not get what they want. Goode noted that the unfinished items would be addressed at the end of the meeting and if there is not time it would be discussed at the next meeting, so at least everything on the agenda would get discussed briefly, and if this does not work, this will show us if a second meeting is needed. She thinks it is a good idea. She suggested starting at 7:00. Casey asked how the time is allocated. Darling suggested that at the beginning of the meeting the Chair can set the amount of time per item, then assign a time keeper to watch. Byrnes asked if there is too much on the agendas? Or are we rambling? MOTION carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Darling, Byrnes, Geffre, Goode, Pederson, Botko, and Ahrens. Meyer and Casey were opposed. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 10 MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - OCTOBER 17, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members present: Meisel, Brewer, Drahos, Willette, Jensen and Longpre. Absent and excused: Pietrowski and Cook (ex-officio and non-voting member). Also Present: Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; and Ed Shulde, City Manager. Upon motion by Drahos, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously, the minutes of the September 19, 1996 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement Project Ed Shukle, City Manager reported that John Wagman agreed to sell the City of Mound a permanent easement needed for the dredging of the Lost Lake Canal. This was good news and resolves another issue related to the project. Shukle reported that the meeting to be held this evening will focus on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's various rules and how they apply to the project. Auditor's Road Improvement Project Ed Shukle, City Manager, reported that negotiations are still ongoing related to the right of way acquisition along the new Auditor's Road. Planning Commission Meeting of September 23. 1996 Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator reported that the meeting was informative and many of the concerns raised by the Commission earlier were addressed in the meeting. Future meetings of the Commission will be attended by Chamberlain. Update on Westonka Community_ Center. Ed Shulde reported on the status of this issue. He stated that the School Board had voted to vacate the existing Community Center and move to the Shirley Hills Elementary School site where a new administration building along with a possible Senior Center would be located. The School Board voted to do this because they did not want to spend half of the levy they received in 1993 to demolish the existing community center and not have enough funds to build a building for their Phase 1 needs. He further stated that the City has had discussions with the School District regarding participation in a Senior Center building. These discussions are ongoing and more will be reported ,", ,~, Ii, Iii EDC Minutes of October 17, 1996 Page 2 as time goes on. Other Busines Ed Shukle reported on an upcoming seminar scheduled for November 19, 1996 in St. Paul on Public/ Private Parmerships. He asked if members of the EDC had any interest in attending. It was noted that the next meeting of the EDC is scheduled for Thursday, November 21, 1996, 7 a.m., Mound City Hall. Sharon Cook is scheduled to bring the rolls. Shukle also reminded the EDC of the meeting with the MCWD this evening and the Environmental Assessment Hearing scheduled for November 12, 1996. ~ Upon motion by Willette, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager TO 472862e P.el 11/18/1996 88146 FROR ... THE RETAIL COMMITTEE OF THE WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INVITE YOU TO AT'TEND THE ANNUAL TREE LIGHING CEREMONIES IN DOWNTOWN MOUND iii i CITY OF MOUND MEMORANDUM , HI M . 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD OUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 25, 1996 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUIKLE, CITY MANAGER~/~, SUBJECT: INFORMATION FROM MCWD REGARDING LETTERs WRITTEN BY TOM CASEY RELATING TO LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Pursuant to your request at the Committee of the Whole meeting last week, I contacted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding correspondence fi.om Tom Casey relating to the Lost Lake Improvement Project. I received by fax today the attached correspondence. If you wish me to do anything more on this, please advise. ~ printed on recycled paper ~.,,~u,,~,,. MINNEHAHA CREEK ~-'~~ ~eh~ Cr~k Watershed Di~dct ~ ox ~y Fr~hwater Center 25o0 S~d~ood Road Nava~e, ~ 55331 BOARD OF MANAGERS: ,/o~n E. Thomas. Pres/den{; Pamela G. filial. ~ce PresiO, nr: Marr~a S. Harff/el. Secretan/: T~omas W. LaBoun~. Treasurer; Monica Gross: C. Woodrow Lovo; rh.__omas Uaple, Jr.: District Director Eugene Fl. Strommen MINNESOTA RIVER FAX MEMO SHEET Phonc: 471-0590 Fax: 471-0682 DATE: TO: FAX: FROM: Number of pages, including cover memo: MESSAGE: P. 01/10 RE: ~yPOo~d..Lost Lake wetland ' ~OUnd, ~ dredge Dear Ms.. Weedman, Thl~ .~s a Z'ec/uesC u Prac:.~ce~ c .(~innp. ~Suant to the · Na* .... Wetlaa~,, . .. Lake ~,~ ~ _~neh~a ~ of all -~'- - ~.~o~ ~;'~_~ o~ hi8 ~e~est i= deeme . . -~cus~lo~ '~m~aCatlo~ _~,~n the C~.- - Tha~ You again for Yo~ kind assistance. . "~"~gers. ~s aChed~led file nl P'02/10 MINNENAHA CREEK WATERSNED D~STIq'IIDT RECE'IVED October 2, 1996 Thomas F_,. Case , ~8~4 C~m. hridge Lalle MOU~d, Minnesoaa 56364 F~: (61~) 472-4771 ~innehaha Cra ' _C/o SUZa,~ ,..ak ~aters~ _. City of Mound, Dear SUZanne · Enclosed Pleas . ROWse · f~nd . , U.S. ~. the Se ~ta~,_ . ~n C~te ~ t Stat ~.~ . bo~t wh ~_ ~d ,._/-'.~ar ~o.._a ~s Phone ~?'"~ (EIs). -~-"~ co re~ ~ject ~i~ .w~e told h~- .~og to the ~- ac that ~ nave a n~=~ my tele~-- ~oun~ Cit.. =-~cive ~ ..... ~une that ,, ~ ~°Uncil. - -zzVl~o~e_~ _ ~ca/ l~Pact.,' ase¥ cc: file ,HI P' 03/10 .OCT.O 3 MWV-85-199G 15:01 M I NNEHAHA CRE~K WATERSHED United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ?win Cld~ Field Offic~ ~leom/n~mn, Winne~ J~425-1~5 ,Ul ~124710682 P.04/10 m Bruce Chamberlain Holsington KoegZer Croup, /nc. 7300 Metro $oulevard, Sui=e 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: This refers to our tole hone PrOposed Los= LaS- ~ ? _ _ cOnVersation d . = ,,-~ une Dro~e ....... J ct. In fha ..... . g impact.,, Z did ProJecc will have ...... nd ~ildlife Service · corrected. The pro3ec= will have environmental impacts duS .... ~¥zronmental ~lg_~make =his statement and ~ould [ike your phone lo& =o be subs=rate material from a canal into Lost Lake and thus allow~nE more boat/nE access into the lake. to ex=ava=inE ?lease feel free to call me if you have ~uestions or comments. Thank you for your time. CC: Tom Casey, Hound, MN Sincerely, R. Nicholas ROWse ~ Fish and Uildlife ~iologis= MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OCT 0 3 RECEIVED MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED , UI Thomas E. Casey 28~4 Cmm~ridge Lane Mound, ~inn~ October 7, 1996 (612) 472-10~ F~x; (612) 472-4771 H~nnehaha Creek ~a~ershed c/o Susanne Gray Freshwater CenteAssis~ant ~00 Shad~oo~ ~_ - r, ~avarre RE: Proposed Lost Lake Wetland dredge _ City of HOUnd, Dear Suzallne, Enclosed please find . ~.~ce Chamberlain %ropy pr the :uiv ~ *- -'~ aow , where · - ~, 1~96 req~ir, ~-- ~_ T~x ~, 1996 ~:~__?~.nouna Cit C '--~ Under --~ ~mpact statement~---~ Whether to · cover of my October 2, ~,.~? ~iso inciudea ...... etter. . ~un~zz meetln= ~~ ~e stated =~ ~=egard~ng a~ ~ ~ ~ b~bly less ~ .... ''-flg~es fo Y 3'.1996 ~11~-- ~7~ 48, a~ a. .. fact, .three ~=~ ~e amount eRclo~u~es.) o_ ~-~a per ~-- . ~zion~ (See Please ~nClUde theze doc~ents in Yoqr officlal record. Thank you. 05/10 E. Casey~. TEC:'r~ , ~ncl. ' MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 0C1' 0 8 1996 RECEIVED ..... · ~==o i~:02 M INNEHRHA CREEK WATERSHED , MI P.OG/10 ~IEi~IO. PI/ONE LOG luly 3, 1996 Hoisingron Koegler Group Inc. Participants: Nick Rowsc, Twin Cidcs Field Office - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 725-3548 Bruce Chamberlain Re: Official comments to [he Lost Lake Canal Rehabilkalion Project EAW. Mr. ROWse exprc.ssed t~vo COmmenLs regarding [he project. 1. As a reprcsentar, ive of [he Fish & Wildlife Service, it is his opinion that the project will have a poskive over-all environmental hllpact. 2. Mr. Rowse expressed concern fiat after [he main canal is dredged, private property OWners will propose to dredge secondary channels from adjacent shoreline to the ma/n canal. Il' tAis occurs, k could create boat traffic problems and significantly ctisturb [he ecolog7 Of the wetland [hrough ~'agmentat/on. PND OF REPORT MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OCT O 8 1996 RECEIVED 7300 Metro Boulevard. Suite 5~5 · .. - · ~mncapoiis, Minncsoca 55439 (612) 835-9960 F~ C612) 835-3160 NOU-~$-1996 rI!NNEHiqHR CREEK UI:ITERSHED . = R,,' . .."',,,~'., ;. : .c c.~ --~o z~: ~J MINNEHAHA C~EEK WATERSHED LEAD P.08/10 This fact sheet answers the most fl~equenUy a~ed health questions about lead. For more --~ intbrmafion, you may call 404-639.6000. This fact sheet is one in a series °fsmnmaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. This information is important because this substance ma), harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether Other chemicals are present. SUMMARY: Exposure to lead happens mostly from breathing workplace air or dust, and eating contain/sated foods: Children can be exposed from eating lead-based paint chips, or playing in contaminated soil. Lead can damage the nervous system, kidneys, and the im.mune systems. Lead has been found in at least 922 of 1,300 National What is lead? /Pronounced led) CD Ir does not move from soil to underground water or Lead is a naturally occurring bluish-gray metal found in .~mal] amounts in thc earth's crust, h has no special taste or smell. Lead can be found in all pans of our environment. Most of it came from human activities like mining, manufacturing, and the burning of fossil fuels. Lead has many differem uses, most importantly in the production of ha,eries. Lead is also in ammunition, metal products (so/der and pipes), roofing, and devices to shield x-r=ys. Because of health concerns, lead from gasoline, paints -',nd ceramic products, caulking, and pipe solder has been dr-~madcal~.v reduced in recent years, What happens to lead when it enters the environment? ~ Lead i~selt' does not break down, but lead compounds are Changed by sun//lht' air, and water. 3 v,"hcn released to the a/r from industry or bum/n° of fo~l fuels or ~'asce. i~ stays in air abou~ lO days.~ 3 ,Mos~ of the ~ead in soil comes from parddes falling out of d~e air. D Cib' soils also contain lead from landfills and leaded paint. ~ Lead sticks to soil panicles. dr/nk/ng water unless the water is acidic or "soft." ~ h stays a long dine in both soil and water. /'/ow might I be exposed to lead? ~ Breathing workplace air (lead -~meldng, manufacturing industries) refining, and /2 Eadng lead-based paint chips CD Dr/rddn.~ water that COmcs from lead pipes or lead soldered'finings :2 Breathing or ingesting contaminated soil, dush a/r, or water near waste si~es CD Breathing [obacco smoke CD ,~at/ng contain/haled food grown on soil containing lead or food covered with lead-cOntaining dust ~ Brea~hing fumes or ingest/ng lead from hobbies that use lead (le~de, d-gla~s, ceram/cs). HOW can lead affect my health? Lead can affect almost' every organ and system in your body. The most ~enshive is thc central nervous sYStem. Panicuhrly in children. Lead a/so damages k./dneys and the immune system. The effects are the same whether it is breathed or swallowed. Exposure to lead is more dangerou.~ for young, and unborn children. Unborn children can be exposed ~o lead through the/r mothers. Harmful effects include premature I NNEH;~HA CREEK WATERSHED 612471068~ P.09/10 NOU-25-1996 15:04 October 24 ~ P.10/10 471-0682 Federal'~nVlronmen~al Assessment for Proposed Lost Y..nJce wetland dredge - City of ~OUnd, ~N Hearing on the Lost Lake°~o?f_~he ~fv~rtisement For ub . --~-~ur 12, 1996. me a co~y of anv"~-~,~a~q/°r,an oral statem~nc~d to submit a~ the ti~- ,~_z_~u=en statemen ~. ~_ ~ ~ease ~ov' · t is generated, he~ District Ve=y/~ruly yours, ~,--',