1997-01-28 AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997, 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.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
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.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA:
*A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1997, REGULAR
MEETING.
....................................... 262-285
*B.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 21, 1997, COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE MEETING ........................... 286-288
*C.
CASE//96-71: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AND
RELATED VARIANCES FOR 1853 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4, 5,
& PART OF 3, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT,,
PID #18-117-23 23 0063 JOHN & NANCY MAYER ............. 289-305
*D. BID AWARD: 1997 FRONT END LOADER ..................... 306
*E.
REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT - PELICAN POINT -
BOYER BUILDING CORP .............................. 307-308
*F. PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................. 309-323
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO
SHERWOOD DRIVE ...................................... 324-337
1997 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSON,
R. L. YOUNGDAHL AND ASSOCIATES ........................ 338-339
CASE//97-03: VARIANCE NEW DWELLING, FRANK NIESEN,
5300 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOTS 18, 29, 20 & 21, BLOCK 7,
A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 34 0089 ............ 340-357
260
C
Mound City Council Agenda
January 28, 1997
Page 2
7. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
o
PRESENTATION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMONS TASK
FORCE - MARK GOLDBERG, CHAIR AND OTHER MEMBERS OF TASK
FORCE .............................................. 358-412
9. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:.
Ao
Bo
Do
Eo
PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 ................................. 413-414
LMCD MAILINGS ................................... 415-422
PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JANUARY 9, 1997 ................................... 423-437
BROCHURE FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) ON POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THE 1997
MINNESOTA LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1997 ...... 438-446
INFORMATION FROM METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TRANSIT
OPERATIONS (MCTO) RE: SCHEDULE CHANGES BEGINNING
JANUARY 25, 1997 .................................. 447-450
261
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 14, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 14, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City. ~hl-~
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen and Leah
Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle,Jr., City Attorney John Dean,
City Planner Mark Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Joan
Polston, Anita Watson, Alvin Donahoo, Carl Johnson, Roger Anderson, Ray Anderson, Bill Darling,
Marilyn Byrnes, Rita Peterson, Bev Botko, Tim Busse, Gary Landsman, Mikael Asplin, Peter Meyer,
Jane Skinner, Jerry Petrowski, Steve Bedell and Jim Bedell.
OATH OF OFFICE
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Elect Bob Polston and Council Members Elect
Andrea Ahrens and Leah Weycker.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited.
1.1
1.2
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//96-68: REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-IA, WATERS EDGE
INVESTMENT CO. (JOE ZYLMAN), 5470, 5490 AND 5510 THREE POINTS BLVD.
THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #'S 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250.
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE //96-69: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR
"MAPLE MANORS", WATERS EDGE INVESTMENT COMPANY, (JOE ZYLMAN),
THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #'S 13-117-24 22 0246, 0249 & 0250
The City Planner explained that this item has a direct relationship with the next agenda item. The first
is a rezoning request on the property that has to come before any action can be taken on the request for
preliminary plat approval or any type of development on the property. What has been found historically
with Planning Commissions and Councils is that discussion on these types of issues get somewhat
intertwined. He suggested that the Council do as the Planning Commission did and go through
discussion on both items or cases and then come back and take action in the sequence as it is required.
The Planner explained that the area west of the subject property is zoned B-2 and the area east is the
Seahorse Condominiums which is zoned R-3. This item was first heard by the Planning Commission
in November and at that time it was tied to a development proposal that had 12 units. Both Staff and
the Planning Commission had concerns about 12 units and ultimately the Planning Commission
recommended denial. The developer withdrew this request before it came before the City Council. The
developer reworked the proposal and came back with 10 units and addressed some of the concerns of
the Planning Commission and Staff.
The property in question is currently zoned R-1 single family with a 10,000 square foot lot minimum.
The request is to rezone it to R-lA which has very similar characteristics but a 6,000 square foot lot
minimum. The site is within the shoreland area and is subject to all the shoreland restrictions in the
Mound Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin-home
development that would be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The two adjoining
parcels (246 and 250) are included in the rezoning request to provide continuity.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
The Planning Commission and the Staff recommendation is for approval of the rezoning of all these
parcels to R-lA. The Planning Commission and the Staff feel that even, if for some reason the project
did not materialize, the property would already be rezoned R-IA. Because the site is so constrained
by topography, by the City's Flood Plain Ordinance and by the City's Shoreland Ordinance that there
are really not a lot of viable alternatives outside of something similar to what is being presented
tonight.
Waters Edge Investment Co. is the developer and Mr. Joe Zylman is the representative for that
company. They are proposing a PDA on the 2.8 acre site. This would require the rezoning and
additional variances as part of the PDA, and will require preliminary plat approval. He further related
that the topography on the site varies from Three Points Blvd. with an elevation of about 960 and drops
to about 930 when you get to the northeast comer of the property. All of the parcel is above the City's
wetland elevation. The property does lie within the shoreland area but does not contain any bluff areas
as defined by the code. The development plan calls for the installation of a cul-de-sac that originates
off of Three Points Blvd. and extends approximately 420 feet into the site and all the lots would take
service from that cul-de-sac. The proposed right-of-way is 40 feet wide. The City's standard is 50
feet. The proposed cul-de-sac curve area is 70 feet and there are some variances that are tied to that.
The 10 housing units that are proposed are in 5 clusters and are twin-homes. The intent is that they
will be minimum maintenance homes. That is being done with a smaller lot area, with the bulk of the
property being in a common association. The common association is being maintained by one entity.
Approval of this particular request will require a Conditional Use Permit to be issued for the PDA; it
will require variances that are outlined in the packet; and approval of the preliminary plat. The PDA
is a method by which this type of development can occur and is similar to the Pelican Point
Development.
The variances are as follows:
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
VARIANCE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
50' 40' 10'
Recently most of the developments that have been proposed have been at the 40' for a variety of
reasons.
CUL-DE-SAC
RIGHT-OF-WAY (RADIUS) 50' 40' 10'
CUL-DE-SAC
PAVED STREET (RADIUS)
40' 35' 5'
Again, both of these are consistent with what we have seen in recent times.
LOT SIZE
(ALL LOTS EXCEPT 8)
6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf
LOT SIZE (LOT 8)
6.000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf
The lot size variances that are required relate to the type of development proposed. Because most of
the site will be platted as an outlot to be maintained by a homeowner's association, actual platted lot
sizes are under the minimum standard for traditional single-family detached development. Lot size
variances of similar magnitude have been approved in other Planned Development Areas.
,I ~lt, [ , ,Ill
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
The applicants surveyor has worked with him and brought the impervious cover down from 32% to
28%. 30% is the maximum allowed so there is no variance for impervious cover.
The preliminary plat shows a 40' right-of-way for Maple Manors Court that originates at Three Points
Blvd. and terminates in the cul-de-sac. The City Engineer and the City Planner had concerns about that
and have addressed it as the following condition: Preliminary Plat - Dedicate the 50 foot strip between
the two existing single family parcels and adjacent to the City lot entirely as right-of-way; and 10 foot
variances for remainder of right-of-way and cul-de-sac diameter. The 10 units, as proposed, do comply
with Staff's analysis of Mound's Shoreland Ordinance. PDA's also have to comply with non-shoreland
density provisions and that is where the rezoning comes in because if it remains R-1, what is allowed
to occur here is 9 units. The proposed 10 units require the rezoning to R-lA to allow 6,000 square foot
lot size, with the purpose of achieving the density that is desired. As proposed, the gross density of the
project equates to about 12,180 square feet of land per unit and that density when we take out things
like floodplain, streets and ponding gets down to about 8,600 square feet per unit.
The Mound Code does deal with tree preservation. There was a tree inventory done on the site in the
past and revealed about 34 significant trees, 16 of those will be removed as a part of this construction.
About half of those are due to the roadway. In looking at this the Staff does not feel that the tree loss
with this proposal is substantially different than it would be with a single family proposal, if one was
offered. The staff feels the tree loss is unavoidable in terms of providing access to the parcel. There
was a wetlands delineation that was done on the site, with actual field work done late this Fall. The
proposals do comply with the Watershed District's requirement of a 35' setback in that regard. The
placement of the street between the two existing homes does create nonconforming situations and that
is outlined in the Staff reports.
In past meetings there was discussion about traffic generation. There are statistics that indicate that the
proposed twin-home development will actually generate less traffic than a comparable single family
development.
The Staff feels the twin-home proposal that has been presented is an appropriate use for the land, which
lies between a dense condominium complex zoning classification and a business classification and is
separated by Three Points Blvd. from the development that is south of that. Therefore, the Planning
Commission and the Staff are unanimous in recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
variances and preliminary plat with conditions, for Maple Manors. The proposed resolution starts on
page 14 of the packet.
The Planner stated that there is a handout tonight from the developer that outlines, conceptually, a
switch that Mr. Zylman was interested in pursuing with the Park Commission. The Planner stated that,
from the Staff's perspective, this is really a separate item from what else is going on tonight and can
be considered by the Park Commission at a subsequent meeting, if they so desire. So for now the
recommendation is for the applicant to pay park dedication consistent with Section 330:120 of the
Mound Code of Ordinances. All other conditions are as listed in the proposed resolution.
The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions of the Staff. There were none.
Mr. Joe Zylman, resident of Mound for almost 18 years and representative for the proposal stated,
"That he has been working on this project for about 1 year and he is very proud of the way it is coming
together. This piece of real estate has been sitting for many years without a good imaginative idea of
how to use it. He stated he develops and builds all his projects i.e. framing, roofing, siding, finish
carpentry, etc. There will be quite a bit of brick used on the exterior, ceramic on the interior. There
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
will be about 1,500 square feet on one level. They will all be look out or walk-out basements. So
there is actually about 3,000 square feet of finishable living space in these units."
The Mayor opened the public hearing on the question of the Rezoning of the property from R-1 to R-
IA.
ROGER ANDERSON, resident of the Sea Horse Condominium, and on the Board of Directors:
"Stated they are not against the development of the property. They are concerned with density
and water runoff. He stated that if the property is not rezoned it will accommodate 9 residential
pieces of property. If it is rezoned, it will accommodate 10 multiple dwellings. Then you have
the other two parcels where you could have 2 to 3 units on parcel 240, and 3 to 4 units on 250,
so now instead of talking about 11 units, we're talking about 15, 16 or 17 units. He also voiced
concern about runoff from the 10 units. He asked about the cul-de-sac ending right behind the
Seahorse garages and all the drainage ending up in their garages. He stated they would like to
see the cul-de-sac turned around to go the other direction and the two of the twinhomes moved
over to behind the Seahorse garages. Another concern is the snow removal. The snow will
have to be trucked out because there is no place to put it." He submitted a petition with 103
signatures that read as follows:
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO
MODIFICATION TO ZONING MAP
TO REZONE ATrACHED DESCRIBED PROPERTY
FROM R1 TO R1A
The undersigned, being all owners of properties located within 350 feet of the
property described on the attached Exhibit A, do hereby register our objection to
the modification of the zoning map relating to the legal property described in
Exhibit A from R1 single family requiring 10,000 square feet minimum lot size
to R1A single family residential which would permit 6,000 square foot minimum
lot size.
We feel that a reduction of the square footage requirement permits the
construction of too many units on said property, setting a precedent that we
believe should not be followed in the Mound community.
Mr. Anderson further stated that they can see that the property is going to be
developed; trees will be lost; there will be additional density. They would prefer
not to see the property rezoned or built upon, but we don't have the money to
buy it. He stated they would prefer to not see it rezoned and would prefer single
family residential to multiple dwelling. If that can't happen, they would prefer
only rezoning the one area and not the other two parcels."
GARY LANDSMAN, 5470 Three Points Blvd. (owner of Parcel 250) - "He stated he is not
for or against the rezoning. For the sake of one unit the rezoning makes sense."
JOE ZYLMAN - "There will be a storm sewer system in there. Any water in the roadway
doesn't leave the roadway. There will be curb and gutter to keep runoff in the roadway. It's
not going to be running into the garages. We will actually build a swail between your garages
and our property. The garages will be higher than this property. The property will be graded
so that it is lower than the Seahorse existing buildings. No chance of flooding you folks out.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
Last thing we would ever want."
ROGER ANDERSON,"Asked that the Council consider having the developer put a substantial
fence between the two pieces of property (Seahorse garages and the development) to compensate
for the lack of green space."
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Jensen asked about snow removal in the smaller cul-de-sac. The City Engineer stated
that he has talked to Public Works Supt. Greg Skinner, who had reviewed the proposal and stated that
if there is another year like this year, the snow would have to be hauled away, but they already have
to do this on a number of dead end streets in town.
Councilmember Jensen then asked the City Planner about the Watershed District setback to the water
line. The City Planner stated that the setback is to the OHW (ordinary high water) which is not even
on this property. He further explained that the Watershed, within their own rules and policies has a
35 foot setback from a delineated edge of wetlands and this property does comply with that. That is
a land based elevation, in this case, based on vegetation. It's not the edge of the OHW as we would
perceive it with lakeshore.
Councilmember Jensen then asked about the rezoning criteria that we use relating to circumstances have
changed or we made a mistake in the original zoning. She stated that she can look at this and see that
there could have been a mistake simply because we have B2 abutted by R1 and she would have expected
that the City would have wanted greater density here not less. She stated she is struggling not with the
rezoning, but rezoning from R-1 to R1A. The Planner stated that he did not know if that issue was
specifically addressed by the Planning Commission when they reviewed it on 2 different occasions, but
it did come up in the spirit of discussion. The discussion was clearly that allowing a low to mid-level
density project, such as this, was a reasonable buffer between the B2 and R3 zoning that exists. The
Planner explained that is was the Planning Commission's belief that the R1A with the smaller lot size
with a particular PDA type project, such as this, made sense.
Councilmember Hanus stated that transition would be a better word for this than buffer.
Councilmember Jensen stated that after 15 years of looking at this kind of thing, she has developed the
concept of your highest density highest use to your lowest and something was stuck in the middle of
this one, RI. She stated that she is not necessarily opposed to this rezoning, but is trying to grasp it.
The Planner explained that question was raised in looking specifically at the physical characteristics of
this site, that you have a very large B2 zone, but you have a very small portion of it that is actually
developable. The vast majority of it being in wetland which is permanently open space. Given that
context, this site exists as an insult that sticks out into that so you don't get the same relationship
between the business area and the residential area as you do looking at a map. All those characteristics
taken into play, it was felt by both Staff and the Planning Commission that it was a reasonable use of
the property. It did put a level of density in there that is more suitable than strictly a single family.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he is struggling with this because of the criteria for granting zoning
amendments which reads, "Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used
as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or
changes in conditions in the City". He stated that he doesn't believe that it's the goal of the city to
increase housing density as a general goal. He stated he does not have a problem with the project, but
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
if it were reduced to 9 units, it would not be as congested. He asked the Planner the following: "If
this were not rezoned, but the project, as proposed, were to be put through, could you tell me what
additional variances would be needed?" The Planner stated that the project could not proceed under the
current zoning. The Planner stated that he and the City Attorney, in reviewing the project, agreed that
varying from the overall density provisions would be equivalent to not granting a use variance, which
can't happen. So the only way it can happen is by changing the underlying zoning lot structure so that
it does comply with that. It is not as simple as granting a lot size variance. It gets more to the meat
of the ordinance. In other words, unless this property is rezoned, you could not have 10 units on the
property, only 9.
The Mayor stated that he is opposed to the rezoning for the reasons discussed, i.e. doesn't think there
was a mistake made in the zoning; against the increased density on the property; all the variances that
will be required; and creating nonconforming parcels.
Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following:
ORDINANCE#76-1997 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS AS
DESCRIBED FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
The Mayor stated that now the Council will hold the public hearing on, and discuss the preliminary plat
and conditional use permit, and variances for the Maple Manors property.
Councilmember Weycker asked about the drainage in the area and if the City can control how
the development is done to make sure the drainage is handled properly?
The City Engineer explained that the applicant has to have the approval of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District on a drainage and erosion control plan. The developer is proposing two
catch basins with a storm sewer line to the back of the cul-de-sac and then between 2 of the units
into a ponding area which will take all the street runoff. Also there is a line that comes out to
the lower area that will pick up the drainage from the rear yard of 1 unit and will then go into
the ponding area. As the applicant mentioned, the low area on the site is kind of a swail that
runs toward the wetlands, so the natural drainage is from the back of the cul-de-sac to the catch
basins. All of this has to be approved by the watershed district as part of the conditions of the
preliminary plat.
Councilmember Hanus asked the City Engineer if this would meet the stormwater management
requirements for the future or did he think it would need to be added to, to meet them?
The City Engineer stated that if it meets all the requirements of the watershed district, yes it
would.
The Mayor opened the public hearing on the Maple Manors preliminary plat and Conditional Use
Permit, and variances.
There were no comments.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-1
RESOLUTION APPROV/NG A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH VARIANCES FOR MAPLE
MANORS TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ON THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13-
117-24 22 0216, CASE g96-69
Councilmember Hanus asked if everything was included in the proposed resolution. The City
Planner suggested adding the following: "The site plan and grading plan be incorporated as an
exhibit as part of the resolution." The Council agreed.
Mayor Polston stated that he does not agree with the number of variances being approved in this
resolution. The Council disagreed with the Mayor.
The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
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.
1.0 *CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Jensen asked to have Items C, I & J removed from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Hanus asked that Item M be removed.
The City Manager stated that there are 2 additions to the Agenda, 1 to the Consent Agenda and
1 to the regular Agenda which are as follows: under Consent - Add approval of a Las Vegas
Night for Our Lady of the Lake Church,- under Regular- Add Executive Session to discuss the
Auditor's Road Improvement Project as it relates to one of the properties that the City is trying
to acquire.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda as
amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
'1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 10, 1996, REGULAR MEETING
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
'1.4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 1996, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIl,
MEETING.
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
'1.5 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1997.
RESOLUTION //97-2
RESOLUTION APPOINTING FINANCE DIRECTOR, GINO
BUSINARO, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1997
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
· 1.6 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1997.
RESOLUTION //97-3 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1997
'1,7
'1.8
THE LAKER THE
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY CLERK.
RESOLUTION//97-4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE
LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
APPROVAL OF BOND FOR CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR.
OF AT
'1.9
*1.10
*1.11
RESOLUTION//9%5
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
LEAST A $20,000 BOND
TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR
PURCHASE OF AT
FOR THE CITY
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1997.
RESOLUTION//97-6 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING
DEPOSITORIES FOR 1997
THE OFFICIAL
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
CASE//96-72: VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SIGN, MARQUETTE
BANK/ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RLS 739, TRACTS A-G, PID
//24-117-24 12 0014.
RESOLUTION//97-7
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
TWO TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ON ONE
PROPERTY FOR MARQUETTE BANK AT ST. JOHN'S
CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, RLS//739, TRACTS A-G
- PID//24-117-24 12 0014, P Z CASE//96-72
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
SET BID OPENING FOR 1997 FRONT
JANUARY 22, 1997, 11:00 A.M.
END LOADER.
SUGGESTED DATE~
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
'1.12
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAl,
USE PERMIT FOR 4831 SHOREI.INE DRIVE TO ALLOW S "MAJOR AUTO REPAIR"
BUSINESS AS REQUESTED BY RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE. SUGGESTED DATE:
FEBRUARY 11, 1997.
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
'1.13
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE UNIMPROVED
OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF
ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 & 9 IN DEVON. SUGGESTED DATE:
~BRUARY 11, 1997.
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
'1.14 SET 1997 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 22,
1997, 7:00 P.M.
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
'1.15 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
· 1.16 ADD ON ITEM: APPROVAL OF ON-SALE 3.2 BEER PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF
THE LAKE SCHOOL - LAS VEGAS NITE - FEBRUARY 1, 1997
License to be issued pending all insurance requirements being submitted.
Hanus, Jensen, unanimous.
1.17 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1997.
moved and Polston seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g97-8
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ANDREA AHRENS AS
ACTING MAYOR FOR 1997
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.18 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS.
The Council discussed the various Council Representative appointments. The following was suggested:
Liz Jensen - Economic Development Commission
Mark Hanus - Planning Commission
Leah Weycker- Park Open Space Commission
t?o
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-9
RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEAH WEYCKER TO THE
PARK COMMISSION; MARK HANUS TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION; AND LIZ JENSEN TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC) AS COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1997
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.19 CASE//96-70: VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT, THOMAS PAULSON, 2465 LOST
LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID//24-117-22 0030.
Councilmember Jensen stated, "That she is trying to figure out what the hardship is for this variance.
What are the unique conditions on this property that say it is O.K. when others can't. Then there is
a note in the report that mentions that there is an even higher fence next door for which I would like
an explanation." Councilmember Hanus stated that he is not sure why the higher fence next door,
except it may be for the pool where there is a required 6 foot fence. The Planner stated he was at the
Planning Commission Meeting when this was discussed and there was not much discussion on this. He
stated, he thought it was more a practical difficulty situation and not a hardship. The property owner
had some specific need to have the fence 42" and the Commission in their view and by the Building
Official's report indicated that it was not an obstruction, given the nature of the fence and the property.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-10
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT
VARIANCE FOR 2465 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 16, BLOCK
1, LOST LAKE ADDITION, PID//24-117-24 22 0030, P & Z
CASE//96-70
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.20 APPROVAL OF DOCK LOCATION MAP FOR 1997.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the City is currently licensing all the docks, including the ones we are
reserving for Lost Lake on this license or is that a separate license. If the answer is yes, he has a
problem with charging residential dock users for a future commercial or quasi-commercial use
downtown to hold those dock sites for future use. The City Manager explained that the dock system
application is separate from the other license, but the understanding is that the LMCD is reserving up
to 30 dock sites. The Council asked that the 30 dock sites for Lost Lake be paid for separately from
the other dock sites.
Councilmember Hanus then asked how the City is handling the dock sites on Wawanossa Commons.
In other words is the dock fund subsidizing those docks and paying the LMCD fee that those people do
not want to pay? And is it only 6 sites that are not paying? The City Manager stated that he believes
it is only 6 sites. The City Manager stated he will get this license situation clarified and report back
to the Council.
MOTION made by Jensen and seconded by Hanus to approve the Dock Location Map for
1997, as presented tonight. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
,g, .i, , ,,il
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
1.21 REQUEST FROM STEVE BEl~ELL TO SKI,l, BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK
SHOP" LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Ahrens to approve a request for an Off-Sale 3.2%
Beer License for Steve Bedell, DBA, By the Way Snack Shop, located at 4801 Shoreline
Drive.
The City Attorney asked if this is the same license that we issue to the Lions, etc? The
City Clerk explained that it would be the same type of license that the City issues to
PDQ, Superamerica and Brickley's Market selling off-sale 3.2 Beer.
Councilmember Jensen stated the since State Law prohibits selling beer from a drive-up
window, is there a restriction for selling beer from a Transient Merchant? The Mayor
stated, he thinks the difference is the drive-up window and in this case they are not
actually serving it to the boat. The Council asked the City Attorney to check and see if
there is anything in the State Law that would prohibit the issuance of and Off-Sale 2.3
Beer License to By the Way Snack Shop. Councilmember Jensen stated that she is all
for making it as difficult as possible to purchase beer on the Lake. For this reason, she
is opposed to this request.
The vote on the Motion was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried.
The Council disdiscussed whether this is legal under Minnesota Statutes.
Councilmember Ahrens asked the applicant, Steven Bedell, if he has any problem with having people
come to the stand to purchaase the beer and not being allowed to deliver it to the boat. Mr. Bedell said
he did not have a problem with that.
1.22 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRFSENT.
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present.
PETER MEYER, resident of Sunset Road - He asked to give a statement regarding the
possible creation of a new Commons Dock Committee. "~ am strongly against the creation of
a new commission who would recommend policy for docks and commons. If I have this clear,
this proposal would take Commons, which are dedicated to all citizens in Mound, and would
create a new Commons Advisory Committee which would be composed of a majority of its
members being abutting Commons land owners and they would be setting policy regarding
Commons abutters and dock holders. I believe there are approximately 400 dock sites and that's
roughly 10 percent our households in Mound. I don't think that's a fair representation. The
Park Commission, right now, is a real fair representation of the citizens of Mound. We have
abutters, lakeshore owners and inlanders. Three of our finest members now are members of the
Commons Task Force. So I really don't understand what the motive is or the benefit of this."
BILL DARLING, 2500 Grove Lane - asked to read a letter (as follows) from Tom Casey,
Chair, Mound Park and Open Space Commission, regarding "Proposal for ... Commission
Rearrangement ..." by Mark Hanus.
"Dear Mound City Council,
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
The above-stated agenda item should be tabled without discussion for the following reasons:
This item was not included in the published agenda of The Laker and, therefore, the
public has no opportunity to present comments or questions to the Mound City Council
this evening.
The Park and Open Space Commission should be allowed the opportunity to review the
proposal prior to its presentation to the City Council.
Because the proposal, if adopted, would conflict with the current Mound City Code, the
proposal should include code sections that would need to be amended. In this way, the
public could more fully understand the implications of the proposal.
There is no imminent need to review the proposal this evening. There is no pending
public land permit applications and two recommendations of the Commons Task Force
have already been approved by the Park and Open Space Commission.
I trust expediency will not override sound democratic process.
Very truly yours, signed Tom Casey."
BILL DARLING, Vice Chair of the Mound Park & Open Space Commission stated the
following regarding "Mr. Hanus' proposal for the rearrangement of the Parks Open Space
Commission and Creation of a Commons Dock Commission, dated January 8, 1997.
"I would like to publicly, for the record and including the local broadcast, comment on this
proposal.
First concern, is the procedural process associated with his proposal. Mr. Hanus completed and
distributed his proposal on January 8th, the day prior to the last Parks and Open Space
Commission. This proposal did not show up on the city council agenda as printed in the
"Laker" newspaper, and city staff was instructed to not distribute this proposal to the Parks
Commission at our last Thursday's meeting. I have to ask: What is it that scares various
members of the city council? Why would the city council present and discuss this issue that
requires change to city ordinance without first publishing their intent? Do they not want the
public to review and comment first?, Why did various members direct city staff to not present
this to the Park Commission??? If for no other reason, this proposal should be tabled until such
time that the park commission and the public have a chance to review and comment, or is the
city council so afraid of opinion that they would circumvent the very procedural process they
created???
Second concern, is: Mr. Hanus's entire reason for this proposal, I believe, is flawed. Mr.
Hanus says that the expected results are, quote "Avoidance of any more loss of shoreline control
for Mound such as has happened in Woodland Point." "Is Mr. Hanus implying the Park
Commission is responsible for the loss of city control of Woodland Point to its rightful heirs,
as deemed by a judge. I would remind Mr. Hanus that it is the very city council that he now
sits on that refused to accept the rights of Woodland Point residents, resulting in the court case
and nearly $80,000 in legal bills."
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
"Does this mean Mr. Hanus's plans include making it tough on anyone who tries to regain their
inherited rights resulting in a painful, long and costly battle if they stand up to the city council.
It's bad enough to watch the City of Minnetrista fight a "Dig in my heels" mentality with Mr.
Hawks." Now we have to think Mr. Hanus would subject Mound to the same "controling
government" here. "Mr. Hanus's second point is to "Reduce frustration and personal conflicts."
"This is an interesting point of view, considering his relative's past legal battles with the City
of Mound over building illegal structures on public lands and the intent to utilize those public
lands for their own personal use. It is the very park commission that oversees Commons, and
insures people like the Hanus's do not encroach on the rights given to all citizens."
His third point is, "Where possible, increase number of inland households that have access to
dockage in the city of Mound." "The fact remains that the number of docks is a formula set by
the LMCD and managed by the Mound Dock Program, which already ensures a fair method for
all citizens to enjoy dockage on Lake Minnetonka. Neither Mr. Hanus nor a new commission
can change the LMCD formula, nor could he give more docks to "Inlanders" as he so implied."
"I ask the public to carefully scrutinize Mr. Hanus's and his supporting councilmembers'
objectives, as it would appear that these so called results are outside the control of any
commission."
"Mr. Hanus goes on to say that the conditions leading to his proposal are due to" .... difficulties
in the council soliciting opinions from the commission" , "disagreement in philosophy ... and
... It (the park commission) has become politically oriented..." "The fact is, Mr. Hanus and
other supporting Council members are fearful of dissension and are looking for ways to quell
such discussion. It is our constitutional right and duty to question government and st~'e our
opinion. There used to be another government system that would erase other government .vodies
that opposed it. Could it be that this council (like that government system) looks for complete
and blind support and eliminate anyone that opposed them? I don't think so. Thankfully we
defeated that system of government -- called Communism."
"Mr. Hanus indicates people were turned away" because of the park commission, yet he failed
to indicate that the very rules that his city council installed were the direct reason for the public
in not meeting their needs. Mr. Hanus indicates "...this is the best way to calm the litigious
atmosphere surrounding the docks and commons"..., yet he forgot to tell everyone that it was
the city council, not the park commission that pursued the legal bullying of the Woodland Point
residents."
"Mr. Hanus indicates that we joined the Parks and Open Space Commission because we were
interested in "Park land" and not "Commons". I can tell you from my perspective that is false.
Mr. Hanus has never surveyed the commission and I resent that he represents my viewpoint,
as it is inaccurate. Mr. Hanus indicates that it has become increasingly more difficult to recruit
commissioners, yet just this month we had three candidates for one position. Mr Hanus
indicates many commission meetings were canceled due to a lack of quorum, yet in my three
years on the commission, I remember only two meetings canceled for such, and in each case
the city councilmember representative was one of those absent without excuse. Mr. Hanus
indicates that we have "Pet Projects". "The only "Pet Project" the commission has is the
preservation of public lands for current and future generations to enjoy. Mr. Hanus says, "We
cannot afford to risk losing more lakeshore to a lawsuit". I could not agree with you more Mr.
Hanus. Rather than trying to take public lands for yourself and your relatives and your friends
personal purposes, why don't you and other supporting council representatives try spending your
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
time on issues that really affect the public, like saving our community center, finding a home
for the senior center and WECAN, attracting new businesses to Mound, or giving our youths
structured activities like the skating rink you fave fought so hard to defeat. Mr. Hanus says it's
time that the city council should be leaders. I agree. Step out from behind the protection of
your position and work for the rights of the public, not the special interest that serves you best.
I find your actions and this proposal to be a travesty to government. I cannot force you to drop
this self serving direction, but I can as a matter of public record expose this proposal for what
it really is, and bring to bear as much public pressure as I can. Thank you."
MIKE ASPELIN, EAGLE LANE." As you all know I have been very involved in the
Woodland Point scheme of things. I would like to ask the city Council not to drop the number
of permits or whatever we were talking about for the Wawonaissa Commons, yet. The reason
being that, although the City seems to be out of Wawonaissa Commons, I have 2/3 of the
households, minimum in Woodland Point that don't believe they are out and have got a lawsuit
going to reinstate their rights. We would really like to see if these rights are reinstated and we
have somewhere to park our boats."
MAYOR POLSTON explained that the suggestion was not to drop the permits, but not to pay
for them when we can't administer them. "If, in fact, something were reinstated, we have dock
spaces available, but no one is suggesting that we drop the permits or get rid of the potential
permits, if, in fact the court order were changed or the ruling changed or if you prevailed in
your lawsuit. Them is no question that there is adequate dock space."
COUNCILMEMBER HANUS stated, "His concern was that the people on Wawonaissa
Commons who prevailed in the lawsuit do not have to pay the LMCD fee and the rest of the
dockholders will have to pay it if these units are to be included in the total number of docks."
RITA PETERSON, MEMBER OF THE COMMONS TASK FORCE AND MEMBER OF
THE PARK COMMISSION, stated, "She thinks it is a good idea to have to separate entities
of a Park Commission and a Commons Commission because there are approximately 9,500
residents and they might be surprised to know that of the 12 meetings held, probably 10 were
entirely on Commons issues and not addressing park issues, which seem to be ignored. We need
to specialize."
BEV BOTKO, MEMBER OF THE COMMONS TASK FORCE AND MEMBER OF THE
PARK COMMISSION, stated, "She is in favor of Councilmember Hanus' proposal to create
two separate entities, Parks and Commons. They are both a big job and it is too much for one
commission to handle. The Commons Task Force has worked for almost two years and I feel
has accomplished so much. At least we have a beginning. The multiple dock that was put in is
working very well. There are plans for 3 future multiple docks in the next year. She did not
feel the Park Commission can do justice to parks if they have to deal with Commons issues
alSO."
1.23 REQUEST FROM STEVE BEDELL TO SEIJ. BEER FROM "BY THE WAY SNACK
SHOP" LOCATED AT 4801 SHORELINE DRIVE.
The City Attorney stated that he has reviewed the Statute and talked with Mr. Bedell, the
applicant, who informed him that although the 3.2 beer will be sold from a trailer, the trailer
will be in a fixed location on the property and will not be moving around. Since this is the case
and Mr. Bedell is aware of the limitations, the license is lawful and the City can grant it.
Mound City Council Minutes
January 28, 1997
PRK~ENTATION ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMONS TASK FORCE -
MARK GOLDBERG, CHAIR AND OTHER MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:.
A. Preliminary financial report for the year ended December 31, 1996.
B. LMCD MAILINGS.
4
Mound City Council Minutes
January 28, 1997
C. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of January 9, 1997.
De
Brochure from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) on policy priorities for the 1997
Minnesota Legislative Session.
E. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 1997.
Information from Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) re: Schedule
changes beginning January 25, 1997.
MOTION made by~ ~, ,n~Z~o~w~._~ seconded by ~~ to adjourn at %' ~ P.M. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
5
MINUTEg - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 28, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 28, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Poiston, Counciimembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen and Leah
Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, City Attorney John Dean,
City Planner Mark Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited.
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:
~. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1997, REGULAR MEETING.
~.~*. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 21, 1997, COMMITTEE OF THE
'~ WHOLE MEETING.
Q'~. CASE #96-71: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AND RELATED VARIANCES
FOR 1853 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4, 5, & PART OF 3, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD
POINT,, PID #18-117-23 23 0063 JOHN & NANCY MAYER.
BID AWARD: 1997 FRONT END LOADER.
REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT - PELICAN POINT - BOYER
BUILDING CORP.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
SHERWOOD DRIVE.
PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO
1997 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSON, R. L.
YOUNGDAHL AND ASSOCIATES.. _
2
,L II · J ,i
January 28, 1997
CASE #97-03: VARIANCE NEW DWELLING, FRANK NIESEN, 5300 LYNWOOD
BLVD., LOTS 18, 29, 20 & 21, BLOCK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-
117-24 34 0089.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
1.24 DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL RE: COMMISSION REARRANGEMENT AND CREATION
OF COMMONS/DOCK COMMISSION - COUNCIl.MEMBER MARK HANUS.
(-
Bill Darling asked why this was not published in the Agenda notice given to the newspaper?
The City Manager explained, "That Mr. Hanus had called him on Monday asking about the
possibility of putting this item on the Agenda, but he wanted to know when was the latest that
it could be put in the packet and on the Agenda. He was told Friday morning. Wednesday is
when the newspaper is given the tentative Agenda and he had not heard from Mr. I-Ianus by
then. Mr. Hanus did not, to his knowledge, instruct anybody not to share it with the Park
Commission, but the proposal came to us on Thursday, and with the interviews before the
Commission, the City Manager did not believe it was appropriate to bring it up. The City
Manager instructed the Park Director not to discuss the proposal with the Commission because
of the interviews, and the fact that it had not even been addressed by the City Council.
The Mayor introduced the item. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to address a couple of the
points that were brought up during Comments & Suggestions, because he has never heard such a
misrepresentation of ideas or concepts. Councilmember Hanus "First, Mr. Meyer stated the make-
up, as he saw it, but I don't think he has read the proposal, because if he reads it carefully, it is the
opposite of what he said. The make-up is not in favor of the abutters, it's the other way around. The
reference to my legal battles with the City, is absurd, because I've had no legal battles with the City.
It was also mentioned that I'm trying to represent someone else's position and that is absolutely untrue.
I understand the opposition by people who have the same thought process or ideas that have been in
Mound for a long time, but that's exactly what I'm trying to break from. That is what I am trying to
bring a fresh perspective to, because what it has gotten us is where we are today, problems, litigations
and loss of City control of public shoreline. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. There were a
couple of points mentioned, actually out of the purpose that I had written. There were three points to
that Purpose and I'm going to read them again just so everyone hears them in their entirety:"
'1.
Avoidance of any more loss of shoreline control for Mound such as has happened in
Woodland Point.' "I believe we can stop that where it stands, but in order to do that we
have to act pro-actively, not reactively. That particular case was dealt with reactively
and we lost it."
'2.
Reduced frustration and personal conflicts, increased understanding of issues beyond the
confines of ones property, and reduction of the we versus them attitude, which is the
deep rooted polarization that has been festering for so long in Mound.' "There are
people also that have been promoting that polarization, that is so destructive and so
negative and it makes any kind of advancement or improvements so difficult. I'm trying
to get away from that and I think given a little bit of time that would happen also."
'3.
Where possible, increase the number of inland households that have access to dockage
in the City of Mound.' "That can be done. It was represented earlier that it can't be
done. It can be done and it can be done through one of the methods that has been tried,
up to this point and that's the multiple dock pilot program that we did. The more of
those that are there, the more (I'm not saying that we can put more boats or docks in the
City), that we do have limits on, but we can increase the amount of households that have
access to those docks, if, in fact, they are limited to one boat, which most people have.
The more people that have one boat, the more openings or BSUs (boat storage units) are
available for other people in Mound. It can be done through that type of a program. It's
not something you want to do everywhere, certainly. It's the type of thing we use to
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
address problematic areas, congested areas, things of that sort. So it's definitely a doable
thing and I think we've proved it."
Mr. Hanus commented that this proposal is in front of the Council and is on public record. He asked
how the Council would like to proceed.
The Mayor asked Councilmember Hanus to give an overview and then it can be open to Council
discussion.
Councilmember Hanus stated, '~that back in November, at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, he
presented a very conceptual, very brief thought to the Council to see if there was some interest in
pursuing it. At that time it was nowhere near as comprehensive as the report is today. It was just a
one page, brief little report. He continued that at that particular time, there seemed to be a majority
of the Council that was interested in pursuing this so he offered to go ahead and write a more
comprehensive, proposal for their review. That has been done now and that is what is before you now.
Councilmember Hanus stated, "In my opinion, the success of the multiple dock pilot program I don't
think can be disputed. It's been a success from the eyes of the people who use it. It's been a success
from the eyes of the City and it seems to be working very well and I think the Council has shown at
least some tacet interest in pursuing it because they have budgeted for some more complexes of similar
nature this year. These complexes are self funded by the dock users. There is no tax money or City
General Fund monies put into them."
"The Woodland Point loss is quite clearly a result of reactive actions, rather than proactive and if we
are going to save anymore of those, we have to be proactive. There are rumblings out there that there
are some other areas that are considering similar type things. I think they are sitting on their hands
right now waiting to see what comes out of Woodland Point. So again, if we just sit back and don't
do anything, we can be looking for more of the same."
"The dock program, itself, is an independent program, separate from other programs within the City.
It's independently funded. It's 100% funded by the people who have paid for docks. It's accounted
for separately in its own fund. I believe the recommendations for this program should come from the
people who use it and pay for it. Historically, this primarily was regulated by people who don't use
the program, with just a couple of small exceptions and I don't think that's the right thing to do and I
think that's what has gotten us into the problems we're in today. People get frustrated when they have
problems and they can't get anyone to listen. That's where we are today and I think two years ago
when the proposal first came out for the Task Force, that was the first step in trying out this type of
a thing. To see if we could get some ideas cooking and bouncing around and I think it's worked
extremely well. There are, as you would expect, always some confrontations when you have potential
mixed, or opposing views between parallel groups. The Park Commission is not a parallel group to
the Task Force. The Task Force does now, or did in the past, and always did recommend to the Park
Commission. There is only one exception to that and it is the pilot program that the Council took on
it's own. All other recommendations were planned and have gone through the Park Commission. There
has been, and the Council has discussed, problems getting quorums with the Park Commission.
Attendance has been a bit of a problem. As was mentioned before, it has become far more political
and if you attend the meetings, watch them or read the minutes, it's quite apparent to me, that, on
occasion, even become totally dysfunctional. It's certainly disrupted it's function. Past Councils have
discussed the possibility of reducing the size of the Park Commission. They haven't acted on it, but
they have discussed it so it's not a brand new idea and I do believe that reducing the size will simplify
and re-establish its focus and its function. I just want to state, without a doubt, my number one
,,,~ II · Il, ,I I I~
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
purpose, focus, in this whole thing is public service. That's why we're here. That's certainly why I'm
here, to do my best to serve the public's interest and that's exactly what I'm trying to do with this. I'm
not trying to step on toes, but I don't want to back away from this because a few people may not agree
with it. I believe it's the right thing to do and I believe, in the long term, we are going to find out that
it's absolutely the right thing to do."
Councilmember Hanus then reviewed the points of the proposal and what he suggested be considered,
which follows:
The Council should create a Commons/Dock Commission. Representation should reflect a cross
section of dock users as much as possible. He is suggesting that the Dock Commission consist
of five members, plus a Council and Staff Rep. (i.e., three inland and two abutting
representatives.)
The initial Commission seats should first be offered to the Task Force members since they have
been performing this very exact function for nearly two years, followed by Park Commissioners,
but keeping in mind his concern that, in order to serve on the Dock Commission, you .~itt~htn,~u~
be in the dock program. The Park Commission membership and Dock Commission membership
would then be "filled" out and propagated by standard commission procedure, which is through
the interview process and advertisement in The Laker.
Move all commons/dock issues that are currently being reviewed by the Park Commission over
to the Dock Commission as the recommending body, freeing up time for traditional park issues.
The Dock Commission should have the same ability to make budget recommendations on the
Dock Fund, as the Park & Open Space Commission has in the Park Budget.
Terms should be staggered, which is pretty standard with all commissions. If a Commission
member ceases to be active in the dock program, that seat should be vacated and filled as soon
as practical.
The Dock Commission meeting frequency would need to be determined as based upon need.
It may be more frequent initially and taper off later. That would be dependent upon work load.
Reduce the size of the Park and Open Space Commission to five members, plus a Council
Representative. This goes back to the earlier points made.
Traditional park and open space issues would be the primary focus of the Park and Open Space
Commission, which is traditionally the function of park commissions throughout the country.
Councilmember Hanus stated these are the eight points he is putting up for proposal.
The Mayor asked if there was any discussion or questions from the City Council.
Councilmember Weycker stated, "That being new on the Council, she does not fit into a lot of what
is said in the proposal. The current Park & Open Space Commission seems to be balanced for users
and non-users. There hasn't been enough time for them to handle these issues. They could have tacked
on extra meetings. I have been at several of their meetings and that was actually discussed. I don't
think this proposal, per se, helps with the "we versus them" attitude or with the politics attitude. I see
this, actually, contributing to the problem. I think the Park Commission should have some time to
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
discuss this before we would move on it for any reason."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "They could have more meetings, however, the recommendations that
are in front of them right now went to discussion last Thursday and they had the opportunity to have
another meeting to make recommendations knowing that we were going to be dealing with those issues,
I believe, the 28th, but chose not have an extra meeting on those issues but they have got a history of
having extra meetings for "Pet Projects". He stated he hates that term, because that is where ideas
come from and we don't want to stop that, but now on this issue they chose not to have extra meetings.
Again, it gets back to the issue, that was mentioned earlier in this report, that in order to do this you
need to have some motivation and I don't think that the people on the Park Commission are motivated
to deal with these issues. There is no question in my mind that, if we leave things the way they are,
further advancements in the program; further discussions; and any other improvements down the road,
will cease today. They will cease today if we don't make some changes and have it discussed by people
with some motivation to make improvements."
Councilmember Weycker stated that she feels being the Council Rep. to the Park Commission, she
could direct them not to go that direction. She stated, "I believe there have been problems in the past,
but with a new Council Rep., things may change. I do know they had a problem with the
communication with Andrea. So maybe with me on there it would help. I think the Councilperson
actually needs to have more direction on it. I assumed that was the job as the Council Representative.
At their last Park meeting, it was actually scheduled for two years worth of the Commons Task Force
Meetings, there was an hour and a half scheduled for them to talk about that. To me that was a
scheduling problem and maybe the City Council shouldn't be hearing it at our next meeting. Maybe
we should let them hear it first and finish what they need to do. There is no extreme rush on it right
now. The docks are not going to be in the water for a while. I don't see where we are pressed for
time that we have to rush them on that issue of discussing it and I was at their discussion and thought
it was going very well. Actually they agreed with most of the things that the Commons Task Force had
proposed. I also have gone through what the Commons Task Force has proposed and it is very in depth
and I think the Parks Commission deserves a lot more time than an hour and a half."
Councilmember Jensen stated, she has seen one multiple dock in one part of town and yet has heard
consistently that it's a raving success. "I find it amazing that we can judge that based on one time. I
am also not in support of this. I have a real hard time separating parks and commons because they are
public open spaces and this proposal would take that focus and put it on docks and any other public use
of that land doesn't get addressed. It is proposed to be staffed by people who are just users so where
do people who are interested in having access to water, (where do their needs get addressed?) when the
focus, as a group, is strictly on the needs of the dock users? I see it, at this point, as a step to further
polarization that I would prefer not to take."
Councilmember Ahrens stated, "In the past we've stacked the Park Commission against dock users.
There were years and years, in this City, Liz, with a Park Commission that didn't have one dock user
on it."
Councilmember Jensen stated that she would love to see the statistics on that.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that currently there are two and herself, as Council Rep., but there were
years when there wasn't a single, solitary, dock holder on there and when there wasn't an abutter on
it.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
Park Commissioner, Marilyn Byrnes, stated that she has been on the Park Commission for 11 years and
that yes, Councilmember Ahrens is correct about the make-up of the Park Commission and that's one
of the reasons she has stayed on the Park Commission, because she was the only one representing the
people who lived on Commons. She stated that she feels the Task Force has done an excellent job of
really delving into the possibilities of what can be done with the Commons and the Task Force has
been representative of abutters and non-abutters.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she is not arguing about what the Task Force has done. She thanked
them for their efforts and will continue to do so. She stated that she thinks the recommendation on the
multiple dock was great and it does appear to be a success. She stated that's the only recommendation
she has seen. She stated, she would support the idea of the Task Force continuing until its life as a
Task Force has expired, because task forces are of that nature. "They are put in place for a task and
they are disbanded when the task is completed and I think, ultimately, we'll see completion of this, but
I would prefer that their recommendations continue to come to us through a body that has a broader
view, the Park Commission."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "I believe that if the task force continues, we will continue to see friction.
We will continue to have disruptions to city business that we've seen in the past, and I think we need
to change things to calm those waters. It may not be easy, right now, but ! think long-term we're going
to calm them.
Councilmember Jensen - "You're talking about making the task force into a permanent commission."
Councilmember Hanus - "Creating a new commission. I'm not saying the task force is going to be the
new commission.
Councilmember Jensen - "Your recommendation is that we use the people who are already on the task
force."
Councilmember Hanus - "I'm saying that you give them first choice to it, sure."
Councilmember Jensen - "So you're going to take a group, that you've said is already causing friction
and make them a permanent commission? That's your proposal?"
Councilmember Hanus - "As I understand it from the Park Commission, there are parallel discussions,
there's parallel issues, that they took issue with. They didn't like the other group working either
independently or not working with recommendations coming through them. Now you know and I know
that those recommendations always, from day one, were intended to go through the Park Commission.
That was clearly discussed when we set this up, but the friction was there anyway. The problems were
there anyway and for whatever reason, be it personal, be it political, be it conceptual, or whatever the
reason,and that will continue. Look at the resolutions that the Park Commission drew up. There were
demands that we disband the Task Force immediately, or take the work away from them and give it
back to the Park Commission. This is not working and to continue the task force, at this point, I think
is to continue our problems and I think if we give a permanent home to the issues so an appropriate
group can deal with these issues, this will calm down and settle out and the City will be better off for
it."
Councilmember Jensen - "Sorry, I disagree. Putting permanence in place to a group that has focused
on one item, just doesn't make it for me."
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
Mayor Polston stated, "that he thinks that whenever there is an opportunity to do some change that will
be in a positive nature, that we would be remiss if we didn't try to move in order to make positive
changes. He further stated that some people are afraid of change just because change itself is scary and
frightening. He stated that we have to be open minded and look at trying to move forward here and
do something of a positive nature. When this was initially brought up at the Committee of the Whole
Meeting, I indicated that I liked the idea, I supported it and said that the only way I would consider it
or support it would be, if in fact, the Commons Commission was made up of two abutters and three
non-abutters and that is what has been proposed here. We are actually adding more people to the
commissions. There will be five people on the Park & Open Space Commission and five people
proposed for the Dock Commission. The Mayor further stated that this will afford the Park and Open
Space Commission an opportunity to address park and open space and recreational issues. Since there
are very few recreational opportunities in Mound and given the right set of circumstances, the Park and
Open Space Commission will begin to address recreational and park and open space issues and can
make some recommendations to the City Council and we can move forward and make things better from
a park and from a recreational standpoint. He stated that the Dock Commission, as proposed here,
based upon the success of what the task force has been able to do, would perpetuate putting to rest some
of the unrest and moving forward and finding resolution to the problems. It is unfortunate that some
people, don't see or grasp, the positive things that can come out of this. He stated he thinks this is one
of the best proposals that has come along in a long time.
MOTION made by Mayor Polston, seconded by Hanus to accept the proposal and direct
the City Attorney and Staff to make the necessary document changes in the Park & Open
Space Ordinance and to set up the Dock Commission. This would include the appropriate
Code changes and anything relative to establishment of a commission as well as the
changing of the current code. This to be brought back to the Council for their approval.
COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER stated, "She did not feel she has enough information
to vote in favor of this."
COUNCILMEMBER AHRENS stated, "That abutters and non-abutters made up this task
force and the Chair of the Task Force told the Council many times that they reached
consensus on every single recommendation or decision. These same two groups who
have been at each others throats for years because of the perpetuation of the polarization
of them by other people, either by Staff or commissions and if you talk to anyone of the
members of this task force they will tell you that they have all been congenial to one
another. They have worked out their differences. It has been the greatest group that
I've ever seen sitting on any of our commissions. I don't see the Economic
Development Commission very often, but this group has gotten along wonderfully."
COUNCILMEMBER HANUS added - "When this group first started, all the members
came with the same prejudices that the public has out there. The inlanders were worried
about the abutters and the abutters were worried about the inlanders, but once they sat
down and started finding out what the other person had in mind and what the agendas
were, things calmed and settled down, and they have been a very workable group. It
doesn't matter who you talk to. They will all tell you the same thing."
MAYOR POLSTON stated, he does not see this as a negative move for the Park and
Open Space Commission because they will be able to address park and open space and
recreational issues and they'll have more time to do it in and more opportunity to do
that." He feels it is a positive recommendation.
,,,L W · II I I, , ,l~
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER stated, "I have been at two of the Commons Task
Force Meetings and at each of those there was only one non-abutter in attendance, all
others were abutters. She would like to see the attendance records as to who actually
showed up. They did seem to get along, but getting along does not mean you're getting
a job done. The differences in opinion is what government is all about."
COUNCILMEMBER HANUS stated. "That he agreed, but the point Councilmember
Ahrens made earlier is the key point. "It was reached by consensus. It was agreed to
100%, all of the recommendations that they made. They talked, discussed, bent,
negotiated, compromised until everyone could agree and that is conducting business when
you go to that point."
COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN stated, that she is not afraid of change, but her concern
is that we're taking open space and calling it something other than open space.
"Commons is open space, it's public space and the public isn't being represented in the
commission that's being proposed. I think having additional time for the Park
Commission to look at recreational issues is commendable, but where will the funding
come when they come with recommendations."
COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER asked, "I am curious how these two groups too, would
get together and discuss. I think our City has to have a general plan because if these two
groups are going down different avenues, how do we handle that as a City Council? !
see that as a huge potential problem. Just another thing to think about."
COUNCILMEMBER HANUS - "I will reiterate a point that was mentioned somewhere
in my report, and that is that these are only recommendations and the Council does have
to retain it's objectivity. As far as people not being represented, I hope that they're
represented here as well as there because there is general public, as proposed, in the
Task Force. They do happen to be in the dock program, but they are the general public,
as well, and we have to have a certain amount of faith in our Commissions and one of
the things we have to have faith in, in this particular case, is that they will fairly address
open space issues. If they do not, we have to deal with that, but that's one reason why
we're here too, is to exercise objectivity. We do have to be careful of that, but we have
to be careful of that today, as well."
COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER asked Councilmember Hanus - "Where do you see the
difference between the Commons Task Force right now presenting to the Parks
Commission and having two separate groups?"
COUNCILMEMBER HANUS - "The problem with that, I think, is that I was talking
to the Chairman of the Task Force and he made a comment to me that he is concerned
about how long they can continue the way their going because volunteers only go so far.
When the Task Force first met, there were weeks when they had two meetings a week,
every week, and it went on and on. I think in the first 6 months, I heard someone say
they had 26 meetings and this has been going on for almost two years. This will only
go on so long before you give some permanency to the group. We need to seat them
where they have a permanent home and a job that they can focus on. Right now there
is no sunset, there's no end, it's laying out there, you don't know what's going to happen
with it or when it's going to happen. They are even starting to lose its purpose now.
How far do we go? I know that one thing I'd like to look at, is continuing the multiple
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
dock program and where does that go? Where does it end? That was one of the things
we discussed in the Fall. When does it end? When is their job done? It's difficult to
answer that and this particular job, I don't know if it ever ends."
COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER - "Regarding your comment about volunteering, the
Parks Commission and the Task Force are all volunteers."
The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
1.25
APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMIgSION'
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMIgSION1 AND PARK AND OPEN SPAC!*,
COMMISSION.
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission
members have indicated they wish to be reappointed. The Council will have to decide on the Park &
Open Space Commission appointments, pending the previous item. He pointed out that Mary Goode
resigned yesterday, due to personal constraints. Now there are two vacancies on the POSC. Three
people did apply for the one vacancy and the POSC recommended one of the three people interviewed.
The Mayor asked how many people are on the POSC at the present? The City Manager stated that
including the Council Rep. there are nine.
The Council discussed the fact that if Councilmember Hanus' proposal is adopted, there would be 5
members of the POSC, plus a Council Rep. and 5 members of the Dock Commission, plus a Council
Rep. In view of that, they chose not to appoint or reappoint anyone to the POSC.
Ahrens moved, and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-11
RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING
PERSONS: ORVIN BURMA, BECKY GLISTER AND BILL
VOSS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND MARK
BREWER AND JERRY LONGPRE TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 3 YEARS TERMS -
EXPIRING 12/31/99
The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. Jensen indicated that she voted
against the resolution because the Park & Open Space Commission re. appointment was not included in
the resolution, not because she was against the reappointments to the Planning Commission or Economic
Development Commission.
1.26 EXECUTIVE SESSION: SUBURBAN ALLIANCE.
The City Attorney explained that the Executive Session involves a matter pertaining to the winding up
of one of the Joint Powers organizations that the City of Mound has been involved in, whether as a
member or not. There has been a suggestion of litigation in the event that resolution of this matter can't
be achieved. The City Council therefore, has the right to have an Executive Session to discuss this
matter. The City Council moved into Executive Session.
The City Council returned from Executive Session. The City Attorney advised stated that the purpose
was to consider the City's response to Suburban Alliance regarding a bill they claim is owed by the City
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
of Mound. The Council met and discussed this matter and the various options.
provided direction to the City Attorney on how to proceed.
The City Council has
1.27 ADD-ON ITEM - AUDITOR'S ROAD PROPERTY
The City Manager explained that this item is in regard to the acquisition of the following property in
the realignment of Auditor's Road Project, Parcel B (Lindquist property, also known as Mound
Collision property). This property is on the right-of-way and needs to be acquired. The City has been
negotiating with the property owner for some time and did include this property under the condemnation
proceeding. Efforts were made to resolve this before going forward with condemnation and as a result,
a proposal was agreed to several weeks ago. The closing is set for January 15th. The proposal is for
the acquisition of the property, covers the appraisals, and the cost of the moveable fixtures as well as
the fixtures that cannot be moved for a total of $395,210.00 of which $25,000.00 will be held from the
purchase until such time as the tenant is out of the property, which is April 15, 1997. The option that
the City has if it did not want to accept this agreement, would be to take the person forward into
condemnation. The Staff is recommending approval.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Jensen to accept the recommendation as presented
above and authorize the City to proceed in closing the property known as Parcel B in the
Realignment of Auditor's Road Project. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.28 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Ao
Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1996.
LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for December 1996.
C. LMCD Mailings.
D. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 12, 1996.
E. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1996.
F. Economic Development Commission Minutes of December 19, 1996.
G. Letter from Ric Hanson, Triax Cablevision, dated December 10, 1996.
H. Letter and enclosure from Charles D. Howe, 4730 Cavan Road, RE: Mound Visions.
I. Letter from Hennepin County Sheriff, Pat McGowen, RE: Citizen Enforcement Academy.
I. Reminder: Committee of the whole meeting, Tuesday, January 21, 1997, 7:30 P.M.
Reminder: City Offices will be closed Monday, January 20, 1997, in observance of
Martin Luther King Day.
Reminder: Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Board Meeting will begin at 6:30
P.M., January 14, 1997, city hall. Please refer to packet which is enclosed with this
Regular City Council packet. You are now the HRA Board.
Minutes - Mound City Council - January 14, 1997
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 10:35 P.M.
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The vote was
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
.... I .....l [] J J, ,I ,,Il , ,il I
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JANUARY 21, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens.
Councilmembers: Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Absent and Excused: Mayor [lob
Polston. Also Present: Larry Miller, Hennepin County Assessor's Office; Stephanie Nyhuis,
Hennepin County Assessor's Office; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; and
Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Hennepin County_ Assessor's Office Presentation
Larry Miller and Stephanie Nyhuis from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office were present to
provide information on the county assessing process and to preview the upcoming Board of Review
meeting scheduled for April 22, 1997. Miller and Nyhuis distributed a binder full of information
on sales of residential lakeshore properties between the period of October 1, 1995 and September
30, 1996 which is the standard time frame for review of sales to establish the next year's valuation.
Miller indicated that the lakeshore properties are expected to increase by 12%-15% for the 1997
valuation. Off-lake properties will be increased about 5%. He indicated that the County attempts
to assess at 93% of market value which is referred to as the "median."
Mound Visions
Bruce Chamberlain and Ed Shukle updated the Council on the progress of the Lost Lake
Improvement Project. Chamberlain pointed out that applications for permits are pending at the
LMCD, DNR, Corps of Engineers and the MCWD. Chamberlain also indicated that he may have
found a place to dump the spoils from the canal dredge. It is a property in Minnetrista off of
Hennepin County Road 26 owned by Howard and Rita Johnson. He stated that he is not sure if the
Johnsons could accept all of the approximate 16,000 cubic yards of material. He suggested that 2
or 3 other sites be identified. In addition, the site(s) must be approved by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
Ed Shukle updated the Council on the right of way acquisition process pertaining to Auditor's Road.
Also addressed was the relocation of the post office. Chamberlain pointed out that the sites may be
limited to two due to the possible development of retail/housing along the new Auditor's Road
which would make a previously considered site unsuitable. Related to the relocation, the Council
discussed the type of structure that would be proposed for the post office building as to whether it
would be "off the shelf" post office or more of a customized or localized structure following the
Environmental and Appearance Model. If the latter is chosen, it would require that the post office
officials would have to waive certain requirements of their site selection process and building
specifications. Chamberlain pointed out that this was possible but that it would involve the City
having to spend more for the custom building. It is unlikely that the postal authorities would spend
funds beyond their budget for something that the City may require. The attitude is why should they?
Minutes of the Committee of the Whole
January 21, 1997
Page 2
The idea of having a two story facility with other uses above the post office was discussed. The
postal service is not accustomed to this type of facility but the possibility has not been totally ruled
out. In addition, discussion focused on the post office being a part of a larger development project
whether it be two story or one story. This again is not something the post office is used to but it
cannot be ruled out at this point.
Discussion moved on to the possibility of signing an Exclusive Development Rights Agreement with
Dunbar Development Corporation. Shukle explained that he and Mr. Chamberlain have had two or
three meetings with Frank Dunbar and his associates regarding the development of the new
Auditor's Road area with housing on the upper level and retail on the lower level. Typically,
Dunbar signs a development rights agreement with a city for the exclusive right to work on the
feasibility of redeveloping a downtown area. It provides the opportunity for Dunbar to be a part of
a project from the "ground floor" and assures the city that there is a serious party who is interested
in redeveloping an area. Dunbar would conduct market studies for housing and retail and would
work to bring a quality development to the city.
The Council was very excited about having Dunbar express their interest at this time. They were
impressed with their statement of qualifications and the staff's report on their background and
experience. However, the Council indicated that they were interested in "testing the waters"
regarding other developers who might be interested in the Mound Visions project. The Council
suggested that staff contact others who have expressed interest to see if their interest is as serious
as Dunbar's. In 30-60 days, the staff will report back to the Council on their findings regarding
additional interest in development of Mound's downtown area.
Senior Center
Ed Shukle updated the Council on the status of this matter. He stated that city representatives from
Spring Park, Minnetrista and Mound have been meeting to discuss the financing and construction
of an approximate 12,000 - 14,000 square foot facility. Sites have been identified as Shirley Hills
Elementary School and the land in Minnetrista known as the Westonka Recreation Association or
WRA property near the Minnetrista City Hall.
Shukle reported that the last meeting of the above group involved a discussion about the WRA land
as the Shirley Hills site has two drawbacks: 1) Two story building and 2) No alcohol permitted due
to school property which results in limited rental for private functions and ultimately revenue for the
Center.
Shukle indicated that the group will continue to meet. Mayor Polston, representing the City of
Mound, has indicated to the group that the City of Mound is supportive of holding an election for
the purposes of a general obligation bond to finance the facility. Spring Park and Minnetrista would
also contribute to the cost and the Lions and/or Jaycees would assist in the operation and
Minutes of the Committee of the Whole
January 21, 1997
Page 3
maintenance of the facility.
More information will be brought back at a later date.
Request to Name a Park or Beach Area After a Local Citizen
Ed Shukle presented a request that an individual made regarding the naming of public streets and
park areas after someone. The request was made some time ago and resubmitted after the agreement
to rename Forest Lane Sorbo Lane and renaming Langdon Park Sorbo Park after Kevin Sorbo who
stars in the TV show "Hercules." Shukle suggested that a written policy be established identifying
the criteria that could be used in dealing with these requests. The Council consensus was to direct
staff to draft a policy regarding this matter.
Other Business
Councilmember Jensen asked that the City Manager look into some liquor licensing issues pertaining
to existing provisions in the City Code.
The City Manager reported on a proposed development in the Marina Shopping Center in Spring
Park.
There being no further business, it was moved by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried
unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Resp~,ectfully submitted,
Ed Shukle
City Manager
RESOLUTION #96-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER OF PLATTING
AND RELATED VARIANCES
FOR 1853 SHOREWOOD LANE
LOTS 4, 5 & PART OF 3, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT
PID 18-117-23 23 0063, P&Z CASE//96-71
WHEREAS, the owners, John and Nancy Mayer, have applied for a Waiver of Platting and
variances to impervious surface coverage in order to allow for the separation of Lot 4 and Part of 3 from
Lot 5, along the original lot lines, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant intends to demolish the existing dwelling and construct two new
dwellings that would be conforming to all other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, and;
WHlgREAS, 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, 10 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary
high water elevation, and;
WHEREAS, separation of the parcels would result in a non-lot of record status.
WHEREAS, both of the proposed parcels are conforming to the minimum 6,000 square foot
lot area requirement for the R-lA zone, and;
WHEREAS, the following variances are part of this request:
LOT AREA ABOVE HARDCOVER @ PROPOSED VARIANCE
ELEVATION OF 931 30% HARDEOVER
LOT 5 9,250 SF 2,775 SF 3,556 SF 781 SF
LOT 4 & P/3 10,400 SF 3,120 SF 3,583 SF 463 SF
WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage could be reduced by moving both dwellings towards
the street, however the additional setback is more consistent with the neighboring properties, and;
WHEREAS, impervious surface calculations exceed the 30% ratio on both of the proposed
parcels by only a minimal mount, and both are also well under the 40% maximum allowed for lots of
record, and;
WHEREAS, the drainage can be favorably accommodated for this site with no negative affects
on the neighboring properties, and;
WHEREAS, there is a boulevard of approximately 16' to 28' in width between the lot line and
the curb that adds green space and buffer to the site, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended
approval, with a maximum 40 percent impervious suffact coverage for each new parcel, with conditions.
Protmsed Resolution
Mayer, 97-~1
P. 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve the Waiver of Platting as shown on the attached Exhibit A, and
approves the impervious surface coverage variances, as follows:
LOT AREA ABOVE HARDCOVER @ PROPOSED VARIANCE
ELEVATION OF 931 30% HARDCOVER
LOT 5 9,250 SF 2,775 SF 3,556 SF 781 SF
LOT 4 & PI3 10,400 SF 3,120 SF 3,583 SF 463 SF
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
ao
Impervious surface coverage is limited to a maximum of 40 percent and shall be
conforming to the requirements found in Zoning Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. A
survey detailing conformance with this section shall be submitted with the building permit
application for each dwelling.
bo
The utility services for lot 5 shall either be installed or a cash escrow suitable to the City
Engineer shall be provided prior to release of the resolution for filing.
c. The fireplace located down by the lake will be removed.
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 new single family dwellings on each new parcel.
The existing legal description of the property is as follows:
Lots 4 and 5 and that part of Lot 3 lying Northwesterly of the Southeasterly 50 feet as measured
at right angles to the Southeasterly line thereof of Block 12, Shadywood Point.
The property is approved to be separated as follows:
Parcel A: Lot 5, Block 12, Shadywood Point.
Parcel B.
Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3 lying Northwesterly of the Southeasterly 50 feet as
measured at right angles to the Southeasterly line thereof of Block 12,
Shadywood Point.
Proposed Retolution
Mayer, 97-71
P.$
This resolution shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin
County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be
considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County
and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not
be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
MINLr OF A MEETING OF
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMT qSION
December 9, 1996
CASE 96-71; VARIANCE/WAIVER OF PLATTING, JOHN & NANCY MAYER,
1853 SHOREWOOD LANEt LOTS 4, 5, & PART OF 3, BLOCK 12t SHADYWOOb
POINT~ 18-117-23 23 006~
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The
applicant is seeking a waiver of platting and variances to
impervious surface coverage in order to allow for the separation of
the parcel along the original lot lines as shown on the attached
survey. Both of the proposed parcels are conforming to the minimum
6,000 square foot lot area requirement for the R-lA zone. The
applicant intends to demolish the existing dwelling and construct
two new dwellings that would be conforming to all other related
sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The original dwelling is an
outdated old cabin that has been remodeled several times over the
years. Separation of the parcels would result in a non-lot of
record status.
This property is located in the R-lA district which for a non-lots
of record requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a
minimum lot width of 40 feet, a minimum front yard setback of 20
feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a minimum lakeshore
setback of 50 feet.
The following variances are applicable. The applicant is requesting
the 40% ratio be used to determine the allowable impervious
surface.
LOT AREA ABOVE HARDCOVER @ PROPOSED VARIANCE
ELEVATION OF 931 30% HARDCOVER
LOT 5 9,250 SF 2,775 SF 3,556 SF 781 SF
LOT 4 & P/3 10,400 SF 3,120 SF 3,583 SF 463 SF
The applicant has calculated lot area to include the area down to
the ordinary high water mark of 929.4. Our ordinance has two areas
that address the calculation of lot area; the first in Definitions,
Subd. 78 which defines Lot Area as "The area of a lot in a
horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including the
area occupied by floodplain. . .,, The floodplain elevation for
Lake Minnetonka is 931. The second area that addresses lot area is
in the shoreland provisions, Section 350:1225, Subd. 1 and 2 which
states in part, "Only land above the ordinary high water level can
be used to meet lot area standards.,, When the applicant
originally met with the Building Official to discuss this request,
he was not informed that calculating lot area does not include the
area occupied by the floodplain.
The applicant's proposal and staff's estimates of impervious
11
Planning commission Minutes
December 9, 1996
surface calculations exceed the 30% ratio on both of the ProPosed
parcels by a minimal amount, and both are also well under the 40%
maximum for lots of record. According to the existing elevations
on the survey, and after preliminary review by staff, we have
determined the site can be developed to direct a majority of the
run-off over green space towards the lake. In addition, if the
standards found in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B are required and
utilized, the drainage can be favorably accommodated for this site
with no negative affects on the neighboring properties. In
addition, there is a boulevard of approximately 16' to 28' in width
between the lot line and the curb that adds green space and buffer
to the site. Impervious surface coverage could be reduced by
moving both dwellings towards the street, however the additional
setback is more consistent with the neighboring properties.
If the request is approved, utility services must be installed, or
an equivalent cash escrow would need to be provided for lot 5 prior
to release of the resolution.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
variance request with conditions, as it is in substantial
conformance with the ordinance, the additional impervious surface
is minimized by the fact that the drainage can be directed
substantially towards the lake, and there is the additional buffer
of the boulevard that lessens the impact. Conditions of approval
are as follows:
1)
Impervious surface coverage shall be conforming to the
requirements found in Zoning Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.
A survey detailing conformance with this section shall be
submitted with the building permit application for each
dwelling.
2)
The utility services for lot 5 shall either be installed or a
cash escrow suitable to the City Engineer shall be provided
prior to release of the resolution for filing.
Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the fireplace down by the
lake will be removed.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to
recommend approval of the waiver of platting and
impervious surface coverage variance to allow up to 40%
coverage, as recommended by staff, with the additional
condition that the fireplace be removed prior to building
permit issuance, on that lot. Motion carried
unanimously.
This case was scheduled to be heard at the January 14th Council
meeting, but at the request of the applicant, will be heard at the
January 28th meeting.
12
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
Planning Commission Agenda of December 9, 1996
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official xz~~'~
SUBJECT:
Waiver of Platting and Variances
APPLICANT:
John and Nancy Mayer
CASE NO. 96-71
LOCATION:
1853 Shorewood Lane, Lots 4, 5 & part of 3, Block 12, Shadywood
Point, PID 18-117-23 23 0063
ZONING:
R-lA One and Two Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a waiver of platting and variances to impervious
surface coverage in order to allow for the separation of the parcel along the original lot lines as
shown on the attached survey. Both of the proposed parcels are conforming to the minimum
6,000 square foot lot area requirement for the R-IA zone. The applicant intends to demolish
the existing dwelling and construct two new dwellings that would be conforming to all other
related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The original dwelling is an outdated old cabin that
has been remodeled several times over the years. Separation of the parcels would result in a
non-lot of record status.
This property is located in the R-lA district which for a non-lots of record requires a minimum
lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a minimum front yard setback of
20 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a minimum lakeshore setback of 50 feet.
The following variances are applicable. The actual lot area was verified by staff with the
surveyor prior to the report being written. The applicant is requesting the 40 % ratio be used to
determine the allowable impervious surface.
LOT AREA ABOVE HARDCOVER ~ PROPOSED VARIANCE
ELEVATION OF 931 30 % HARDCOVER
LOT 5 9,250 SF 2,775 SF 3,556 SF 781 SF
LOT 4 & P/3 10,400 SF 3,120 SF 3,583 SF 463 SF
~ll~ q ~Im ~' prmted on recycled paper
Staff Report, December 9, 1996
Mayer, #96- 71
.C,_Q_M2d.F,~_N/_~ The applicant has calculated lot area to include the area down to the ordinary
high water mark of 929.4. Our ordinance has two areas that address the calculation of lot area;
first in Definitions, Subd. 78 which defines Lot Area as "The area of a lot in a horizontal plane
bounded by the lot lines, but not including the area occupied by floodplain..." The floodplain
elevation for Lake Minnetonka is 931. The second area that addresses lot area is in the
shoreland provisions, Section 350:1225, Subd. 1 and 2 which states in part, "Only land above
the ordinary high water level can be used to meet lot area standards." When the applicant
originally met with the Building Officiai to discuss this request, he was not informed that
calculating lot area does not include the area occupied by the floodplain.
The applicant's proposal and staff's estimates of impervious surface calculations exceed the 30%
ratio on both of the proposed parcels by a minimal amount, and both are also well under the
40% maximum for lots of record. According to the existing elevations on the survey, and after
preliminary review by staff, we have determined the site can be developed to direct a majority
of the run-off over green space towards the lake. In addition, if the standards found in Section
350:1225, Subd. 6.B are required and utilized, the drainage can be favorably accommodated for
this site with no negative affects on the neighboring properties. In addition, there is a boulevard
of approximately 16' to 28' in width between the lot line and the curb that adds green space and
buffer to the site. Impervious surface coverage could be reduced by moving both dwellings
towards the street, however the additional setback is more consistent with the neighboring
properties.
If the request is approved, utility services must be installed, or an equivalent cash escrow would
need to be provided for lot 5 prior to release of the resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request with conditions, as it is in substantial conformance with the
ordinance, the additional impervious surface is minimized by the fact that the drainage can be
directed substantially towards the lake, and there is the additional buffer of the boulevard that
lessens the impact. Conditions of approval are as follows:
1) Impervious surface coverage shall be conforming to the requirements found in Zoning
Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. A survey detailing conformance with this section
shall be submitted with the building permit application for each dwelling.
2)
The utility services for lot 5 shall either be installed or a cash escrow suitable to the City
Engineer shall be provided prior to release of the resolution for filing.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on
January 14, 1997.
draft primed 9/20/96 Application for
WAIVER OF PLATTING
City of Mound, 5341 'Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4724)620
case ~o.
City COunc i ~ Ua~e :l
D istr ibut ion:
I l'~.--~1~1o City Planner ~ DNR
il Public Works Other
~ City Engineer
Ple~.~e tTpe or print the foilowin~ information:
CITY
Application Fee: '
Escrow Deposit:_
Deficient Unit Charges~
Delin~ent Taxes~
INFORMA~ON
PROPOSED A. Lot(e) ~ Block~/~
LEGAL
~O~l~O
~ R-2 R-3 ~1 ~2 ~3
DISTRI~
Circle:
R-1
PROPER~ Are there existing struc~res on the prope~? ~ / no
Do the existing structures comply with the zoning ordinance for setbacks, herdcover, etc.? ~ / no
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner other:
OWN~ Name
(ff o~her ~hen
applicant) Address
Phone (H) (W). (M)
SUSV~O8/
Phone CH) (W) ~ -- O 70 ~ (M)
Has an application ever bean made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, {~no. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This app/icat/on must be signed by afl owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Date
J ,ll ....
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
-P~ppli'~:~ffon-~ee: ~'5-0.00")
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
1-1q-q'(o
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
Address ? ~c, 5- 3
Lot
Subdivision
PID#
ZONING DISTRICT
Name
Address
Phone (H)
R-1 ~'~ R-2 R-3
Block
Plat #
B-1 B-2 B-3
(M)
Name
Address
Phone O-I). .(W) .(M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (°f'no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.~'
Z- ~,~)/. ,'~-,,~ X.,,,,-.~: / ,~ z./~ ,,: / ,,, z.,~-/-, ,,~
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reasor
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ff.
· (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ff. ff.
Hardcover: ~4--5' 3o3Z..- sq ft .~S5~: sq ft ~'t..~t sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (T, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ('~ther: specify
Please describe:
?
(Rev. 10/21/96)
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 (ff. If yes, explain:
Was th/e hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No (4. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of har/dship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes ('5, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
f..~Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 10/21/96) ~ 0~
C
J ,I
ADDRESS:
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA ,/~ ~'~O SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA _ ,//, ,~'¢C'Q SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I 5"'~-~-- J
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) ..
LOT AREA
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~0 x ,~o =
/% x /.5' =
D,"TACHED
(GARAGE/C~HC-B)
DRIVEWAY,-PARK-ff~
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
/0 x ~ = ~ o
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
ZF' x ~o = /t~o
4 =
x
· ~' x ,~o = /,5"o
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTALDECK ..........................
X =
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER ~indicate difference)
, I, J I, , j. · ,i, ,
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA /0//0,7 SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA /O,,,/o ~ SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
,,¢o,~ z. I
'r/O ',/z-- 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.
HOUSE
~ (GARAGE/~.tC=~
DRIVEWAY,
DECKS Open decks {1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
_~o x ~o = /Zoo
/5 x ,,'5 = 3~5
,5' x .5" = z~
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
z;-- x ~s/ = g 77_.
/o x /o = ~O
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
,.~ ~ x ~< = 117o
x =
¥ x z7 =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
...... ; UNDER/, (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY ~ ~//~ /~ ~'.,~r' DATE
/
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVEy ON FILE? YES 82 20,000/80
~ B3 10,000/60
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO I ~2 ~4,~0/80
HOUSE .........
LOT WIDTH:
VAlUANCE
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
N S E W
~ (s__)E w
N $ E
15'
I0' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIIED .....
FRONT
FRONT
OR OTIIER/~ETACItED
.
NS E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
HARDCOVER '~ f'~O~
CONFORMINO? YES / NO
N S E W
BY:
BUILDINGS
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
(?R 30,
DATED:
I
This Zoning Information Sheet pn y summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
.Planning Department nt 472-0600.
i
7
O o
~-~
~..
O
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 24, 1997
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Edward Shulde
City Manager
Greg Skinner
Public Works Supt.
LOADER BIDS
Two bids were received for the 1997 Front End Loader.
They were as follows:
LESS
GROSS BID TRADE-IN
St. Joseph Equipment $89,300 (32,000)
RDO Equipment $85,839 (20,000)
St. Joseph Equipment was the low bidder and meets all specifications.
be awarded to St. Joseph Equipment.
NET BID
$57,300
$65,839
I recommend that the bid
printecl on recycled paper
3o4
Jan, 23, 1997 ll'09AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No. 4826 P, 2/3
McCombs Frank Roos Associa~s, Inc.
lS0S0 2~rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesola 55447.4739
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476.8532 FAX
Engineem
Plenner~
Sun~eyors
January 23, 1997
Mr. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Ma)wood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Pelican Point
Letter of Credit
MFRA #7419
Dear Bd:
Enclosed is a letter from John Boyer of Boyer Building Corporation requesting a release of thei~
leUer of credit for the subject project. We have reviewed this project with City staffand are
satisfied that the developer has met all the City's requirement except for one minor item.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (lvlCWS) acting on the City's behalf as the Local
Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) has not made a final
inspection of thc additional wetland mitigation they required which was constructed late last
summer.
For this reason we are r~ommendin~ the Cit~ retain a minimum of $3,000.00 until said
inspection is made in the spring and the MCWD accepts the project,
If you have any questions or need ~dditional information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:pry
t~nclosure
cc: John Boyer, Boyer Building Corporation
~:~main:',7419~huk 1-23
Building Corporation
18283A Minnetonka Boulevard · Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 · (612) 475-2097
RECEIVED .:,-,i~
January 21,1997
2 3 ig97
Mr. Ed Shukle
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ed,
With this letter, Boyer Building Corporation, is requesting that the letter of credit
requirements for our Pelican Point Development be reduced to a minimum
amount as needed for the wetlands mitigation inspections to be done in the
spring. We defer to John Cameron's recommendation on the specific amount
anticipated for these inspections.
Thank you.
Sincerer;, <'"~- ..
("John Boyer
Boyer Building Corporation
MN License #2988
cc: John Cameron with MFRA
BILLS January 28, 1997
Batch
Batch
Batch
6126
7011
7012
Total Bills
$ 15,472.58
34,650.97
115,629.22
$165,752.77
I I I I
..... z ...... L [] · I ,I
8
oO
Iii · iii
J · I
,l ,Il
~ZZ
Jan. 24. 1997
Il J , III, I ~J J~
No, 4915
?, 2/2
Mc-Combs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23n:l Avenue No~. Plymouth, blinnesola 55447-4739
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planne~
Surveyors
January24,1997
Honorable Mayor and Members of thc City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Proposed Street Reconstruction
Sherwood Drive
MFRA #11482
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As requested, wc have investigated the option of adding concrete curb and gutter, and overlaying
Sherwood Drive in lieu of a full reconstruction project. Thc sereices of GMB Consultants were retained
to evaluate the soil conditions and recommend a s~eet section and thc feasibility of an overlay.
The existing strcct was constructed with a 2" bituminous mat over 2 to Sfeet of pit run fill, composed ofb
sand, silty sand, kud silt. B~e~y-occurring sandy clay7 ~M~ h~s recom[nended
new~av~cmcnt-dcsign ~onsisting of 6" Class 5 aggrcgatc basc with a minimum of 2-1/2" bituminous
surface. This design is 1" less bituminous than we used in our prcliminal7 report, which would reduce~)
the estimated cost of thc project by approximately $4,000.00, or 7%.
The soils engineers also looked at the option of an overlay on thc cxisting pavement, instead of total
reconstruction. A complete determination cannot be made at this time because of the ice and snow cover
which makes it impossible to fully evaluate the condition of thc existing pavement. It may bc possible
to cut out and repair thc worst areas and then overlay the entire street. In thc spring, after thc street is
frcc of ice and snow, this option can be addressed, If at thc time, it is determined that an overlay is
feasible, the cost of thc project could bc reduced by as much as
Wc are recommending that a final decision on this project be delayed until spring.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:jb
e:main: 11482;jc 1-~
An EClUal 0pponun~ Employer
Minutes - Mound City Council - November 26, 1996
1.9 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPRO~NTS TO SI4 I~;RWOOD DRIVE.
John Cameron, City Engineer, reviewed the feasibility report he had prepared. His conclusion was that
it was feasible to complete this project as petitioned for by eight abutting property owners.
(Councilmember lensen arrived at 7:50 PM)
Mayor Polston opened the public hearing.
Denise Larson, 5574 Sherwood Drive. She stated she did not sign the petition. She saw no problem
with the road structurally. She was opposed to the improvement. She would be assessed the largest
amount and would probably have to sell her home and move. She stated the improvement would really
affect only a few houses on the end of the cul-de-sac. The people with the water in their basements
should improve their own private property to prevent the water from running into their basements.
Carl Hanson, 5501 Sherwood Drive. He stated that the street is not that bad. Maybe put an overlay
on the top and add new curbing. He asked how often the street had been repaired.'? He had originally
signed the petition, but now felt the cost was too high. He suggested the City do an overlay and keep
the cost down.
Bernice Putt, 5510 Sherwood Drive. She stated that she had signed the petition, but in seeing the
estimated cost, she felt it was too high also.
Greg Eurich, 5535 Sherwood Drive. He stated he lived on the comer of County Road 110 and
Sherwood Drive. His house is below the road, would more water mn down his driveway when the road
was improved? John Cameron, City Engineer, stated that the new curbing and current storm sewer
would prevent more water from rtmning into his driveway.
Cameron stated that soil borings had not been done to see if the base of the road was in good shape.
There were no documentation as to the number of repairs that had been done and how often and what
the cost was. He suggested a report be prepared by Mr. Skinner for information. He also suggested
that soil borings could be done to test the base. Also, it could be possible to do an overlay and new
curbs. The cost could be lowered by 1/3 if only an overlay and new curbs were done. Mayor Polston
stated he didn't think that an overlay should be done if the road base was bad, that would only create
a bad road in 2-3 years and not last the 20 year time of a totally new road. Reducing the cost could
reduce the quality of the road.
Denise Larson asked if a report could be prepared by the Public Works Superintendent as to the repairs
done.
Mayor Polston asked if there were any comments either for or against the improvement project on
Sherwood Drive. There were none. He closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Council.
Councilmember Hanus suggested obtaining more information before proceeding with the project.
City Attorney Pearson stated that the report was prepared according the request of the petitioners.
Cameron stated that the project -needed 35 % of the frontage owners agreeing. The properties on the
cul-de-sac, where the problem lies, has the least amount of frontage on Sherwood Drive.
Mayor Polston suggested the public hearing be continued until repair reports and soil borings could be
completed to see determine the need, and then discuss the improvement.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to continue the public h~aring on the
improvement of Sherwood Drive until January 28, 1997, and authorize the city
engineer to do necessary soil borings to determine the base of the road and repair
reports be prepared. The motion carried 4-0.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-o600
FAX (612) 472.0620
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 hail 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.
f',
Linda Strong, CMC, Acting City Clerk
' l~rinted on recycled paper
.~ .... 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
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 reconstraction 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 DESIGI~I
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 Road 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 repairs~f any brok~e 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 ~0. 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
QUANTITY
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
Bixxuninous 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.O0
2,580.00
8,700.00
6,440.00
5,440.00
1,600.00
800.00
150.00
700.00
3,500.00
4.340.00
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 gO'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~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 (from 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).
o
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 lOng 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.
The following is a breakdown of how the area, frontage and unit charges were calculat~
To'a] Proiect Co~ to be A. ssess~d $6!
Total Cost for area charge
Total Cost for frontage charge
Total Cost for unit charge
Total Project Cost to be ~sesscd
= $61,800.00 x 30% = $18,540.00
= $61,~00.00 x 30% : $18,540.00
= $61,800.00 x 40% = $2~720~00
= $61,800.00
-.Area Charge = $18,540.00 + 307,160S.F. = $ 0.06/SF
Frontage Charge : $18,540.00 + 1..296.52 L.1L = $14.30/LF
Unit Charge = $24,720.00 + I2 units = $2,060.00FUnit
The follo~ving proposed assessment spread was prepared using the City's street improvement
assessment policy.
PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT
~. Parcel No. U~t Frontae~ Area ~
Lot 1 13-117-24 23 0033$ 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
Lot 4 13-117-24 23 0036$ 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.~06.40 $ 5,037.07
Lot8 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 LotC 13-117-24230030 $ 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 LotE 13-117-24230032 $ 1,030.00 $ 1,393.39 $ 0.00 $ 2,423.39
RLS Part Lot B 13-117-24 23 0028$ 2,060,00 $ 904.90$ 6'32.40 $ 3,597.30
City Share (R/W) $ 2.100.00 $2.100.00
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.
¢:~ain:\11482~rp~-19
TION-~
E'X HI-BIT ~A
November 26, 1996
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVF.,M~NT AND PREPARATION
OF PLANS FOR THE IMPROYEMI~NT OF
SHY~RWOOD DRIVE
WI~REAS, a resolution of the City Council adoptexi 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,
Wl:l~~, 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, THF. REFORE, 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
l .... l J ,· J J ,,l ,il J i, ,
SeptemI~r 24, 1~96
RESOL~ON/t96-98A
RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING
PUBLIC FrE~RING ON SI:rERWOOD DRIVE
IMPROVEMENT
Wl:rE~, 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, ~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ~ CITY COUNCIL OF
TI:I'E 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 $61,800.
A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 12th day of
November, 1996, in the Council chambers of the City I4all at 5341 Maywood
Road, Mound, and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such
hearing and improvement as required by law.
Moved by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen, unanimously carded.
Adopted by the Council this 24h day of September, 1996.
Attest: Acting City Olerk
Mayor
RF. SOL~ON
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF FEASIBIIJTY REPORT
ON ~ IMPRO~ OF slq'RRWOOD DRIVE
August 27, 1996
BE IT RESOL~ BY, the City Council of the City of Mound:
A certain petition requesting .the improvement of Sherwood Drive has been filed
with the City Council on August 27, 1996, is hereby declared to be signed by the
required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is
made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035.
The petition is hereby referred to McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., and
that company is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed
advising the Council in a preliminary was as 'to whether the proposed
improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should
best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the
estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Polston and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Attest: Acting City Clerk
Resolution adopted: August 27, 1996
Mayor
PREMIUM SUMMARY
1997
I~ROPERTY 8,181
~ MARINE 1,991
LTU~IL1TYfE&O
A~O ~~ 13,090
A~O ~SlC~ D~GE 19~08
~ 433
WO~R'S CO~ENSA~ON
BO~R & ~C~RY 1,473
~&D BE~ 3~
~QUOR ~~ 7,080
E~LO~E D~HO~$~ 1,180
OPEN ~ET~G ~W 679
1996
8,001
2,035
43,973
12,723
17,019
328
42,167
1,236
35O
6,714
1,180
660
TOTALS 134,557 13S,150
CITY OF MOUND
OPTIONS FOR 1997
EXCESS LIABILITY POLICY
COVERAGE
1. Excess Liability $1,000,000 Liml~
With Waiver of Immunity
Without Waiver of Immunity
14,300
11,967
Sanuary 28, 1997
YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES
Mr. Ed Shukl¢, City Manager
CrrY OF MOU-~rD
5341 Maywood Road
Mound ~ 55364
Attached is a copy of the Premium Summary, which shows an approximate premium savings of $6,350,
by increasing thc Package deductible to $1,000 per claim. This would apply to the following
coverages: Property, Inland Marine, Liability/F_,&O, Auto Liability, Auto Physical Damage, Crime,
Boiler & Machinery, and Employee Dishonesty.
You presently have a $500 deductible. This means you could have over 12 claims annually at the
$1,000 deductible before using up the premium savings.
I have calculated the additional cost to the City if the deductible recovery by the LMCIT had been at
$1,000 deductible versus your current $500 deductible:
ADDmONAL
~ D~crm~x Corr N~m_~ o~, CLa~
1993-94 $ 1,500 3
1994-95 $ 3,237 7
1995-96 $ 3,721 9
1996-97 $ 2,785 6, plus one or two open claims
Ther~ is always the potential for a disastrous year, with a high fr~uency of claims. Based on your past
history, it is apparent that it would be to your advantage to accept the higher deductible.
Please call me if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Carl A. Bennetsen
Commercial Representative
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Cdno Businaro, Finance Director
CrrY OF MOUND
10261 ¥Ollow CltGIe Drive · Mlnno?orlko, MN 5,5343-9307 · 612.933.7488 · 800-888-5324 - I~Gix: 612-933-0916
PREMIUM SUMMARY
.1997
I~ROPERTY 8,181
INLAND MARINE 1,991
LIABIL1TY/E&O
AUTO LIABILITY 13,090
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE 19,208
CR1M~ 433
WORKER'S COMPENSATION 35,627
BOILER & MAOHNERY 1,473
AD&D BENEFIT 350
LIQUOR LIABH.rrY
EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY 1,1a0
OPEN MEETING LAW 679
7,080 .
199¢
8,001
2,035
43,973
12,723
17,019
328
42,167
1,236
350
6,714
1,180
660
TOTALS 134,557 135,150
Note: To increase to $1,000.00 per claim, premium savings $6,350.00.
SHARED DOCK PROPOSAT,
Enable commons dock users to combine onto single dock while still
applying and paying for their existing dock sites:
OBJECTIVES
Reduce dock density.
- Reduce amount of dock in/out labor for dock site holders.
- Reduce number of docks in front of abutter,s property.
- Enable people to share docks without loss of permit rights.
PROGRAM:
TWo or more dock site holders can share one dock.
All parties would maintain their .~-= .... . - - .
~--=~ aocK si~e holder
status: The next year they would all maintain their status as
dock site holders.
Dock sites without a dock due to shared usage would not be given
out to others for use. ·
Permit holders will continue to pay the full dock fee in order to
maintain their primary permit holder status.
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MINI.3'ES OF A MEETING
January 9, 1996
COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission decided to review each section of the Task Force recommendation separately.
SHARED DOCK POLICY
Botko and Pederson spoke in favor of the policy. Byrnes feels this policy is good for older
people who can share a site with a younger person who would help them install the dock, and
at the same time it helps reduce the number of docks on the commons.
(Darling arrived late at this point.)
Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Pederson, to accept the Shared Dock
Policy as recommended by the Commons Task Force, as written.
Darling asked if a conflict of interest exists by having Task Force members voting as Park
Commissioners on Task Force issues, and/or if there is a conflict for those Commissioner's who
own property abutting the commons? Darling noted that the Work Rules state that if a
Commissioner has a vested interest in an issue that they will excuse themselves from
conversation and not vote on the motion, and since certain commissioner's were involved in the
drafting of the document being reviewed, he asked if that would constitute a vested interest.
Park and Open Space Commission January 9, 1997
Pederson feels that everyone has a vested interest since they are dealing with public land.
(Ahrens arrived late at this point).
The motion was reviewed for Ahrens.
Chair Casey reviewed the Work Rules on packet page 100, #26 which states, "Any member
having a financial and/or personal interest in an individual action under consideration by the
Commission shall identify their personal interest prior to the discussion, remove himself/herself
from the discussion and not vote on that particular matter. In addition, members shall further
avoid any appearance of impropriety. Said member will have the same rights as any citizen who
has an interest in any action being considered by the Park and Open Space Commission."
Byrnes stated that they do not have a financial or personal interest. Casey stated that there is
no way for the Commission to personally monitor if there is a conflict since it is a voluntary
refusal, so the Commission Members would have to decide on their own if they think they have
a conflict of interest. As the Chair, Casey feels that members have the right to voluntarily
excuse themselves. The Commissioners agreed with Casey's interpretation.
Botko commented that it had never occurred to her that this was a "personal" interest. Botko,
Byrnes and Pederson agreed that they do not feel a conflict of interest exists.
Motion carried unanimously.
MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
The Commission voted on each section separately.
A. Review of underlying objectives for Commons Dock Program.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the
Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section A as written. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Multiple-slip dock objectives.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the
Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section B.
Darling asked how they propose to pay for the docks. It was noted that they will be paid for
out of the Dock Fund. Ahrens referred to F.4. which states that the dock system will be funded
with current fees. Ahrens suggested that this specifically state, "current Dock Fund fees."
Byrnes accepted an amendment to the motion to add the following to Section
B., "4. The multiple-slip dock system is to be fully funded with current Dock
Fund fees." Motion carried unanimously.
2
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
C. Criteria for considering an area for a multiple-slip dock.
Byrnes commented that she feels it is important to get cooperation from the users of the multiple
docks and we need to chose an area wisely and take suggestions from the users.
Darling expressed a concern that this section seems ambiguous. He does not consider the survey
to be scientific. Darling would like to see "2. Shoreline dock congestion" further defined, and
questioned what is the minimum standard for congestion? And in "4." how much is considered
to be "a significant percent of dock site holders interested in or willing to try a multiple-slip
dock."
Goldberg commented that dock congestion varies depending on the area and on the
dissatisfaction level of the people in the area.
Darling clarified that he feels//2 needs to state what is considered to be a minimum standard of
congestion, and #3 should state what is considered to be "close to the water" in a measurement
as a guideline. Botko commented that the distance from the water also depends on the area.
There was discussion regarding the number of boats versus number of docks allowed by the
LMCD and if this would be affected. Dock spacing, as it relates to congestion was discussed.
Goldberg commented that the idea is to identify the areas that have problems and to try and
solve those problems and to get a consensus from the people using the area. The program is
relatively voluntary. They will look for areas where people are willing to move and also where
a significant reduction in the congestion can be accomplished. Goldberg noted that F. 1. a. states,
"If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move to the multiple slip dock: a. Keep changes on
a voluntary basis."
Byrnes suggested that the interpretation of congestion be left up to staff.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko, to recommend approval of
"C." as written. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Pederson,
Botko, Byrnes, Casey, Meyer, and Ahrens. Darling was opposed.
D. Implementation steps.
Darling suggested that they add a//8 to this section which would requires that a hearing be held
for the people affected by the dock, and that they get the opportunity to vote on whether they
want a multiple-slip dock. Goldberg and Ahrens agreed that this was intended.
Meyer suggested that a notice be published in the local paper and advertise it as a public hearing
at either the Park Commission or City Council level. Ahrens stated that she would be opposed
to that because letters can be sent out at less cost.
It was discussed if approval of the multiple-slip docks should go through the Park Commission
and Council for approval.
January 9, 1997
Park and Open Space Commission
Darling suggested the following language: "Any time that a multiple dock slip is targeted for
implementation in a commons area, a notice either via newspaper or mail shall be sent to those
affected individuals, a public hearing will be held, and all those affected dock holders for that
commons will have the ability to vote, with the majority ruling."
Ahrens stated, if she was one of the people affected, she would not want the notice only in the
paper, because you cannot guarantee that they would see it. It was clarified that the notices will
need to be mailed and that they may also be published. Darling accepted that as a friendly
amendment to the language.
Meyer explained his reason for wanting something in the paper is because of the fact that
commons are dedicated to everybody in the City of Mound, for the most part. It was discussed
who should be notified. Fackler suggested that input be collected from the affected individuals
prior to any notices being published in order to determine first if the people in the area are
interested.
Darling stated that there may be other citizens that use that commons area for swimming or
fishing, and they should be given the opportunity to be notified of a proposed multiple-slip dock
in case it may affect that citizen' s use of that commons for those activities. Casey suggested that
the affected individuals be notified and their input be collected before the public notices go out.
The secretary reiterated the motion, as follows: Any time a multiple dock is proposed, all
individuals affected will be notified in writing of the meeting, and if needed a published notice
in the paper also, a public hearing will be held, and all those affected will have the ability to
vote and the majority will rule.
Casey asked if the majority has the right above and beyond the Council? Fackler reviewed the
first step would be first to determine if the people want to be involved in the multiple-slip dock
program, the second step would be the Park Commission, it would then be publicized and go
on to the Council. Casey clarified that the motion read by the secretary would be the
preliminary steps prior to Park Commission and Council.
Goldberg expressed a concern about the "majority will rule" part of the motion because there
may be a minority with a major problem that has a legitimate problem. Goldberg has no
problem with the affected individuals voting, but is not sure it should be that the majority rules.
Casey clarified that ultimately the Council will rule.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of
Section D. with the addition of//8, as follows: "Any time a multiple dock is
proposed, all individuals affected will be notified in writing of a meeting, and
if needed a notice will also be published in the paper, a public hearing will
be held, and all those affected will have the ability to vote and the majority
will rule." Motion carried unanimously.
4
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
E. Use Plan for Pubic Lands issues to review that will affect the tnultiple-slip dock.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Pederson to recommend approval of
the Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section E, as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
F. Installation and transition issues.
It was agreed that //4 should be amended as follows, "Dock fees: No surcharges are
recommended based on the commons dock fund financial projections, the proposed multiple-slip
dock system is fully funded with the current Dock Fund fees."
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Pederson to recommend approval of
the Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section F, as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY PROPOSAL
Casey referred to I.c. "The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing
a greater good." He does not think that because we have public land that we have to justify that
it is the City s/People s right to have the land free from encroachments, he does not think they
should have to justify it, as a factor. Pederson commented that she likes "c." because at one
time the fathers of the City said it was okay to build structures and now they are saying that it
is not right.
Casey referred to Ordinance #10 dated 5/9/50, which states "no dock or boathouse shall
hereafter be erected, kept or maintained.., without first securing a lcense. And, Subd. 6
states, "If at any time it shall appear necessary to the Village Council of the Village of Island
Park, in the public interest, or for the improvement of any public street, road, park or common
for the further public use or enjoyment thereof by the establishment of public docks, bathing
beaches, recreation grounds or the opening of any street, road or common or otherwise, any and
all licenses issued under the terms of the within ordinance may be cancelled by direction of the
Village Council upon 10 days' notice in writing .... "He noted that this language is repeated
on all the subsequent ordinances which acts as notice to these people that they do not have the
automatic right to keep those structures, but that it is up to the City Council. There is no
guarantee of perpetuity to have a boathouse on commons or any other public land, and this is
reflected in Ordinances gl0, //20, and//94.
Pederson noted that the boathouses were built before these ordinances, and just because we don't
like them anymore, does that mean we can take them away?
Darling commented that he also has a problem with this recommendation and cannot support it
the way it is written. He is very much in favor of the concept that public land is public land.
He feels, the way this is written allows people to install structures on commons that we do not
allow people to do in public parks.
5
Park and Open Space Commission
january 9, 1997
Goldberg emphasized that they are talking about existing structures, not new.
Casey noted that they are out of time, and suggested they discuss this item further at their next
Commission meeting. Fackler noted that the Council will be reviewing these recommendations
at their meeting on January 28, 1997.
Casey moved that the Council defer its decision on the Commons Encroachment
Policy recommendation until the Park Commission has the chance to adequately
consider and discuss the rest of the recommendation that they have not reviewed.
Ahrens seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Ahrens commented that it is probably not wise to vote on this, because the Commission can ask
the Council to defer its action, but there is no guarantee that action will be deferred. Ahrens
suggested that the Commission devote the first 30 minutes after the interviews to further discuss
this subject.
Motion failed 2 to 5. Those in favor were: Darling and Casey. Those opposed
were: Ahrens, Meyer, Pederson, Byrnes, and Botko.
MOTION moved by Ahrens that the ne, ct 30 minutes following the interviews
be devoted to discussion on the Commons Encroachment Policy, except if
there is anyone present to discuss another issue on the agenda, that item will
be discussed first. Byrnes seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY PROPOSAL - continued discussion.
The Commission decided to continue discussion on this issue for 30 minutes, until 9:15 p.m.
Pederson agrees that we should not allow any more building, but is concerned with requiring
that the existing go because it would harm the people to not allow their existing structures to
remain.
Casey referred to Ordinance #10, Subd. 6 and Subd. 8 and reviewed the intent of the language.
It is his opinion that it is clear that the intentions since the 1950's has been that people build at
risk that the City Council may in some future time find that it is in the public interest to change
that. He thinks the focus is what rules we have been operating under since 1950.
Pederson asked about the structures constructed prior to 1950. Casey commented that Ordinance
10
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
10, Section 4. states, "With respect to docks and boathouses already erected at the time of the
passage of the within ordinance, a license to continue the maintenance thereof shall be applied
for in the manner hereinbefore described for the licensing of new docks and boathouses, within
30 days after the within ordinance takes effect as hereinafter provided, and all such applications
shall be presented to the Village Council and licenses issued therefor in the same manner as is
herein provided for licensing of the erection of new docks or boathouses." Casey summarized
that having these structures are not a permanent right and there is also the right to take them
away that's reserved by the City Council by issuing licenses in the first place.
Goldberg commented that he thinks all those points are consistent and does not think there are
any conflicts in any of the statements that have been made thus far. The City has the
responsibility to make sure use of commons, either past or present actions, be in the public
interest, and that is not inconsistent with the concept that harm to an individual citizen must be
justified by the City.
How the permit process worked in the past was discussed.
Ahrens noted that the ordinance which Casey had referred to earlier was dropped in future
ordinances, and to connect that to what the Task Force is recommending which is that it should
serve the greater public good, the key is to balance it.
Darling commented, the way that the Task Force recommendation reads, he firmly believe it
gives an abutter the perception that they can privatize that land, and his concern is the ones that
would abuse this. It is his impression that this would harm the public is that it restricts everyone
else's use of that land. He does not agree that the onus should be put on the City.
Goldberg noted that their policy proposal pertains only to existing structures. Darling
emphasized that the proposed policy would allow somebody to repair an existing structure to the
point that it would remain forever, and people would use these rules to their advantage, and the
way it reads now would open that door for them. He feels the policy will open Pandora's Box.
Darling is concerned that there is a loop hole in the proposed policy that would allow somebody
to reconstruct a dilapidated structure.
Casey directed discussion back towards "I. Key Factors." Casey referred to 1.c., which states,
"The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good." He
questioned if the City has to prove that the harm to one is more than the harm to another in
order to require something be removed. The Commission discussed the difference in the rights
of one affected individual versus the balance of the Mound population.
Encroachments and the benefits of removing them versus the rights to the owner of that
encroachment was discussed. Goldberg stated that there are only about six boathouses located
on commons. The historical value of the boathouses was discussed. Boathouses located on
Type C commons was discussed.
Botko commented that 1 .d. says it all, "The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments
to confirm that they do not hinder Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe."
11
Park and Open Space Commission January 9, 1997
Darling commented that we either figure out a way to tighten up the words or he cannot support
it. He wants to make sure that people do not think they can keep these structures forever, and
the wording in the proposal allows for people to abuse their ability to have structures on the
commons. Darling referred to the amended Decision Flow Chart, and noted that either way,
existing structures would be granted a permit to continue, and would never get denied.
Casey noted that time is up. He would like to have the opportunity to further review this
proposal before it goes to the City Council.
OTION by Casey, seconded by Darling, to recommend that discussion on
is item be tabled until the next Park Commission meeting and that the
Council not review this item until they finish their recommendation.
Ahrens suggested that the Commission schedule an additional meeting prior to the January 28th
Council meeting so they can finish discussion on the item.
Motion carried 6 to 1. Ahrens was opposed.
SHARED DOCK PROPOSAL
Draft September 5, 1996
Enable commons dock users to combine onto single dock while still
applying and paying for their existing dock sites:
OBJECTIVES:
Reduce dock density.
- Reduce amount of dock in/out labor for dock site holders.
- Reduce number of docks in front of abutter,s property.
- Enable people to share docks without loss of permit rights.
PROGRAM:
Two or more dock site holders can share one dock.
All parties would maintain their "primary,, dock site holder
status. The next year they would all maintain their status
dock site holders.
as
Dock sites without a dock due to shared usage would not be given
out to others for use.
Permit holders will continue to pay the full dock fee in order to
maintain their primary permit holder status.
Commons Task Force
Proposed Multiple-slip Dock Program
Drafted~
November 7, 1996
November 25, 1996
November 26, 1996
Ce
Review of underlying objectives for commons Dock Program.
1. Maintain total number of boats participating in the
commons dock program.
2. Keep nonabutter boats within walking distance from
their homes.
3. Recognize that some commons have more problems than
others due to topography and/or tight quarters.
4. Work to improve abutter's "sense of privacy" without
affecting nonabutters use of the lakeshore commons.
Multiple-slip dock objectives.
1. To improve the level of satisfaction with the commons
dock program by reducing or eliminating the number of
dock sites in front of abutter's homes.
2. Reduce nonabutter cost by providing permits for boat
slips that do not require them to have their own dock
3. Improved shoreline appearance and reduced congest~
Criteria for considering an area for a multiple-sli'
High level of dissatisfaction with current
program. Use November 8, 1995 tabulation
survey satisfaction levels as a basis fc
First priority (based on dissatisfact~
Devon Commons.
Shoreline dock congestion.
Topography/tight quarters: Hr
and/or at eye level with the
Commons Task Force
Proposed Hultiple-slip Dock Program
November 26, 1996, Draft
p. 2 of 3
A significant percent of dock site holders interested
in or willing to try a multiple-slip dock.
Existence of a logical location for a multiple-slip
dock in that area:
a. Convenient access.
b. No undue burden on adjacent abutting homes.
Implementation steps.
Relocate dock holders to a commons user-fee supported
and maintained multiple-slip dock. This will be
accomplished by placing multiple docks at the ends of
fire lanes, street ends, and other locations that are
not directly in front of an abutter,s property.
The City will be the trustee and manager of the
multiple-slip dock system.
Being that the Pembroke multiple dock pilot project was
a successful program in 1996, make the Pembroke
multiple dock a permanent program with a suggested
long-term goal maximum of seven twenty-four foot dock
slips.
0
When an individual dock site permit holder moves to a
multiple-slip dock, that individual dock site will no
longer be used as a dock location.
The multiple-slip dock is to be used for ingress and
egress by the dock permit holders and their guests
only. This is needed for boat security and user safety
for the permit holders.
Where possible, leave room for a visitor boat.
Visiting would be limited to three days.
Measure the outcome: Measure dock holder's
satisfaction with dock program, dock spacing between
docks, privacy, etc.
Use Plan for Public Lands issues to review that will affect
the multiple-slip dock.
what is the total number of boat storage units that the
system needs to and can support:
a. throughout the program.
b. In this area?
Commons Task Force
ProRosed Hultiple-slip Dock Program
November 26, 1996, Draft
p. 3 of 3
Does the topography of this particular area require any
restrictions on nonabutter boat sizes, or other things
that would unduly impact abutting homeowners and/or
nonabutting dock holders?
Installation &n~ transition issues.
1. If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move to the
multiple slip dock:
a. Keep changes on a voluntary basis.
b. Keep nonabutters within walking distance of their
homes.
Solutions: Move the permit to the multiple-slip dock
when the permit holder leaves the program, and no
longer use that individual dock site. If a "share"
exists, they cannot assume that dock site. Attempt to
accommodate that "share" at the multiple-slip dock.
What if a dock site holder has more than one boat and
therefore wants more than one slip at the multiple-slip
dock?
a. The multiple-slip dock can only financially
support one boat slip per permit holder.
Solution: Leave the permit holder at his/her own dock
site. When the permit holder either chooses to join
the multiple-slip dock, or leaves the program, then
move the dock site to the multiple-slip dock and no
longer use the individual's dock site.
Secondary benefit: Limiting the multiple-slip permit
holders to one BSU gives more flexibility for allowing
the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat
while still maintaining the number of participants and
stay within LMCD BSU limits.
When an area is targeted to have a specific number of
BSU's at the multiple-slip dock, yet some of the
targeted dock site holders don't move to the multiple-
slip dock, do as follows. Create the multiple-slip
dock with slips only for those that move to it from
targeted dock sites. Then expand the number of slips
over time as the remaining dock sites are consolidated
onto the multiple-slip dock.
Dock fees: No surcharges are recommended based on the
commons dock fund financial projections, the proposed
multiple-slip dock system is fully funded with current
fees.
Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal
Drafted 7/26/96
Rev. 8/15/96
Rev. 9/5/96
II.
Key Factors.
a. Encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them existed.
The City's mandate regarding existing encroachments is as follows: The
Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may
deem advisable to protect Mound resident use of the commons shoreline.
The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a
greater good.
The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they
do not hinder Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe.
Comm0n~ Task Force Recommendation.
The onus is on the City to show that there are sufficient use hindrances or
safety problems to justify taking actions beyond those that would involve
structures on private lakeshore.
Five year permit renewals are justified to aid the City in monitoring the
encroachments.
Rules governing maintenance of encroaching structures should be consistent
with the Shoreland Management Ordinance and no more restrictive than all
other shoreline within the City unless use hindrance or safety issues exist.
Reduce the level of permit renewal authority needed. The objectives are to
1) lessen the "hassle" felt by the abutter in straight-forward renewal
situations, and 2) reduce the politicalization of renewals:
Give City staff authority to renew permits unless additional
hindrance or safety issues arise.
Write detailed rules under which staff must go to the Park
Commission/Council before renewing a permit.
Abutters should be made legally responsible for their encroaching structure
through the use of legal encumbrances or other means.
Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal
Rev. 9/~/96
Page 2
Issues to discuss.
a. Transferability.
b. Definition of use hindrance, safety hazard.
Allowable maintenance without permit.
Request to Council to review steps
recommendation.
required for implementation of
Definition of Hindrance: An encroaching structure that significantly inhibits Mound
resident use of this commons where the encroaching structure exists.
PROPOSED REVISIONS (AS IT APPLIES TO LAKESHORE COMMONS)
COMMONS TASK FORCE
11-7-96
HOTEt All permits granted are for
IAmited time, are transferable, and
the structure must meet City
guidelines for rental of Public
Land pe~lts (Exhibit J in the
Procedure Manuel). .
~_~tu~ I~ke h~ psfi~, ~, ~ --
~ ? ~n~ si[ ~ ~o~ ~ ,~ [ A STRUCTURE O~ ~ [ SEPA~TE
*~, .~-._,~-
DENT 1(6)
REQUEST. YES
f' 1(9)
Will the '
result ~ NO
in a negative! ~
impact on ]
Orant permit up to
five yeirl and renewable.
iYES
DENY REQUEST.
DEVELOP PLAN
ACCORDING TO
PRIORITIES.
DECISION FLOW CHART
BI~XBZT -Au
IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE
STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS
(REGULATED BY CITY CODE SECTION 320)
RECEIVE "PUBLIC LAND (1)
PERMIT APPLIUATIoN"
fUi IS REQUEST FOR A BOAT
HOUSE OR OTHER
· NOl
tTHWILL THE REQUEST
ENHANCE AND ENCOURAGE
THE USE OF THE PUBLIC
LANDS BY THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY
E USE PLAN?
YES l
SHOULD T~E CITY ~(11)
BUILD OR MAINTAIN? [_
5 YEARS AND RENEWABLE.I
DOES PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT / (3.5)
REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM
ANOTHER AGENCY? IF YES,
RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM AGENCY
THEN PROCEED.
NEW ~ EXISTING
- CONSTRUCTION ON I (4)
PUBLIC LANDS (new)
- LAND ALTERATION
(grading, retaining
walls, trees, etc.)
(7)
(3)
IlPUBLIC LAND MAINTE- ] (5)
NANCE (repair exist-
ins structure)
- CONTINUATION OF
STRUCTURE (to remain
, "as is")
C~iLL I
NO
WILL THE REQUEST
RESULT IN A
NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON THE USE PLAN?
NO
l(lo)
(15)
GRANT PERMIT UP TO
YEARS AND RENEWABLE,
CONTINGENT UPON USE
FLAN.
~m~I-~.
PRRMIT IS TRAN,
YEARS, NOT RENEWABLE.
TO BE CHECKED
ANNUALLY.
Is the negative
on the Use plan
substantial enough
to override the
negative impact on
the owner of r~oving
the structure?
~0
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Exhibit J
Page 1 of $
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits
Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances, regulations, and policies,
including:
- Use Plan
- Comprehensive Plan
Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200)
- "Policy for Structures on Public Lands" adopted by Resolution No. 93-142 on October
26, 1993
2. Recommendations for permissible uses, according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as stairways,
retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following:
a. If a structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to
the City Council permit approval for 5 years.
b. & c.: Use a means of enforcement other than witholding dock permits. Instead, use fines, liens,
special assessments, etc. (Abutters need to be made legally responsible for their encroachments).
b. If a structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend
approval and the structure must comply with code within the time specified by the City
Council and dock permit will not be issued until structure meets code. If structure is not
corrected or removed within time specified by City Council that dock site will be exempt
from dock license issuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct
the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal
channels.
c. If a structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction
immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets
code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is
corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license.
3. Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable
by
regulations shall be reviewed on a case case basis ................................... .
r..otc....t: ............... , -o
Buildings or other structure may require separate legal review, and the following information
should be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft
report. This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review,
when necessary.
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96'
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 2 of 3
ao
~. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform
Building Code standards for residential stairways.
bo
Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this
Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe' or otherwise
unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal
nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures,
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.
Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any
stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided
the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway.
Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. All stairways, both existing and new,
and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the
permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance.
· ,~r ......... rcpalr~.. The City shah inspect and approve such repairs where
building permit is required
.Minor Maintenance of Stiarwavs and Ohter Structures. Minor maintenance of an],
currently oeiaJiitted stiarwav, dock storaee platfo,~u, or retaining wall can and
should be done at the discretion of the homeowner or upon the direction of th~,
Buildin- Official, Parks Director or Dock Inspector
Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by
the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal.
~ All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a
qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical
Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan
must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land.
All power supply to from the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical
contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify
disconnection with staff. Pre-existine electrical in~allations that do not meet code shah bi:
given thirty (30) days to be broueht up to code
Expiration Date for Permits:
concurrently.
All permits, for each property, will be made to expire
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
(3uidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 3 of 3
lO.
11.
Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted ~lgr_0.1tgk~.g~----o.~..~,~v:~'~"
t~y ¢~n and should be mode {without a public !snd permit) at the discretion of the permit
holder or upon the direction of the Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The
Dock Inspector currently writes correction orders for minor items such as loose treads,
handrails, or replacement of boards on docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all
correction orders regarding building code items.
Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8',
consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class
A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility.
Riprap: Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 100 year floodplain
elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the
Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources.
Permits are required from these agencies before a Public Lands Permit can be granted by the
City of Mound.
~ Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management
Ordinance for more regulations.
Vegetation Alterations and Trimming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1996
COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force explained that different members will be
presenting different portions of their program. He asked the Commission to hold their questions
until the end of each segment.
A. TIME LINE OF TASK FORCE EFFORTS
Mark Goldberg briefly reviewed the history of the Commons Task Force when they were
established and their accomplishments. The Task Force held meetings from May to December
of 1995, they did a number of different surveys, toured the commons, got approval of a
recommendation to install a multiple boat slip dock at Pembroke Park, followed-up on the
success of the multiple dock, and have developed the recommendations to be presented to you
this evening.
B. SHARED DOCK POLICY RECOMMENDATION
Gordy Tulberg stated he has been a Mound resident since 1947 and has been a commons dock
user. The intent of the shared dock proposal is to enable commons dock users to combine into
a single dock while still applying and paying for their existing dock sites.
OBYECTIVES:
Reduce dock density.
Reduce amount of dock in/out labor for dock site holders.
Reduce number of docks in front of abutter's property.
Enable people to share docks without loss of permit rights.
PROGRAM:
Two or more dock site holders can share one dock.
All parties would maintain their "primary" dock site holder status. The next year
they would all maintain their status as dock site holders.
Dock sites without a dock due to shared usage would not be given out to others
for use.
Permit holders will continue to pay the full dock fee in order to maintain their
primary permit holder status.
A notice is going to be sent out with the dock application forms to help promote this concept.
C. MULTIPLE BOAT-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
Jim Funk announced he has been a Mound resident for about eight years. He is a nonabutting
dock holder on Waterside.
Some of the objectives for the multiple-slip dock program came out of the initial survey done
by the task force. One of the primary objectives was to satisfy the users of the program. They
had found that a large percentage of dissatisfaction of the program was with the abutting owners
and dock congestion in front of their houses. This multiple-slip dock seemed to be the best
solution to reduce congestion by concentrating the users in one area that is not so interfering
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, I996
with the abutters. At the same time this program reduces overall cost for participation by
eliminating the need for nonabutters to have to purchase and maintain a dock by allowing the
City to maintain and act as trustee of the dock. In addition, this concept would improve the
shoreline appearance for the abutting owners by reducing the congestion traffic in front of the
homes. To determine selection of the sites, it was also found from the survey that some areas
had a higher level of dissatisfaction that others. Devon was more of a problem area so they
chose the Pembroke area for the pilot program, and it proved to be successful. Feedback from
the users was received and their comments will be considered when developing future multiple
sites.
Casey questioned, specifically, what problems were expressed by the users of the multiple-slip
dock. Funk noted the following:
Low water levels towards end of year made navigation somewhat difficult. This could
be corrected by looking at reconfiguring the dock.
Dock holders had security concerns; non-dock holders used the dock for fishing. It was
suggested a gate be installed at the entrance of the dock to keep out random visitors.
To help reduce risk of vandalism, a light was installed about a month after the dock was
installed.
D. LAKESHORE COMMONS ENCROACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION
Mark Goldberg reviewed the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal. Major key factors in
developing this proposal were that encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them
existed, and the City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater
good.
Key portions of the Commons Task Force Recommendation are that the onus is on the City to
show that there are sufficient use hindrances or safety problems to justify taking actions beyond
those that would involve structures on private lakeshore. They thought it was appropriate that
the City, given that they have a trustee role, that they should continue to monitor structures,
issue permits; they kind of stepped back from the "life of the structure" recommendation they
made back in January.
They recommend that rules governing maintenance of encroaching structures should be
consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance and no more restrictive than all other
shoreline within the City unless use hindrance or safety issues exist. One of the most precise
listings of the City's mandate is that the Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable
conditions that they deem advisable to protect Mound resident use of the commons shoreline,
and this has to do with use and safety, basically.
Goldberg reviewed changes to the Flow Chart which they proposed in order to be consistent with
this recommendation. He noted that the original flow chart considers all public lands, and their
changes reflect uses on lakeshore commons only.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, I996
There is a "note' on the flow chart which states, "Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all nonconforming uses. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance
which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the
public lands. All permits granted are for a limited time, are non-transferable, and the structure
must meet State Building Code." Goldberg commented that this statement is inconsistent with
their conclusion that the onus is on the City to show that there are safety or use problems with
that structure and the onus is on the City to demonstrate that there are safety or use problems
to justify harming the encroachment owner. So they changed this wording to: "All permits
granted are for a limited time, are transferable, and the structure must meet City guidelines for
renewal of Public I_and Permits (Exhibit J in the Procedure Manual)."
With regard to existing encroachments, after the question, "Will the request (to continue the use)
result, in.a negative impact on the Use Plan?" They added, if the answer is 'yes': "Is the
of removin the structure?" if no, "Grant permit up to $ 5 years and renewable, contingent
upon use plan. New ........ may -~' ..... ~:~,:~,, -
............. ~,}, ........ for pcrr.,it Permit is transferable" If this
answer is yes, then "Grant permit up to $ 5 years, not renewable. To be checked annually."
The way it is worded now, if it is a 'yes,' ~en the permit is granted up to a certain number of
years, but it is not renewable. They propose that this be changed.
With regard to new encroachments, they added, _ m to request result in a negative imr~act on
IJ~?" If yes, "Deny request.'_' If no, rant permit up to five years and renewable."
Goldberg noted that they recommended changes to Exhibit J of the Procedure Manual,
"Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports for Public Land Permits," to make it consistent with the
other changes.
//~Goldberg spoke to the Commission regarding encroachments and the problems people see with
the encroachments and what the issues are with regards to them. The most commonly heard
rationale used for why existing encroachments should be removed are:
-'16'-- ~re on public land.
They restrict public use of the shoreline, either by making the commons appear to be
private, and/or by physically restricting access.
They take away from the natural state of the shoreline.
Goldberg added, these are the three main reasons we hear why encroachments should be
removed. With regard to the statement, "~..~_ey're on public l_and," the ~
the oner of lakeshore commons., and the encroachment owner i~ a member of the group the
City is a trus~tee Ii>r, this needs to be remembered. U__g_until th~ 1.9_70's_.~City Code gave
approval for cons~truction of boat ho_uses, boat ramps and slips on lakeshore commons. It seems~...
~,~.s~[n~2~tjlue~.~c~.Cjn°a:fh_mo~_s w~ere~ac.ce~le as ~ecause we have ~e~.~
4
December 12, 1996
Park and Open Space Commi.~on Minutes ..................................
The public hears from the City that encroachments restrict public use of the shoreline when they
make commons appear to be private, or physically restrict use. The City tends to use this as
a blanket rule, with the exception of landscaping like timber walls and stairways, everything else
should be removed. The problem with this is that there is a wide variety of commons, and to
make a blanket statement like this is not fair. This is what frustrates a lot of abutters, and that
is why we have some of the political problems that we've got.
Rationale used to remove all encroachments is that they take away from the natural state of the
shoreline. This rationale needs to be balanced with the fact that Minnetonka is an urban lake,
there are a lot of houses on the lake, it is okay to have boat canopies, large boats, multiple boats
per dock, etc., this needs to be balanced with: does the negative impact on the lakeshore
overwhelm the harm done to the encroachment owner of removing the encroachment?
Goldberg summarized, these are the primary reasons the Task Force has heard that
encroachments should be removed, and over the course of many discussions they have tried to
address this.
Goldberg asked if there were any questions. Meyer stated that he knows the Village of Island
Park had permitted some of the encroachments, but did not know that Mound had. Goldberg
noted, in May 1960, the Mound Council adopted those resolutions granting permits for boat
houses, boat ramps and boat slips. The next resolution is in 1973 relating to this. The
Commission requested a copy of these resolutions.
Casey asked if there will need to be two separate flow charts, one for public lands and one for
lakeshore commons? Goldberg stated that still needs to be resolved, they recommended the
changes to the flow chart as they affect lakeshore commons.
Casey referred to Exhibit J, and asked the policy reason why the Task Force recommended the
City "Use a means of enforcement other than withholding dock permits. Instead, use fines,
license, special assessments, etc.u Goldberg stated that they did not feel the abutting
homeowners should be treated differently, and not be able to lose their dock.
Casey asked why they shifted the burden onto the City to justify its reasons for taking action as
opposed to the property owner justifying its reasons to continue the existence of the
encroachments? Goldberg stated that the encroaching structures existed before the rules
restricting them existed. In fact, you can find City Code that approves those structures. That
coupled with the fact that the City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing
a greater good. The City is a trustee of this lakeshore and therefore need to justify their actions,
they can't just do something because they have the legal right to do it, they have to do it because
if they are going to harm an individual citizen, the onus is on them to show that the rest of the
citizens are better off to the point that it overwhelms the harm done to the individual,
particularly in the light of these structures being approved previously.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
.................................. December 12, 1996
Casey referred to the flow chart and asked, according to the recommended changes, if an
individual wanted to construct a new structure on public lands, then these factors and
recommendations still apply? Goldberg replied, yes, however, they are not saying that people
should be allowed to build boat houses or decks, they are saying, if it is allowed by the
Shoreland Management Ordinance and it is not a safety issue or a use issue, then it should be
approved. Goldberg stated, the City's primary responsibilities are to ensure that the commons
are accessible and that there are no safety problems, beyond that they are not sure what the City
should be doing over and above what the Shoreland Management Ordinance dictates. Casey
asked if the Task Force feels individuals should be allowed to have lock boxes on the shoreland
and vegetative cutting should be allowed according to the parameters of the Ordinance?
Goldberg agreed, yes. Casey asked if they feel that nonabutters should also have the right to
have lock boxes or be allowed to trim vegetation so they can see the lake from their homes?
Goldberg commented that this is something that they have got to hash out.
Meyer commented, one of the problems the Commission has had to wrestle with over the last
several years is the problem of encroachments such as stairways, concrete, clothesline bars, etc.
that were installed by a previous abutting land owner, and now that stairway or whatever is
hazardous so it needs to be upgraded or removed. Meyer asked the Task Force's feeling
towards this. Goldberg stated that the abutter should be legally responsible for the encroaching
structures through the use of legal encumbrances or other means. This is a loop-hole that should
not be there, abutters should not be able to walk away from their encroachments when they are
not interested in them and say it is the City's problem. Goldberg noted that the City Attorney
wrote a letter saying that there are various levels of responsibility that can be put on an abutter
for an encroachment. The letter implied, if there is a major encroachment, such as a boat
house, a deck, or a large retaining wall, you can attach it to the property. Meyer noted that the
Park Commission has been trying to get the City be more active in removing a slructure that an
abutting owner refuses to take responsibility for. Goldberg asked if Meyer thinks the City has
to justify removing those encroachments, or simply because they have the power to do it, they
can? Meyer feels the City has a responsibility to ensure safety and use. Goldberg believes that
most abutters will gladly take responsibility for their encroachments, in which case there is a
tool to make them responsible.
Ahrens interprets the Task Force recommendation as that the City has to make a decision and
determine if everybody is going to own up to their encroachment, or perhaps have a one time
situation where the we will remove the encroachments. If everybody who has an encroachment
to owns up to it, and the encroachments either go on the rifle or something so there is no way
for a future land owner to try and shun their responsibility towards whatever that encroachment
is, whether it is a clothes line poles or steps or a retaining wall. There comes a point when the
City either has to decide that they agree with the policy that the people either own up to their
responsibility or the City will remove it and take care of the problem. The recommendation
from the City Attorney implies that there are ways to make people own up to their
responsibilities, if they want to.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes .................................. December 12, ]996
Darling questioned Goldberg if their recommendation would allow a nonabutting land owner who
lives in Mound to put up the same encroaching structure as an abutter could? Goldberg stated
yes, as long as it complies with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Goldberg commented
that they focused more on existing encroachments.
Ooode questioned if there is a way to get encroachments on commons included on deeds?
Goldberg stated the City attorney said it could be done but it is a costly procedure, so it would
have to be a big item. The smaller items you could do bonds on and there are some other
devices that can be used to attach responsibility. Goode agreed that it has been a problem to
figure out who is responsible. Goldberg feels that most abutters would like to get as much
control of the lakeshore in front of their house as possible, and if the City were to say that you
can have a stairway, but you have to be responsible for them, he thinks abutters would be in
favor of that. Ahrens commented that she does not feel a nonabutting property owner should
have the right to construct something on commons in front of another property owner's home
that may diminish the abutter's view which they are paying for.
Casey asked if there was anybody else present that had anything they wanted to add.
Mike Aspelin who lives in the Three Points area questioned, if his house was valued at
$300,000, his taxes were $6,000, and he is inland, does he have more rights than an abutter with
a $250,000 house? Fackler stated that currently when they address these issues, it is not in the
ordinance, they look at impact. When they look at canopies they look at the abutting person and
what will this canopy do to their view. They do not want to impede the abutting homeowner's
view of the lake, so staff will have the person requesting the canopy go to the homeowner and
get approval from them.
Leah Weycker asked if there was going to be a public hearing on this issue before any changes
are made. Casey stated that technically this is not a public hearing, and the Commission has yet
to decide what they are going to do with this.
Goldberg summarized, the underlying basis of their recommendations came from the question,
who does this affect and can they live with it? Their objective was to make everybody happy
and comfortable.
Goode feels the legal responsibility issue needs to be clarified. Casey asked staff to supply the
Commission with a copy of the resolutions referred to by Goldberg and with a copy of the
attorney's letter. Casey thanked the Task Force for their time.
The Commission determined that they would further discuss the task force recommendation at
their January 9, 1997 meeting at 7:00 p.m.
COMMONS TASK FORCE
PRESENTATION TO
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 1996
II.
HI.
IV.
TIMELINE OF TASK FORCE EFFORTS
SHARED DOCK POLICY RECOMMENDATION
MULTIPLE BOAT-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
LAKESHORE COMMONS ENCROACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY RECOMMENDATION
B. RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO DECISION FLOW CHART (AS rr
APPLIES TO LAKESHORE COMMONS)
C. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE MANUAL CHANGES (EXHIBIT J)
Commons Task Force
Commons Task Force Recommendations to Mound Council
November 25, 1996
Outline For Presentation to Mound Council
Bo
Task Force formed by Council Resolution 95-37 on March 28, 1995.
1. Task force established to look at the Commons that are applied to the Docks
Program to identify the frustrations and irritations that are being experienced by the users
of the program.
2. The task force would have the responsibility of making recommendations to
the City Council for consideration on how the existing Dock Program could be improved.
Task Force held 26 meetings from May-December of 1995.
1. Task Force developed a list of issues for three groups of people that have
similar desires/concerns regarding lake shcre commons. Task Force toured the majority
commons lake shore during the Summer months. In July, a mailing was sent to all
commons dock site holders soliciting their input.
2. Three separate surveys were developed by Task Force. In October, 100 % of
all abutter(181), 100 % of all nonabutting dock site holders (320), and 550 surveys were
sent on a random bases to citizens at large.
3. Surveys were tabulated and recommendations were formulated based on survey
results. Sixty-five(65) percent of abutters, fifty-seven(57) percent of non-abutters, and
fifteen percent of citizens at large responded to the survey.
Survey results and recommendations presented by Task Force to City Council on January
9, 1996.
1. 87% on nonabutters expressed satisfaction with program. 51% of abutting
dock holders expressed dissatisfaction with the program. Response for citizens at large
was low and the sum of the results were inconclusive.
2. Task Force concluded from the surveys that inexpensive boat dockage is
very important to most dock holders. Being with walking distance to dock site was very
important to nonabutters. Abutting dock holder sited that docks are too close together in
some areas and that many abutters were uncomfortable with having nonabutting docks in
front of their homes. There was a desire on the part of abutters to keep private structures
and they were willing to take responsibility for the structures on commons. Some
commons have more problems than others(e.g. Devon, Wawonaissa).
3. To improve the level of satisfaction of abutters without lowering the
satisfaction levels ofnonabutters, the Task Force made the fo/lowing recommendations:
a. Maintain the total number of boats participating in the dock program, Keep
nonabutter boats within wal.king distance from their homes.
b. Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in front of some abutter's homes,
recognizing that some commons have more problems than others due to topography
and/or tight quarters. Encourage increased shared dock usage. Explore creating small
multiple boat dock complexes (about 6 boats) at neighborhood locations within walking
distance. Explore creating multiple boat dock complexes where possible, at public park
locations without infringing on existing usage.
c. Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shore land
Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by an
encroachment's existence. The flow chart should be amended, and then the ordinance
amended according to the flow chart to increase the number of years for which a permit is
valid from "3 years" to 'for the life of the structure". Encroachments should be regulated
by the Shore land Management Ordinance, the same as structures on private property.
The ownership/responsibility of these encroachments may need to be clarified by the City
Attorney.
d. The topography of some commons areas cause significant backyard privacy and
visual impact problems. Large boats (e.g. cabin cruisers), boat canopies, and winter
storage needs to be limited in those areas.
e. Explore establishing neighborhood associations or committees to work out
problems specific to their commons.
f. Direct the Task Force to work with city staffto make implementation
recommendations for specific commons areas with problems.
g. Communicate with the public to increase understanding and give opportunity
for additional dialogue through open forums, newspaper articles and through the city
newspaper.
Mound Council takes action on recommendations from Task Force after February
20 th Committee of the Whole meeting.
1. Council accepted Task Force recommendations. Council directed Task Force to
continue their work as a task force and to work with city staff to make implementation
recommendation for specific commons areas with problems.
According to survey, Devon Commons had the highest level of dissatisfaction among all
abutters in the Commons dock program. On Devon Commons, 75% of abutters were
dissatisfied with having nonabutter docks in front of their homes and 75% felt that dock
spacing was to close. The Task Force looked at the Pembroke access to Devon Commons
as a potential cite for a pilot multiple dock location due to the closeness of the houses to
the commons, the close spacing of the docks on the commons and the general
dissatisfaction of the dock program among the abutters in this area.
Task Force developed a plan to place a multiple dock for 7 nonabutting dock site holders
at the Pembroke Beach access to Devon Commons. The Task Force presented the
multiple dock proposal to the Mound Council on April 9, 1996. The council authorized
the purchase of the dock for the 1996 Summer boating season. On Saturday, April 20, the
Task Force, city officials, and the affected dock holders on Devon Commons meet to
discuss the pilot project for the multiple dock system. The dock was installed mid May.
A follow up meeting was held with multiple slip dock complex users and affected abutting
property owners at the Sept. 19 Task Force meeting. The overall reaction to the pilot
project was favorable. Comments were made that the inside dock slips were too shallow
and maneuvering into them was difficult. Dock configuration needs to change to improve
the accessibility of three of the slips. We did have an unusual Summer this year in that the
lake level dropped a foot and one halfi Vandalism was about the same as when boats
were at individual docks. A security light was installed by the city at the multiple dock
and was appreciated by the dock users. Trespassing was a little more than previous years
of individual docks. More kids using the docks for fishing. Some neighborhood people
consider it a municipal dock open to everyone. A no trespassing sign was installed during
the middle of the Summer too cut down on the trespassing problem. Abutting
homeowners expressed appreciation for reducing the number of docks in the
neighborhood. In conclusion, the nonabutting dock site holders were comfortable with
continuing the multiple slip dock program at Pembroke Beach access. There is a need to
reconfigure the dock so that all slips are easily accessible. Consideration should be given
to placing a gate at the entrance to the dock to restrict the dock to permit holders and
their guests.
Task Force prepared recommendations to make the Pembroke Beach access to Devon
Commons multiple dock slip permanent. They also developed implementation plans and
criteria to used in selecting other locations for additional multiple dock slips. See exhibit
A.
The Task Force made recommendations for share of docks that would allow the
participants to place their original site on hold for their future use. See exhibit B.
The Task Force also made recommendation related to encroachment that coincides with
the original recommendations made to the City Council in January of 1996. See exhibit C.
5/9/50
0 ROTNAi~'C~
A~D ~OAT.~O~SE~', EOAT ~IPS O~ SLZpE, ~>02'1, OR ,IBUTT~'IG
UP021, PUBLIC ST~ETS, ROADS', Pf~S'OH CO!'.Di. Di¢S OF TIIE
A PE~qlL~ FOR TEE ~0LA~2iON
°rdaina:
~~, ..
"~ota, w~thout.flms~ se~arin~ 'a ~tcenme ther~$or fro~ ~he Vi!lgje
Open.ail of the Vill~E~ of Isled p~ and paylnE thc fo~ ~'~Quirod
'therefor in ac.~rd~uc~ with the te~a of tho with!~
SECTION 2. '~OPLICATi0NS -F0~. %~u v .... ,~ -~ .
passage of tile · ~
r-: _..n~_ }~-,agc C~u.ucll shall have approved
· the location ~d type cf con~tructien tho=eof.
SECTION 3. EXPZF~%TZOH 9F LZCE31SES ,~ID TAGS. Each of ouch li'.
9eases shall e:zpir~ one ymar from the date of. issue thereof, .and meaeh
~te device 'which si:all be affixed in. a prominent pl~ce upon each
such docks cr boathou=o~. The Vi!!ace Coun~ shall, 'b7 appropriate
resolution therefore, provide for th~ Preparation and issuance of
SECTION 4. LICENSES FOR DOCKS' A}TD BOATi~0USES EXiSTiNG AT
TIME OF T}~ PASSAGE OF THE WITiiIN 6~D!NANCE. With re. spOor to docks -
'~d boathouses already erected at' the tia~ of the passage of the
be'apPlied for in' the maker hereinbefore d~scribed for the
Of new docka and'boethouues, within 30 days after the ~.~Ithin ordinance
10 - Z
'~i:~;'akes effect as h~reinafter provided, and all such appliC'~ti°ns sha~l
..-~'~"proscnted tO the Village Council and Iicenses imsued therefor ~
· ~he s~e m~.~ner am im herein provided for thm lic~nsing of the erec-
tion of new docks or
..... ~,,N~ T~%NSFER OF LICENSES. License~ i~sued under the
te~m of the within ordinance sh~l be tr~sferr=b!e upon ten days'.
~otice of troffer of ownerm~P thmreof n~il~d or delivered to the
Vilim~e Clerk by eithor PartY, which notice shmll con=sin the full
n~u and =ddresm of the transferee of ~Y such license, provided
' ~hat ~uch tr~sf~r does 'not remult in the ownership of more th~ one
dock or more than one boat~o=se by such tr~mferee ~d him immedi~te
f~!ly a~ prov~ed in thm wi=hln ordinancm..
issued pursuant
'" 'SECTION 6. BO~%T R~,~PS OR SLIPS. Each !it6nm~
to..the within ordinance for the eruczion or m~int.~n~:e of a
s~ll entitl= the holder theroof to eruot and m~intain' one boat r~mp
manner =nd for tk.~ ~ foe am i~ herein prov!d=d for th~ li=~nmin~
wi~'re~pec~ ~o do~ ~d bo~thcu3o~.
'S~CTi0N. 7. RULES AND RLGULAT!ONS. Subdiv!:ion 1~ The Villa=m
Cornel'! sh~il determine ~d approve th~ location of each dock, boat-
or p~opo~d to ~c eroctud or m~intaln=d by owners of l~d abutting
upon ~V' street, road or cordon int~zcnin~ .bu:%;~en such property
lin~ cf ~ho pro'p~r~Y of"such app!Ic~t, as e~=ended, with ~P-~
con~tructod e!=e~:l%ere will not interfere ~e=scnm. blY with..~he ,ise
cr e~joymcnt of ~id waters of L=~e }[inne=onl~a by the public or other
--a lic:n~ by th~'Vil!z~e Clorl: for mor~ than 'on~ dock, boath°.Us~'
"i- for ~nY much applic~ whur~ .the erection ~d lo-
boat r~.~p or s- ~ : and
c~tien thereof will not interfere unreasonably wi~h ah= Public
or onJo~unt of tho ~=ter~, s.tructs and co~u~non~ of :he ~lla~e,
Provldud forth=7 th~% th~.cwner o~' moro t!~an on~ r=sidenc~ or l~e
-corrado abu't:in~ upon a ~ublic ~t~e. et,. road or c~cn which ib. tcr~
venem bet-Je.~n ~uc~ property and th.~ ~:lcs."e c~ L~ M~nne~°~
be p~i~t~d cn~ dock, one boo,hours ~d un~ bo~t r~:p c~ ~lip for
dockinE of ~uch c==ft as i~ cu~om=r:~lY and la-wfully 'u~d upon the
~at~rs of L~u }~innuto~ nor beyond th~ ~uf~nt of n=v~=tlcn as such
shmll bo constructed ~d mzin~ainmd of such material~ and of such
type of con~%~ction a~ will not r~nd~r the ~ ~n~f-~ or ap=
u~e and en]o~unt of much w=t~rs~ ~nd ~h~ll b~ con~'~ct~d in
d~c~ with any and all pro~i~iono of.~h~ bui!d!n~ codo' cf Ch~ Villa~e
of Island Pack whlo!1 ~rs ap~lic~ble.~reto"
designated by the Village Co~cil for the purpooo, m~y at ~ny
'able time inspect or cause to bo inspected, ~ny dock, boathouse,
boat ramp or slip erected or =aint:~inod upon, or' abutting upon, ~-- n and if It mh~ll
such public street, ro~d, park or c~.~mo.. ,
~hat any such dock, boathouse, bcmt r=~p or slip leas not be~n con-
cation thzrefor ur th~ pl~nm or iccsticn ther~°f a~ approved by the
bo~t ~mp or sllp has become in ~uch condition that It no .!~ng~r
conpliem -~,ith the requirements of the ~ithin ordinance, the
Council by its clerk sh~!l forth%~ith notify the o~er thereof
writing specifying th,~ ~'=Y or ways in uhich said dock or
owner mhall fail, neglect ur r~fume to remove much dock or boathouse
such period of 10 d~yu, th~ llc~nue th.~refo= mh~l! be revuked bY
direction of the Village Co~cil and by notice in writ!n= to the
oi~er th~r=cf imsUed by thm Village Clork. The notic=s herein re-
quir~d ehall be =tvsn in %;tiring by th~ Village CloT!( by =ail dir-
ectod 'to such dock o-~ner at the addrcmm given in the ~.
thee license for the erection of such dock or boatlmoume or in =~e no-
tice of tr~.sfer of such license.
Subdivision 6. If at ~Y :ime it shall mppe=r nmcemumry to the
Village Co~.c!l of the Village of iml~nd Parl~, in the public interest,
or for the improvement of any public street, rs'md, park or co.non
for tho further public use or enjoyment Zhcroof by the
s/9/so
0RDilE~iCE NO. 20
AN 0RDINfd'ICE PRCViDING FOR LIC~'~S!~,~G Ai~D REGU~NG ~C~
.~ND BCA~O~, BCAT ~L~S 6R SLIPS, UPON, 0R ~'~~NG
~N, P~C S~S, ROADS, P~ 0E CC~C'NS CF
'~' ~ESC~NG
~AGE 0F IS~D P,~i, ~!~'Ii~SOT,I,
A ~L~ FOR ~ ~CL~TICN
The Village Cc~cil of the Village of Island P~k ordains:
S~0N 1. ~C~S~
Nc dock or boathouse shall hereafter be erected, kept er ~in-
rained mpo~, er abmtt~ ~pon, ~y p~blic street, ro~d, park or com-
ma of the Village of Is~nd P~r~, ~innesota, ~.~themt first sec~ri~
a license therefor frc~ the Village Ce~cil of the Village cf Isled
Park ~d p~g the fee ~q~ired therefor tn accord~ce with the ter~
of the v~.th~ ordln~ce.
S~oN 2. ~o~C:~T!CIIS FOR, A~D iSSUe. ICE 0F, LiCenSES.
Each dock ~d each boathouse shall req~re a seoarate license.
Application for such licenses shall be filed ~ith the Village Clerk and
all such applications shall contain the f,~ll n~e and address cf tke
applic~t, ~all be acc~punied by s~ch description cf such dock
bcathc~e as the Village Co~cil shall require in accord~uce v~th t:.is
ordinance, ~nd a description of tlc location or proposed lccntic~ cf
s~ch dock cr boathouse. Tko Village Clerk shall prssent ~Y and all
such applications to the Village Cc~cil at its next meeting follcvJing
any such application and upon authorization cf the Village Co~cll at
~y such meeti~, ~d paynent of a license fee of ~l.00 for each such
dock or boathouse to the Village Treasurer, the Village Cl~rk sh~ll
issue a license to the aoolic~t for such dock cr boathouse. No such
license shall be authorized by the Village Co,oil cr issued by the
Village Clerk ~til the Village Co,oil shall have first dete~ined
that such proposed dock or boatho~e, or' the ~inten~ce of any such
dock or boatLouse existing at the t~e of the passag:~ of the within
comolies subst~tially with the ter.~ of the v~ithin
erd i,~a~c e, .
dinmnce ~d the Village Co,oil sh~ll h~ve approved the loc~tion
type cf co~tr~cticn thereof.
Each of s~ch licenses sh~ll expire one year fron the date of issme
thereof~ and each s~ch license shall be represented by
other appropriate device which shall be affixed In a prominent place
~pcn each of such doc~ or boathouses. The Vill~e Ce~ctl shall, by
appropriate resolution therefor, provide for the preparation and issu~ce
of such metal t~s or devices as are required by the v&thin Section.
S~0N &. ~CE~S~ FOE ~CKS AND BC:~THCUS~ EYiS'~ING AT
With respect to docks ~d boathouses a~eady erected at the time
of the passage of the v.ithin ordin~ce, a license to continue the ~in
ten, ce thereof shall be applied for in the m~ner hereinbefore des-
~ .,;ribed for the licensir~ of newdocks ~d boathouses' wi'h~ 30 d~ys
and
~ter the wi~ ~ ordinance takes effect as hereinafter orovided,
all
/such applications shall be presented t'o ~he Vi~la.~e Go~ucil and
licenses issued therefor in the s~e ~er as is herel~ provided
for the ltce~g of the erection ~f new docks ~cr boathouses.
~TION ~. ~ ~'~S~ CF ~C~S~.
~censes ~ssued ~der ~the ter~ cf the wi~n erdin~oe sha~
~e ~r~sferable upon ~ea day~lce of ~sfer of ovmership ~hereof
~Ied or de~ver~ to the Vitae Clerk by either p~y, w~eh no,ice
~all con~ai~ ~e full m~e ~ address of =he ~r~sferee of ~y such
license, provided ~ha~ such ~r~sfer does no~ resul~ ~ ~e o~ership
of ~re ~han one dock or mere th~ cae boathouse by s=~ transferee ~d
his i~ediate f~lY as provided in ~e within ordin~ce. ~
SECTION 6. BOAT ~PS OR SLIPS.
Each license issued pursuant to the within ordinance for the
erection or matnte~ce of a bcathcame shall entitle the holder there-
of to erect and maintai~ one boat ra~p or slip, and in the event any
person shall desire to construct and maintain a boat ramp or slip who
is not licensed to erect cr ~aintain a boathouse, a license to erect
and naintaln amy such boat ramp or slip shallfirst be obtained from
~he Village Coa~xcil in the sa.ue aanner and for the s.~e fee as is
herein provided for the licensing of docks mud boathouses. All s~ch
boat r.~-mps or slips shall comply so far as ~.y be pr.~cticable with the
terms of the within ordinanc:.., with respect to docks and bccthouses.
SECTION 7. R~ AND REG~JL~.TI¢,NS.
Subdivision 1~ The Vil!a~-je Council shall determine ~nd approve
the locotion of each deck, boathouse, bc~t ramp or slip. Eith respect
to docks erected or maintained or proposed tc be erected or maintained
by owners of l~d eb~tti~j upon ~y street, road cr co~cn ~te~eni~
betv.,een sack property and the shor~ cf Lake :.~i~etcmka, such docks sha~
be constructed ~d m~intained ~dw~y between the intersections of the
opposite side lines of the property of sack applic~t, as exte.md~d,
~th the shore of L~e E~i~etc~a; except that variations ~y be per-
~tted by the Village Co,oil v~nere it uppers Impracticable to so
locate such dock or proposed dock end ~-here it farther appears that ~y
s~ch d~ck er proposed dock constructed e!se%~ere ~ll not inte~ere ~-
reaso~bly with the use or enjo~ent of said ~ters of L~e :~eto~a
by the public er ether mdjoini~ lot owners abutting aport ~y such
Smbdivisiom 2. No more th~ cae dock~ boathouse, boe~'r~p or
sllp shall be pe~1~ed for each applic~t and his ~ediate f~ly,
save and exoep~ ~ha~ the Village Co,oil ~y direct ~he issm~ce o~ a
license by ~he ViSage Clerk' for more th~ one dock, boathouse, boa~
r~p cr slip for ~y sm~' applic~t where the erection ~d location.
~hereof will ~o~ interfere ~easonably with the pmblic asa or enJoymen~
of the w~ters, streets end colons cf the viSaGe, ~d provided f~her
~hat the owner of more th~ one residence or lake cottage ab~tti~ apcn
a public street, road or co~om w~ch inte~enes between sack property
a~ ~he ~cre of ~ke Mi~eton~a may be oer~tted one dock, one bcat-
ho~e ~d one.boa~ .r~p or slip for each-s~ch residence or cgttage. '..
Subdivision 3. No dock shall extend further into the vm=ers
of Lake llin~etonka than is reasonably necessary to accommodate the
docking of such craft ~s is customarily and la~rfully used upon the
waters of Lake ~ii~eto~ka nor beyond the point cf navigation as
such point has been or shall be established by la%vful a=thori~y.
Subdivision 4. All such docks, boathouses, boat ramps or slips
shall be constructed and maintained of such materials and of such
type of construction as will not r~nder the same ~nsafe or apt ~¢
endanger the public enjoyment of such waters and shall be constructed
in such manner as not to be unsightly or offensive to the public use
and enjoyment of such wa~ers, and shall be constructed ia accordance
with any and all provisions of the building code of the Village of
Island Park which are applicable thereto..
S=bdivislon 5'. The Village Council er s=ch officer as may be
desisnated by the Village Council for the purpose, ~y at any reasonable
time inspect or cause to be inspected, any dock, boathouse, boat ramp
or slip erected or maintained aport, or abutting apoa any such p,~blic
street, road, p~rk or common, and if it shall agpear that any such dock,
boathouse, boat r~nP or slip has not been constructed or is not being
maintained in accordance with the application therefor or the pl~.~s or
location thereof as approved by the Village Council, or if it shall
appear that s~ch dock, boa~hc,~se, boat r~mp or slio has become in such
condition that it ac longer complies wi~h the req,~re.~ents of the v~ithin
ordinance, the Village Council by its clerk shall fcrth~ith notify the
ov~'ner thereof in ~iting specifying the way or ways in ~iuich said dock
cr boathouse does not comply with the ~ithin ordinance, after which said
o~r shall have 10 days to remove such dock or boathouse or make the
same comply with the terms of the :~lthin ordinance and ~he terms of
the application and iss~ance of the license therefor. In the event
s,~ch c~,~er shall fail, neglect or refuse to remove such deck or beat-
house or ~ke the se~e comply with the termm of the within ordinance
v~lthin such period of l0 days, the license therefor shall be revoked
bY direct!ca of the Village Co~ncil and by notice in v~iting to the
ov~ner thereof issued by the Village Clerk. The notices herein re-
quired shall be given in w~itinE by the Village Clerk by mail directed
to such dock ov~ner at the address given in the app!icaticn for the
license for the erection cf such dock cr boathouse or in the notice
of transfer of s~ch license.
S,~bdivision 6. If at any time it shall appear necessary to the
Village Ccuncil of the Village of Island Park, in the public interest,
or for the i~provement of any public street, road, park, cr co~mon,
for the f~rther public use or enjoyment thereof by the~establishment
of public docks, bathing beaches, recreation grounds or the openin~ of
any street, road or common cr otherwise, say and all licenses issued
umder the terns of the within ordinance tomy be cancelled by direction
the Village Council upon l0 days notice in writing mailed to the
.ders cf such licenses at the address appearing cn the ~pplicatlon
~refor or on the notice of transfer thereof~ In such event the
~ned portion of the fee paid for any such revoked license shall' be
returned to the holder thereof upon demand therefor.
SECTIOI,~ 8. PEN.LLTIES. .....
- ¥ person,- firm or co.r~oraticn who shall erea~' 0r ~intain
dock, boatho~e, boab r~p o~ sli
of a ~sdeaeancr ~d fine -~ P a ~gnvicttoa thereof be
acre th~ 0~ H--~--~ ~_.~_~t,%~ th~ Five Doll.s ~ nn~ _~ilty
~'- ~; ~Ym act more th~ ~ir~y (
da~. ~ addi:loa ~o ~he foresol~ ~he ViSage Co.oil ~y r~oTe
ca~e to be r~ved ~y dock er beathc~e for w~ch no license has
been issued ia accord~ce v~th the wit ia ordin~ce or fer_w~
sach license sh~ have been revoked as herein provid$d, at the ex-
pete of the oEer thereof.__
S~O~ 9. SA~;G CL%USE.
Ia the ev~t ~uy one or more of
~.be de~e~ned illegml ~la~ t~ Pro~to~ of t~is crdia~ce
~=~aon shall ao~ be const~-.~ -~:~.~'~cF~stitmti°a~, s~ch deb
otae~se effect .e .,._-~'Z~ ~--_~=m~ ~o alser, ~ or ~n..~
req~r~eata or. ~onditions c' ~_~e~. P-ovisions. r~s~rtctions.
or repeam~ ~y Provision cf t ~ ~z~r_~, ~enaz~, modify~
Park ~:h re~-~- - .... he ordin~ces cf :he Vll~a .e r.~
~ the even~ there shall hereafter be established ~ the Vitae
o~ Island Park. a P~k Bo~d in the ~noer P~o~ided by law. ~hea
d~ties and ~c~io~ delegated ~ the ~;ithin ordinate to ~he Village
Co.oil ~y by resolatlca cf ~he Villag~o~cil be t~sfevred to.
vested in s~ch Park Board. ~d from ~heacefor~h ~1 applications for
licenses req~red hero.der shall be ~de ~o each Park Board and s~ch
licenses there~er issned b? each Park Bo~d in accordance v~th the
~t~n ordi~ce..
SEC~0N III E~ECTI~
This o~i~ce sha~ t~e effect and be ia froce fro~ ~d after
i~s passage and p~blication aeco~i~ to law.
Passed by the Village Co.oil of the Village of Isled Park,
aesota, this 9:h day of ~ay, 1950. ~ ~
5/12/60
OP. DI~ANCE ~0. 94
AN OBDIN~NCE PROVIDING FOR LIC~SING AND REGULATING DOCKS AND .B~THOUSES,
BQAT RAMPS OR SLIPS, UPON, OR ABUITING UPON, PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS, pARKS
OR CO~ON$ OF ~{E VILLAGE OF ~/OUND, MINNES(~rA, AND pRESCRIBING A p~NALTY
FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF
The Village Council of the Village of Mound, ~innesota, ordains:
SECTION 1. L ce~ Require~. No dock or boathouse shall hereafter be erected,
kept or maintained up ° or abutting upon, any public street, road, park or common of the
Village of Mound, Minnesota, without first securing a license therefor from the Village
Council of the Village of ~lound and paying the fee required therefor in accordance with
the terms of the within ordinance.
SECTION 2. ADDlicatto~ F_~ and Issuance o_q~f Licenses- Each dock and boathouse
shall require a separate license. Application for such licenses shall be obtained at
the Village of Mound Office. Such application shall state, among other thin~s, the full
name and address of the applicant, the description of such dock or boat mouse, and a
description of the location or proDosed location of such dock or boathouse, and such
other ~nformation as may be required by the application form. Applicmtion for such
license shall be filed with the dock inspector, and he is hereby authorized to check the
appli&ations and issue the licenses. The dock licenses and boathouse licenses will be
issued only from January 1 to June 1 of each year. No such licenses will be authortze~
the dock inspector until he shall have first determined that such proposed dock o~ boa
house, or the maintenance of any such duck or boathouse at the time of the passage of the
within ordinance, complies substantially with the terms of the within ordinance. All such
applications shall be accompanied by the required fee, and all such applications shall be
considered by the dock inspector, and if issued, the number of the license shall be placed
on the dock or boathouse large enough so that it will be clearly visible to persons in
boats on the lake.
~ . censes for Docks and ~o=thouses ~istin~ at ~ Time of ~ Passage
S~CTION S_ Licenses ,.~_/~ res~e~--to docks and boathouses already erected at th~ time
of the Withiq _O~d!nanc~. "~" .. ' ........ ~ .... ~inue the maintenance thereo~ shal
~e~assaze of the within orolnance, a ~x==n
be applied for in the manner hereinbefore described for the licensing of new docks and
boathouses, within 30 days after the within .)rdinance takes effect as herein~fteri~8~ded
and all such applications shall be presented to the Village Council and licenses/therefor
in the same manner as is herein provided for the licensing of the erection of ne,N docks
or boathouses.
SECTION 4. Transfe~ o__f Licenses. Liceuses issued under the terms of the within
ordinance shall ~e transferrable upon ten days' notice of transfer of o,mership thereof
mailed or delivered to the Village Clerk by either party, which notice shall contain the
full name an*/ address of the transferee of any such license, provided that such transfer
does not result in the ownership of more than one dock or more than one boathouse by such
transfereee and his i.~unediate family as provided in the within ordinance.
SECTI~ 5. Boa____~t ~amDs or Slips. Each license issued pursuant to the within ordinanc
for the erection or maintenance of a boathouse shall entitle the holder thereof to erect
and maintain one boat ramp or slip, and in the event any person shall desire to con-
struct and maintain a boat ramp or slip who is not licensed to erect or maintain a
boathouse, a license to erect and maintain any such boat ramp or slip shall first be ~' "'~
obtained .fro~ the Village Council in the same manner and for the same fee as is herein
provided for the licensing of docks and boathouses. Ail such boat ramps or .slips shall
comp17 so far as may be practicable With the terms of the within ordinance with resDect
to docks and boathouses.
S~-~"TION 5. _Rules a~nd Re=ulations. Subdivision i The Village Council shall deter-
mine and approve' the location of each dock, boathouse,'boat ramp or slip. With respect to
docks erected or maintained or proposed to he erected or maintained by owners of land
. abutting upon any street; road.'or common in~erventn~ between such property and the shore
of Lake ~/nnetonka, such docks shall be constructed and maintained midway between the
~ntersections of the opposite side lines of the property of such applicant, as extended,
w~th the shore of Lake ~innetonka; except that variations may be permitted by the Vil-
lage Council where it appears impracticable to so locate such dock and where it further
appears that any such dock or proposed dock constructed elsewhere will not interfere un-
reasonably with the use or enjoyment of said wate~of Lake ~/nnetonka by the public or
other adjoining lot o~ners abutting upon any such street or common.
Subd. 2. No more than one dock, boathouse, boat rzmD or sl$u shall be Permitted for
each applicant and his i,nmediate family, save and except ~hat the'Vi~la~e Council may
direct the issuance of a license by the Village C~erk for more than one dock, boXthouse,
boat .--amp or slip for any such applicant where the erection and location thereof will not
interfere unreasonabl~ with the public use or en3oyment of the waters, streets and commons
of the village' and prOvided further th:t the owner of more thun one residence or lake '~-
rage abutting upon a public street, road or common which intervenes between such 9rope-t~
and the shore of Lake A{innetonka may be permitted one dock, one boathouse and one bout
slip for each such residence or cottage.
Sub4. 3. No dock shall extend further into the wuters of Lake A[tnnetonka than is
reasonably necessary to accomodate the docking of such craft as is customarily and law-
fully used upon the w:.ters of Lake Minnetonka nor beyond the point of navigation as
s~ch point has been or shall be established by lawful authority.
Subd. 4. All such docks, boathouses, boat ramps or slips shall be constructed and
maintained of such materials and of such type of construction as will not render the same
~nsafe or apt to endanger the public enjoyment of such waters and shall be constr~cted in
.such manner as_not to be unsightly or offensive to the public use and enjoyment of such
waters, and shall be constructed in accordance with any and all provisions of the building
code of the Village of ~und which are applicable thereto.
Subd. 5. The Village Council or such officer as may be designated by the Village
Council for the purpose,' may at any reasonable time inspect Or--Cause to be inspected, any
. dock~ boathouse, boat
.ramp or slip erected or maintained upon, or abutting upon, any such
pubiic streets, road, park or common, and if it shall anpear that any such dock, boathouse:
boat ramp or slip has not been constr~cted or is not being maintained in accordance with
the application therefor or the plans or location thereof as approved by the Village ,
Council, or if it shall a~pear that
in such condition that it no longer such dock, boathouse, boat ramp or slip has becoma ~
complies With the r~ir~ments of the within ordina~e,
the Village Council by its c[er~ shall forthv~ith notify the owne~ thereof in writing
specifying the wmy or w~ys in which said dock or boathouse does not comply with the within
ordinance, after which said owner ~hall have 10 days to remove such dock or boathouse o-
make the same comply., with the terms of the within ordinance and the terms of the ap-
plication and issuance of the license therefor. In the event such owner shall fail, neg-
lect or refuse to remove such dock or boathouse or make the same comply with the terms
of the within ordinance within such period of 10 days, the license therefor shall be revoke
by direction of the Village Council and by notice in writing to the owner thereof issued
by the Village Clerk. The notices herein required shall be given in writing by the Vil-
lage Clerk by mall directed to such dock owner at the address given in the application
for the license for the erection of such dock or boathouse or in the notice of transfer
of such license.
Subd. 6. If at any time it shall appear necessary to the Village Council of the
Village of Mound, in the public interest, or for the improvement of any public street, roac
park or common for the further public use or enjoyment thereof by the establishment of
public docks, bathing beaches, recreation grounds or the opening of any street, road or
common or otherwise, any and all licenses issued under the terms of the within ordinance
may be cancelled by direction of the Village Council upon 10 days' notice in ,~riting mai].e~
to the holders of such licenses at the address a~pearin~ on the application therefor or on
the notice of transfer thereof. In such event the unearned portion of the fee paid for
such revoked license shall be returned to the holder thereof upon demand therefor.
SECTION 7. Dock InsPector. The Village Council may from time to time appoint an
official dock inspector who shall have the authority of a police officer of the village
insofar as necessary or proper in the enforcement of this ordinance.
SECTIGNS. Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation who shall erect or maintain a
boathouse, boat ramp or slip, without securing a license therefor as herein provided, or
shall fail to comply with any of the requirements herein set forth shall, upon conviction
~hereof, be~uilty of a misdemeanor and fined not less than $5.00 nor more than 5100.00 or
imprisoned in the village or county 3ail not less than 5 days nor more than 30 days. In
addition to the foregoin~, the Village Council may remove or c~use to be removed any dock
boathouse for which no license has been issued in accordance with the within ordinance or
for which any such license shall have been revoked as herein provided, at the expenses of
the o~ner thereof.
SECTION 9. gavin~ Clausp. In the event any one or more of the provisions of this
ordinance shall be determined illegal, unlawful or unconstitutio~al, such determination
shall not be construed or held to alter, annul or repeal or otherwise effect any of the o~
terms, provisions, restrictions, requirements or conditions of this or4inance. No pro-
visions of the within ordinance shall be construed as altering, amending, modifying or
repeali~ any provision of the ordinances of the Village of Mound with respect to the
requirements for buildin~s or with respect to the building code of the Village of ~ound.
SECTION 10. Par___~k Boar.~. In the event there shall hereafter be established in the
Village of Mound a Park Board in the manner provided by law, th~n all duties and functions
delegated in the within ordinance to the Village Council may by resolution of the Vill~~e
Council be transferred to and vested in such Park Board, and from thenceforth all appl
tions for licenses reouired hereunder shall be made to such Park Board and such licenses
thereafter issued by such Park Board in accordance ~th the within ordinance.
~fterSE~T~ONitSll'±=~-"Effective· . .Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force frc~
Passed
by:
. ·
V~[la~e-Cc~tnci! this _da7 of ky, '1960.
Adopted 5-17-73 (Now City Code Sections 320 g q37)
CADINANCE NO. 305
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO TEE CONSTRUCTION
AND USE OF DO~KS IN THE VILLAGE OF MOUND;
ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO THE CODE OF ORDIN-
ANCES; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 26.950,
26.952, and 26.954.
The villmge Council of the Village of Mound does ordain~
A new seation 26.9501 is a~ded to the ordinance code to read as follows~
Section 26.9501. Licenses _D. oc~s.
~ 1. Dock Define~. For purposes of this port the term
"dock" means any wharf, pier, boathouse, boat ramp, boat slip or
other structure constructed or maintained in or into the water of
a lake from publicly-owned shoreland.
Subdivision 2. License Required. No person sh~ll erect, keep or
~intain a dock o--n or abutting~pon any public street, road, park
or commons without first securing a license therefor from the
village Council.
Subdivision 3- Other Construction. Construction of any kind
abutting upon say public way, park or commons or the alteration
of the natural contours of land abutting any public way, park or
commons is unlawful unless a special permit therefor is issued by
the village council.
Section 26.951 is amended ae follows~
Sectio~_~6~9~l- Application for an~ Issuance of Licenses.
Subdivision 1. Seoarate License Required. Each doc~ shall require
~en~e~ Application for suc~ license shall be obtained
at the village Of Mound Office. Such application shall state,
among other things, the full name and address of the applicant,
the description of such dock, and a description of the location or
proposed locat~.~n of such dock, and such other information aa may
be required b~ ~he application form. Application for such license
shall be filed with the dock inspector, and he is hereby authorized
to check tile applications and issue the licenses. No such licenses
will be authorized by the dock inspector until he shall have first
determined that such proposed dock, or the maintenance of any such
dock at the time of the passage of the within ordinance, complies
substantially with the terms of the within ordinance. Ail such
applications shall be accompanied by the required fee, and all such
applications shall be considered by the dock inspector, and if
issued, the license (plate) shall be placed on the dock in such
a way so that it will be clearly visible to persons in bo~ts on
the lake.
subdivision 2. Licenses: Priorities. The following priorities
~overn the i~su~ce of dock licenses under this port.
(a) F~irst prioritl. An abutting owner has first priority for any
location within his lot lines extended from the shoreline.
Docks shall be located as close to the center of the lot as
possible.
(b) ~' A licensee has second priority when applying
for a dock permit for the same location as in the immediately
preceding year. Such licensee m~y apply for a location which
was vacant in the previous year, such location to be licensed
in the order of application.
(c) ~' Ail other applicants have third priority on
all locations vacant on April 1 of each year. Licenses will
be issued to such applicant in the order of application.
Orcbtza~ce ~o. ~0~
Page 2
S~ubd/vision ~. A~Dlications, Deadlines. ApPlications fo
licenses may he made between Januar~ 1-an~ ....... r dock
..... ~ A, proviaed that
the priorities established by Subdivision 2 of this section are
of no effect after April 1. An application received after June 1
will ~e subject to a late fee of 50% of the basic dock license
fee.
Section 26.960.$ubdivisions 1, 2, 4 and ~ are amended to read as followal
~l_~. Rules and Regulation,.
Subdivision 1-- The Village Council shall determine and approve
the location of each dock. ~ith respect to docks erected or
maintained or proposed to be erected or maintained by oWners of
land abutting Upon any street, road or common intervening between
such property and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, such do=Ls shall
be constructed and maintained midway between the intersections of
the opposite side lines of the property of such applicant, as
eXtended, with the shore of Lake ~innetonka; except that variations
may be permitted by the Village Council where it appears impracti.
cable to so locate such dock and where it further appears that any
such dock or proposed dock constructed elsewhere will not interfere
unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of said waters of Lake
Minnetonka by tim public or other adjoining lot owners &butting
Upon &rAy such street or common.
'hi i=e family, Save and except that the Village
Council may direct the issuance of a license by the Village Clerk
for more than one dock for any such applicant where .,~ erection
&nd location thereof will not interfere unreasonably wi~h the
public use or enjoyment of the waters, streets and commons of the
Village, and provided further that the Owner of more than on~
residence or lake cottage abutting upon a public street, mad
or common which intervenes between such property and the shore
cf Lake Minnetonka may be permitted one dock for each such resi-
dence or cottage.
S~hdi~ ,ision ~ Ail such
· docks shall he constructed and maintained
of such materials and of such type of construction &s will not render
the same unsafe or apt to endanger tbs public enjoyment of such
waters and shall he constructed in such manner as not to be un.
sightly or offensive to the public use and enjoyment cf such
Waters, and shall be constructed in accordance with any and all
provisions of the building code of the Village of Mound which are
applicable thereto.
SubdivisionS. The Village Council or such officer as
~esiwna=ed by the Village Council for the purpose, may may be
at any
reason&his time inspect or cause to be inspected, an~ dock erected
or maintained upon, or abutting upon, ar~y such public streets, road,
park or common, and if it shall appear that arky such dock has not
been constrUcted or is not being maintained in accordance with the
application therefor or the plans or location thereof as approved
by the Village Council or if it shall appear t~mt such dock has
become in such condition that it no longer complies with the require-
ments of the within ordinance, the Village Council by its clerk shall
forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specify/ns ~he way cr
ways in which said dock does not comply with the within ordinance,
after which said Owner shall have 10 days to remove such dock or
make the Same comply with the terms of the within ordinance and the
~erms of the application and issuance of the license therefor. In
the event such owner shall fail, neglect or refuse to remove such
dock or make the same Comply with ~he terms of the within ordinance
within such period of 10 days, the license therefor shall be re-
voked by direction of the Village Council and by notice in writing
to the Owner thereof issued by the Village Clerk. The notices herein
required shall 5e given in writing by the Village Clerk by mail
directed to such dock o~ner at the address given in the application
for the erection of such dock or in the notice of trsnsfer of such
license.
Ordir~nce I{o.
l~ge ~
Section 26.961 is amended to read as followsz
2'0 dock, for w'hict~a license is required oy ~ec~v,, -~.i~ hereof',
sh~ll exceed 24 feet in le~h, except where necessa~
~m~ w~ter depth of ~6 inches, nor s~ll a~ dock be b~l~ or
p~ced excep~ w~th the lo~itud~l a~s thereof ~end~cu~r
the shore line.
Section 26.9~ is ~ended to read as follows~
_ · .~ ties. ~ person, fi= o= co~Ora,~on
p~vided, or who s~* ~- ..... r-~
herein set forth s~ll, upon conviction thereof, be ~il~y of a mis-
dememnor and fined not less t~n $5.00 nor more t~n $1~.00 or
prisoned in the vil~ge or co~ty ~ail not less ~n 5 ~ys nor more
t~n ~0 ~ys. ~ addition to the foregoing, the village Co~cil
remove or cmuse ~o be removed a~ dock for which no license t~s been
issued in aocor~nce with the witch ordi~nce or for which any such
license s~ll have been revoked as herein provided, at tl~e ex,nee of
the owner thereof.
Section 26.9511, as amended By ~d~nce No. ~92, is amended to remd as
foll~s~
Section 26.9511. License Fees. The a~l fee the~for s~ll
follows =
St~ight Doc~ $ 2.00
"L" or "T" Docks 7.00
"O" Docks 10.00
Residents of the villade who are 65 years of a~ and older s~ll chain
m l~cense and be subject to all the provisions of this ordi~nce, but
the license fee s~ll be waived for such persons who chain such
license for · s~i~t dock.
Section 47.0~, ~ 14 is repealed and a new ~ph 14& is added
to said section %o read as follows:
14a_ T~ beach'6, docent, moorind, ~rkin~, stor~ or lemvi~
u~ttended of a~ ~ype of water c~ft, fish house, dock, boat
t~ilers, buildin~ ~terials or s~ prints pro~rty on
public water with~ the ~rbor limits of the ~l~ge or upon
a~ public ~nds for more t~n 24 ho~s wi%howl a v~lid pe~t;
or, ~he deposi%~6 of a~ ref~e or waste or
fo~ on public ~nds or in public wa~ers.
Sections 26.990, 26.952 and 26.954 m~ repealed.
villa~ C~
do ted by village Council~~..
~iehed in Official Newspaper_ May ~[~ x~
Adopted 3-6-75 (Now City Code Sections 320 & 437)
ORDINANCE NO._
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHI.'3C, TH_~ po.c. iTiON AND DUTIES OF
DOCK I::SPECTCR;
" , ~.":G FOR LIC,':;SING Ak~D REGULATION
OF DOCKS ABUTTING PUBLIc STREETS, PARK OR COMMONS;
REGULATING CONSTRUCTIO:{ A~;D USE ON PUBLIC PARKS A~D
COMMONS; AMENDING, -REPEALING A-ND RE~;UMBERING SECTIONS
OF THE CITY CODE
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 26.93 is hereby added to the City Code:
Section 26.93. Duties and Responsibilities of Dock
Ins9ector. The City Manager shal.1 appoint a Dock Inspector-and shall
supervise his activities. The duties of the Dock Inspector shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Maintain a dock location map.
2. Administer and process applications and issue dock
licenses.
3. Maintain a current listing of license holders with
addresses, priorities, dock locations, and all other
information pertaining to a license holder's qualifi-
cations.
4. Cor~nunicate and consult with the Park Advisory Commission
on matters of policy, maintaining the dock location map,
recommending improvements to strengthen the recreational
benefits provided by having public dock locations, and
he shall make recommendations to minimize any adverse
effects which may occur from public docks.
5. Communicate and consult with the council and the City
Manager on matters requiring master plan approval,
license approval and such matters as shall arise from
time to time not covered by this or any other ordinance.
6. Assist the public in the use of shoreline facilities
available for docking in whatever way necessary to insure
complete understanding of each citizen's privileges and
responsibilities.
7. Inspect all uses on public shoreline to insure proper
licensing, construction, and location, and he shall notify
licensees of all violations of ordinances or regulations
and take proper corrective action.
Section 26.9301 is hereby added to the City Code:
Section 26.9301. Licenses, Docks.
Subdivision 1. Docks defined
the term "doc" - ~.. For purposes of this ·
k means any wLa~f, pier, ~oath~ ~_ ~ . ordinance,
or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, or into the
.......... , uoa= ramp, poet slip
water of a lake from publicly owned shoreland.
Subdivision 2. License recuired. };o person shall erect, keep
or maintain a dock on or ~butting u~on aHy public street, road, park or
commons without first securing a license therefor from the City in
accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.
Subdivision 3. License plate location. One license plate
shall be securely fixed to a licensed dock. The license shall be on
the shoreland end of the dock, shall be located on the right corner of
the dock facing the lake and facing up. LiCense plates shall be issued
by the Dock Inspector after approval of the license application, shall
be maintained by the licensee in its original color and shall remain
the property of the City of Mound. '
Ordinsnce #332, Adopted 3-6-75
Subdivision 4. Transfers. Dock licenses are not transfer-
able between licensees. Ail licenses shall be issued by the City to
a new licensee in accordance with the provisions of 'this ordinance.
Section 26.9302 is hereby added to the City code and shall
read as follows:
Section 26.9302. Special Permits.
Subdivision 1. Construction on public land permits. Con-
struction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the
alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons,
is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is
issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use
or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necess.~ry
drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed
costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a
survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be
'ssued. Survey shall comply with the Mo. un . u~ld~n_gec a
~ ...... Co~ies of such surveys, ara_l g ,__P_ -~1 be furnished
requ~rem~nu=. ~ --~-~ and statements o~ purpo~
materials, proposeu uu
to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit
shall be issued unless aporoved by a four/fifths vote of all the
council members. Types of construction requirin~ a special
Subdivision 2-1ah~ oermit. Ail stairways, retaining wal~s,
construction on ~public
fenceS, temporary structures, sto~e work, concrete forming, or any
type of construction shall require a special permit. No special con-
struction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or
other buildings on public land under this or any other ordinance of
the City of Mound.
ublic land maintenance permits. The City
Subdivision 3. P_ .~_ ~ .... ~n~nin~ ~esently con-
requires special maintenance permian, ~u=
structed boathouses or other structures on public lands. Applications
for maintaining existing boathouses or other stru, <utes may be obtained
from the Building Inspector at the City offices. All applications
for special maintenance pe~nnits shall be reviewed by the City Council.
The council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted
or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits
are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls,
stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands.
The council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions
they may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shore-
line. All structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other
improvements on public lands which are in existenCe at the time this
ordinance becomes effective shall be required %o obtain a public land
maintenance permit from this council on or before April 1, 1976.
~atherin~S - permit required. Use of
Subdivision 4. Public ~roup consisting of 15 or m~re indiv-
a public park or commons by any
iduals gathering together or by any organization which brings 15 or
more persons on to public lands to meet, picnic or conduct a group
activity shall require a permit from the City Manager. The manager
may issue said permit if he determines that the area to be used for
said meeting or group activity is available and that its collective
use will not interfere with traffic and general use of the park or
commons, and that said activity is not beyond the ability of the police
· . . . m., impose other reasonable con-
in malntalnlng..order- T~!e_m_a_n_a~ge~r~ Y 'd ~rou remove all litter eno
ditions including a requlrumu~ .tsal ~ P
trash and provide a cash deposit to clean up the park area, and he may
obtain the advice of the Police chief and other staff personnel before
a denY said permit or refer it to
...... its The manager m y ' .-~. ~-:,,ed b'; the manager
issuing salG P=.~,"'=--'-~nsideration. Any permit= ~?~7___ %o nrotect the
the City Coun. cl-_~.u~ ,~_~_ .ub~ect to reasonable
or the council snail u~ ~
public's investment in its public parks and to protect the general
public's use of their park and common areas.
-2-
Ordinance #332, Adooted 3-6-75
Subdivision 5. ~d ~lteration. A special land a ·
permit shall be required from the City before any alt ..... iteration
made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following:
~ =~=ulons are
shoreline, drainage, grade,
removal or placement of any pitch, slope, trees, or which require the
fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops
any access road or lane. This section specifically includes any alter-
ations to uses which are non-conforming on the date this ordinance
becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved
by a four-fifths vote of all council members.
Section 26.9303 is hereby added to the City Code and shall
read as follows:
Licenses. Section 26.9303. A~mplications for and Issuance of Doc~
Subdivision 1. S_~parate license require,~ Each do
structed and abutting a public park co ...... ' ck con-
..... ~ ~,,u~a or Street, shall re tire
a license from the City =ut a license plate to be issued by the ~ock
Inspector. No person shall be issued more than one license in any one
calendar year.
Subdivision 2. License aD 1' ' ~
applications sha ~ r~ , .p lcatlons for doc · "License
11 ,= obtained at.the. City offices. ~6;h applications
shall state completely the following information and such other infor-
marion as is deemed necessary by the City Manager or the Dock Inspector:
(a)
Full name of'the applicant.
(b) Address - applicant must present proof of residency
showing he or she is a permanent or summer resident
of the City of Mound.
(c) Physical description of the dock including a drawing
to scale.
(d) Preferred location of dock on the dock location map
of the City.
(e) Boat license number for each boat to be moored at
said dock.
(f) Such other information as may be required on the
application form.
Subdivision 3. Amp!ication fili~. Applications for licenses
shall be filed with the D~ck Inspector at the City offices and he shall
recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied.
No license will be recommended or authorized until the Dock Inspector
determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the terms
of all City ordinances.
Subdivision 4. Dock location No la .
by the Dock In'spector unt~ ~- 2J-/r-~" _ 'Cense shall be recommende
~ ~= snail nave first determined that the d
proposed dock is suitable for the specific dock location as identified
on the official dock location map,
Subdivision 5. Denial of application. If
not maintained a previously licensed-~ock, th~ Dock the applicant has
Inspector may recom-
mend to the City Council that any existing license be revoked, and that
the applicant's priorities under this ordinance be forfeited for the
current year and for the next boating'season.
Subdivision 6. License priorltie~. T · ·
govern the.issuance of doc--k !ice _ he following priorities
nses and other dock locations:
(a) ~. An abutting owner has first
priority fo~ny location within his lot lines
extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be
located in accordance with the dock location map.
-3-
Ordinance #332, Adopted 3-6-75
(b) S~econd priority. A licensee has second priority
~nen applying for a dock permit for the same loca-
tion held by the licensee the immediately preceding
year. Second priority licensee has no priority of
dock locations where a first priority license is
in effect.
(c) ~' A duly qualified applicant has
third priority on locations vacant after the first
and second priority applications have been ~de
within the prescribed time limit described in this
ordinance. Licenses ~ill be issued to such appli-
cants in the order of application dates. There shall
be no third priority Mere the first and second
priorities are in effect. Residents owning private
lakeshore within the City ~aich has dockable lake
frontage shall have the last priority each year for
s dock on public lands.
(d) Administration of nrioritx. The Dock Inspector shall
~sign all locations to the anplicants upon comnliance
with this ordinance and subject to reasonable condi-
t. ions and council approval.
Subdivision 7. Anplication deadlines. ApplicationS for dock
licenses shall be made bergen January 1 and M~rch 1 of each y~ar. In
the current year of 1975 applications must be in by April 1 but in
subsequent years March 1 shall be considered the deadline.
SubdiVision B. Late anolications. Ail applications received
after March 1 (April 1 ~n ~subject to a late fee of $2.00
and will be placed in a third priority category.
Subdivision 9. New re_siden~ts_.. There will be no late fee
charged to new residents who apply after March 1 (April 1 during the
year 1975) of the calendar year in ~hich the resident moves to the City.
The regular license fee will be charged and no penalty will attach during
that year.
Section 26.9304 is hereby added to the City Code and shall
read as followS.'
Section 26.9304. R~ules and Regulations_.
Subdivision 1. Dock location ma~ definition. There shall be
on file in the City Hall a~awing of the City of Mo~.d that is main-
tained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks
that may be constructed on or abutting public sborelands under the
control of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following infor-
ma tion:
(a) Official shoreline markers for purposes of establishing
dock locations-
(b) Indication of approved dock location scaled t~ proximity
with the shoreline markers.
(c) Types of docks permitted and any restrictions applic-
able to said locations-
(d) Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be sho~n.
(e) Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of
licensees and addresses, and the same number shall
apply tot he same location eacb year as far as possible.
(f) Shoreline topographY, depth of ~ater, soil conditions,
habitat, access, and other relevant information as is
necessary to r~view dock locations and to allow the
City Council and the Bock Inspector to protect the
public lands and public waters.
(g) Shoreline areas designated ,~inter approved dock
locations".
Ordinance #~2, ~dogted ~-6~75
(h) Variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline
configurations.
Subdivision 2. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and
maintained by the Dock Inspector end shell be reviewed by the Perk
Commission et least Once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall
review the dock location map between July 1 end December 1 before each
new boating season so their reco,mmnded changes may be referred to and
considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall
contain ell approved privets dock locations as established by the council Upon
the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory
Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of
privets dock licensee to be permitted shell be the responsibility of the OiLy
Council.
Subdivision 3. The Dock ~nspector shell determine end approve
the location of each permit according to the Specifications of the
approved dock location map.
Subdivision 4. Licensed private docks shall he erected and
maintained by the licensee at his sole expense.
Subdivision 5. The City Council may suspend · dock location where
it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably
interferes with the use of public ~tere or imposes a hardship on property
OWners abutting on public Streets or Public commons.
Subdivision 6. No more then one dock shell be permitted for each
resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not
apply £or dock licenses for his rentere or lessees. He is entitled to
for en individual private dock license for himself if he is · resident apply
of the City.
Subdivision ?. All privets docks shall be constructed of materials
specified by the Building Tnspector end the Dock Inspector and in accordance
with ell building codes of the City. The Standards for the public health,
safety and ~enerel w~lfare and neither the materiels or the workmanship for
an enproved licensed pr~vete dock shall result in docks being locsted on
public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public
tire or tires shell be bung on dock posts, dock Doles or on nuisance. Mo
dock hardware,
unless said tires are securely attached =o the dock s~ructure to prevent the
tire fro~ bain,? thrown ur washed in~o ~he lake. Any tire secured to e dock
shell have a hole cut in the bottom to allow the W~ter to drain to prevent a
breeding or nesting place for mosquitoes.
Subdivision 8. The Dock Inspector ur such other officer es may be
designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may et any reasonable time
inspect or cause to be inspected, any dock erected or mainlined upon, or
abutting U~on, any public street, road, park or commons and if it shell appear
that any such dock has not been constructed or is not being maintained in
accordance with the application or the license granted therefor, or that the
plans or location approved by the Council, or shell it appear that such dock is
in e condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance
or other ordinances of the City; the City, by its C~ty Clerk, shell forthwith
notify the owner ~hereof in writing spec~£ying the way or ways in ~hich said
dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said o~nar
.~hall have ten da~ to remove such dock or mak~ the same Comply with the
terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance
of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shell fail,
neglect or refuse to remove such dock or make the sams comply with the terms
o~ the City regulations w~thin the period of ten days, the license therefor
shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the ~ock ~nspector and by
notice in writing to the licensee end said not, ce shall be isa,ed by the City
Clerk. Any appeal w~ll be made in ~rtLing and submitted Lo the City Manager by
· certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his
considers tics.
Subdivision 9. ALl notices herein required shell be in writing, by
certified mail, directed to the licensee et the address given in the anplication.
-5-
Ordinance #332, Adopted 3-6-75
O No person shall store, leave or abandon any
Subdivision 1 · . ..... ~.-are on any ~ublic road, street,
dock, dock section, dock po£es or OOCK ~ru~
park or co~mOnSe
Subdivision 11. All private docks abutting any public road, street~
park or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other
navigable waters no later than December 31 of the license year unless it is a
winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map.
Subdivision 12. Docking of boats of non-residential ownership is
not permitted over 48 hours.
Section 26.9305 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as
follows:
Section 26.9305. Maximum Dimensions~ ?rohibited Designs of Docks.
No dock for which a license i~ required by this ordinance shall be less
24 inches wide or more than h8 inches in width end the dock shall not exceed
2~ feet in length except Where necessary to reach a minimum water depth o£ 36
inches, using Lake MinnetOnka elevation levels of 929.hO feet above sea level.
Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock pos~s shall be of e~ual
height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction £or
docks 24 inches to ~0 inches in width, and rail docks ~n excess o~ 30 inches
in width shall be three rail construction and constrUCted to cumnly to
standards and specifications approved by the Dock InsnectOr. Ail docks
shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof oerpendicular to
the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance
with the dock location map.
Section 26.9306 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read
as follows:
Section 26.9306. Penalties. Any violation of this ordinance shall
be subject to the penalties ~s preS~lbed by Section 71.09 of the City Code.
In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City CounCil may
remove or cause ~o be removed any dock erected withou~ a license as required
by this ordinance, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this
ordinance. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fall to comply with
the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person
convicted of violating city ordinanCeS relating to docks will be issued a
dock license for the present or for the next boating~ season and said person
forfeits any priorities set forth in this ordinance.
Section 26.9307 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read
as foLlowS:
Section 26.9307- License Fee. The annual license fee shall be
as follOWS:
Straight Dock $3.50 per front foot based on width
of dock-MinimUm of $10.00
L, U and T Docks $3.50 per front foot Based on width
at widest point of dock.
25 cents per square foot based on
Boathouses outside dimensions with a
minimum ~ee of $50 per year.
This fee includes a fee for a straight
dock. L, U and T docks shall be at
tho above stated rates, less a credit
for the license fee applicable for a
straight dock.
Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50~ of the
required license fee for a straight dock. A full license fee shall be charged
to all persOnS for all L, T or U docks and boathouses.
-6-
Ordlnance #332, Adopted
S~ctione 26.950, 26.9~01, 26.9~1, 26.9~11, 26.95~, 26.960, 26.961,
26.970, ~6.971, 26.980 ~nd 26.990 a~ he~b~ .~~.~led.
Attest {
Adopted by the City Council Mebruar~, 25, 197~
Published in the Official Newspaper~ March 6t 1975
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 130
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULS FOR
/vtA/NTENANCE pERNLITS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC
LANDS RENE%VABLE UP TO THREE yEARS CONTINGENT
UPON THE CITY'S USE PLAN NEV~ OV;NERS IVLAY
APPLICATION FOR R4.AI/qTENANGE pERNLITS
BE IT RESOLVED ]BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF N[OUND, 1%{OUND, R4INNE-
SOTA:
That ~ r e s olution e s tablisning rule s: for .implemen~in
maintenance permits for structures on Public
and renev~able up to ti~ree years contingent upon
City's Use. Plan.
New ov~ners may make application for maintenance
permits - under 16A
Adopted by Council this 15th day of lviarch, 1977
(2) Re=idence
o~ at~ached
Portion
2" ._-. No
Yes
t/o~e: All per~it~ granted
are for a limi~ed t~_r~, are
non-~ransferablej and the
structure must meet s~te
building code.
Separate I (2A)
Legal Review
(~)
~'e8
(S)
(6)
Boathouse
or other
Building
?
No
Will it
&
the use
as defined by
the Plan, by
General
Public
Should the
City build or
?
(3)
(14
or Existing
S truct~res
Should the
city
?
Ext~ting
Plan, hy the' -]
_as de£ined by th~
No
Nc
(13)
Negative (15)
Impact Yes
on Use
?
~p to 5 yrs develop Plan
renewable according to
priorities
3 yrs renewable
but terminates
with property
transfer
l~es. 77-130 changes
up tolyr
non-renewab .la
Res 77-131
this to: changes Mxis to:
l~enewable up to 3 yrs Establishing rniix
contingent upon ,the tenance permits
City's use plan, new
~wners may make ap-
plication for main~e:
ance permits 16A
for structures on
public lan~e u~
to 3 yrs non-re-
permits
to be che-.cked .
.annually 16B
Adopted by Council 3.15_77 l{es 77-13Z
·
REsoLUTION NO. 77 - 131
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ANiENDED~FLOV;
CHART IMPLENLENTING THE PROCESSLNG OF
NLAINTENANCE pERNLITS FOR CONSTRUCTION
ON THE COMMONS
BE IT i~ESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
SOTA: That adoption of tae axnended ~'low Chart, L~nplementin~
t~e processing of Iv~intenance permits for construction
on the Commons be &ut~orized.
Adopted by Council this ,1.5th day of lV~rch,
1977.
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 132
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FLOW CHAleT
EVIPLEMENTING TIlE PROCEss/iNG OF NIA2/~TENANcE
PEP. MITS FOR CONSTi{UCTION ON THE COMMoNs
%%rHEREAS, representative from the Park Commission presented Flow
Chart for,. Council approva/, and
WHEREAS, Council amended 16A and 16B of s.aid Flow Cha~:t
NOW, THEREFOR.E, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
Tha~ the amended Flow Chart, implementing the processing
of 1Vfaintenance Pernm/ts for c~nstruction on t~e Corrcrnons be
adopted.
Said arne=ded changes refer to 16A Res. 77-130 and
16B Res. 77-131.
Adopted by Council this 15fA day of March, 1977.
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovern mental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
TOTAL REVENUE
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Dec. 1996
Dec. 1996 YTD
BUDGET REV____~ENUE REVENUE.
PRELIMINARY
100.00%
PERCENT
VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,280,640 629,803 1,284,546
5,800 5 3,660
77,100 3,764 128,573
890,740 382,301 945,137
48,250 770 9,725
60,000 9,608 83,756
35,200 39,308 51,668
43,500 0 0
10,00q 85~ 12.79~
307,570 13,753 334,187
108,320 3,810 107,506
1,430,000 149,168 1,523,898
410,000 26,581 419,658
766,500 52,750 779,026
5,100 200 5,290
70,800 0 67,990
3,906 100.31%
(2,140) 63.10%
51,473 166.76%
54,397 106.11%
(38,525) 20.16%
23,756 139.59%
16,468 146.78%
(43,500) 0.00%
2,793_ 127.93%
02.80%
26,617 108.65%
(814) 99.25%
93,898 106.57%
9,658 102.36%
12,526 101.63%
190 103.73%
(2,810) 96.03%
01/21/97
rev95
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
Dec. 1996
PRELIMINARY
1 00.00%
Dec. 1996
BUDGET _EEXP ENSE_
GENERAL FUND
Council
68,730 4,651
Pro motions
4,0O0 0
Cable TV 600 100
City Manager/Clerk 185,030 15,442
Elections
11,300 25
Assessing 54,450
Finance 0
Computer 163,600 16,472
22,000 256
Legal 106,440 16,920
Police 804,640 93,413
Civil Defense 3,780 510
Planning/Inspections 167,320 16,091
Streets 398,840 63,367
City Property 92,790 4,889
Parks 135,300 14,096
Sum ruer Recreation 29,700 0
Contingencies 40,000 29
Transfers
155,31~00 1_1,783
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
_258,044
YTD PERCENT
EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
Area Fire
Service Fund
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Cemetery Fund
Docks Fund
67,942
4,000
744
152,707
9,162
57,210
160.918
14.485
82 062
832 773
3 614
160,905
413 195
91 342
133 482
30 082
3 910
_141,390
788 98.85%
0 100.00%
(144) 124.00%
32,323 82.53%
2,138 81.08%
(2,760) 105.07%
2,682 98.36%
7,515 65.84%
24,378 77.10%
(28,133) 103.50%
1 66 95.61%
6,415 96.17%
(14,355) 103.60%
1,448 98.44%
1,818 98.66%
(382) 101.29%
36,090 9.78%
13,920_ 91.04%
~ 83.~907 96.57%
307,570 33,512 334,884 (27,314) 108.88%
122,420 12,393 147,416 (24,996) 120.42%
205,930 16,123 212,243 (6,313) 103.07%
413,410 52,304 375,013 38,397 90.71%
963,180 55,498 993,550 (30,370) 103.15%
5,570 4 3,722 1,848 66.82%
37,470 845 36,342 1,128 96.99%
exp95
01/21/97
G.B.
LAK~ lV~NN~TO~ CON$~RYAT~ON
6:30 P.M.,
Ton~ ~y City H~I
Due to ~e lack of a quorum, ~e m~fing w~ not ~nven~. ~d members pre~nt dimus~
~me of ~e agen~ imms but no fomfl action w~ ~en on ~em. A brief summ~ of ~s
dimussion is de~l~ bdow:
1. LA~ USE ~ ~C~ATION
A. Sch~g & Ma~on, D~ion and Review of Draft 1~ Boat ~ity Su~ey
Repot.
* M~shfll Bmm~, Sch~ll ~d Madson, provid~ a brief summ~ of ~e d~
re~n. He re~ ~e boat ~unt on 7/4/96 w~ ~e fif~ highest boat ~unt on
one day sin~ ~e in,priori of ~is sumey. He add~ ~e boat ~unt on Memofifl
Day was the lowest in 1~6. He re~n~ ~at average boat count for ~e y~ w~
down signifi~fly due to ~e ~ler ~d r~ny wmther in May ~d June. He
highlight~ ~e 1~6 Summ~ of ~e Activities ~d Sour~s wi~ ~e ~d.
He encoumg~ f~back ~d questions from ~e ~d.
* Willcutt smt~ a m~fing will be held with the D~ to inco~mte ~e ~d's
~mments in ~e tint re~n. He add~ more n~tive will be provid~ in
fin~ rein.
* Babc~k compliment~ Sch~ll & Madson on the collation of mw dam for ~e
draft re~. He add~ he felt the re~ could use some better summ~es of ~is
mw dam. He ~m r~ommend~ a g~d to~ be add~ to tach s~fion. B~
smt~ Tim Kelly, D~ Planer for this proj~t, prefe~ the s~fions be kept
top,ate. He smt~ ~e softw~e will be provid~ to the LMCD.
* R~m smt~ a better summ~ of ~r~n~ge of fip~ owners versus ~ler~
boats has b~n done in past ream. He believ~ there is a n~ for this
information. ~k expl~n~ that some of the boa~ stor~ at municip~
multiple d~ks ap~ to be re~n~ at fip~an d~ks.
DRAFT
WATER STRUCTURF~
A. Ordinance Amendment, 1st reading of an ordinance relating to adjustment of
setbacks and dock use areas; adding new subsection c) to LMCD Code Section
2.01, Subdivision 3.
Dahlen noted an error on fourth condition where "side" should be replaced with
"site".
Further discussion was tabled to the 1/22/97 Board meeting.
B. City of Minnetonka Beach, Discussion on dock length and adjusted dock use
area variance application at Dock Site 10 on the Cross Point fire lane.
Babcock reported the City has agreed to decrease the proposed dock length from
120' to 100'. He asked LeFevere if the proposed code amendment would allow for
adjustment of the dock use area for length requirements?
LeFevere stated he believed the code amendment would allow for adjustment of
m
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 8, 1997
dock use area including length as well as width.
Babcock asked if it could be made contingent upon conditions being met?
LeFevere believed it could.
Page 2
Further discussion was tabled to the 1/22/97 Board meeting.
D. Additional Business
There was no additional business.
EURASIAN WATER MILFO[L/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Ordinance Amendment, 2nd reading of an ordinance relating to special events
and the transportation of exotic species; adding new subdivision 2 through 9 to
LMCD Code 3.09.
Babcock noted on page 3, Subd. 5b), the thirty day reference should be left blank.
Suerth stated the draft ordinance specifically identifies fishing contests and sailing
races. He suggested the wording be changed to have a broader definition of special
events. The Board directed LeFevere to provide such language for the 1/22/97
Board meeting.
Suerth reported the committee recommends a 5 day period for dry boats and a 30
day period/bt wet boats be incorporated in the draft ordinance.
LeFevere stated it would be easier to administer enforce if one number is used
rather than two.
Bo
Ce
Board members discussed the timeframe in great deal and directed LeFevere to
incorporate the two numbers as recommended by the committee for discussion at the
1/22/97 Board meeting.
Updale on RFP for new harvester.
Willcutt reviewed the RFP's received regarding the purchase of a new harvester.
Board members discussed in great detail whether the purchase of a new harvester or
a transporter is a more viable option.
Babcock suggested a vote should be taken at the text meeting to find out if a new
harvester will be purchased.
Addilional Bnsiness
There was no additional business.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 8, 1997
4. SAVE THE LAKE
Willcutt stated a meeting will be held in February and a new chairperson is needed.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
A. Staff Update on Appointments for 1997:
* Auditor Selection
Willcutt stated the auditor selection process was reopened and there are three
candidates.
Babcock recommended references be checked.
Page 3
Be
* Bookkeeper
Willcutt reported that staff would like to retain Specialty Bookkeeping.
*Bank depository resolution for fLscal year 1997
Willcutt recommended the bank depository for 1997 be First Bank of the Lakes.
Further discussion was tabled to the 1/22/97 Board meeting.
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
0
FINANCIAL REPORT
A. Audit of vouchers for payment
· 12/1/96- 12/31/96
· 1/1/97- 1/15/97
Board discussion was tabled to the 1/22/97 meeting.
B. November financial summary and balance sheet
Board discussion was tabled to the 1/22/97 meeting..
Ce
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Willcutt reported on the followin~
LMC Insurance: the LMCD needs to be a member of the I_~.ague of Minnesota Cities in
order to have their insurance.
Goal Setting~ he would like to schedule a goal setting meeting. Babcock suggested
sometime in early February.
~ A "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet is scheduled for February.
selected February 13~' at Lord Fletcher's as the date and location.
Trial_: the trial for Bil Hawks has been scheduled for February 27.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 8, 1997
OLD BUSINESS Page 4
Babcock stated he would like the Board to revisit the commercial vendor sales issue on Lake
Minnetonka.
NEW BUSINESS
Board members expressed concern because of the lack of a quorum at this meeting.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
EXOTICS TASK FORCE
MINUTES
DRAFT
8:30 A.M. Friday, January 10, 1997
Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre
Present:
Herb Suerth, LMCD; Craig Nelson, LMCD; Al Willcutt, LMCD; Wendy Crowell,
DNR; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Gene Strommen, MCWD; Mike Brandt,
Hennepin County.
Introduction and Welcome
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 A.M. by Committee Chairman, Herb
Suerth.
Minutes:
Minutes of the November 8th, 1996 meeting were reviewed and accepted with
no changes.
Boat Washing Update:
The question was raised as to what progress had been made in the boat
washing program. Al reported that the largest accomplishment last year had
been a Sailboat Regatta. 80+ boats had been washed during that one event.
Wiilcutt continued that he would like to see groups that are involved in Special
Events be included on an annual check list/sign up schedule to assure that boat
washing takes place. He felt that the boat washing unit should be made
available upon request at any public access to make it more convenient for the
boat washing process. He continued that both education and communication
with the general public is necessary for the program to be successful.
Suerth mentioned that Special Event applications will contain a "sign-ofF' tine
stating whether or not participants have had their boats in infested waters 30
· ' r to the event Suerth commented,on the importance,, of educating the
days pr)o ...... *h~t there would not be a 'picked on feehng that the LMCD is
general puouu ~u L, ,~ - '
trying to control the lake.
-2-
A presentation was given by Clear Water Technologies, Inc., a group attempting
to become licensed by the DNR and the MPCA for their chemical application
process for control of Eurasian Water Milfoil and Curly Leaf Pondweed. They
stated that next year would be another experimental effort and that they were
looking for sites where organizations would be financially capable to assist with
their work. The DNR will be helping with a portion of the data gathering and
observations within the approved lake areas. Clear Water Technologies would
like to assist the White Bear Lake Conservation Commission, Prior Lake, and
the LMCD upon receiving the required approvals.
To date two treatments have been attempted, one in Peavy Lake and the second
in a pond in Deephaven. It was discovered that Peavey Lake, after a five year
period, had relapsed with EWM, whereas the pond in Deephaven had not. 10
grams per square foot were applied in Peavey and 19 grams per squar-e foot in
Deephaven. The specific chemical formula utilized was not revealed.
Laboratory experiments are being conducted on Lake Vadnais for the City of St.
Paul where there is a severe problem with milfoil obstructing the water intake
system. Any endorsement of their services will need board approval. No action
was taken regarding a recommendation to the Board. Communication will
remain open, pending certification outcomes.
There were no agency or area wide lake association reports.
There was no old or new business to conduct.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 AM.
Respectfully Submitted,
G. Alan Willcutt
Executive Director
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday January 22 1997
Tonka Bay City Hall
PUBLIC HEARING_
7%..00 Trillium Bay Limited Partnership, Halstad's Bay, Minnetrista, Consideration of a new
multiple dock license application for 17 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 850' of continuous
shoreline;
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES- 12/11/96 Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion
unless a Board member requests a discussion of any itsm, in which case the item will be
removed from the consent agenda.
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Trillium Bay Limited Partnership, Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock
license;
B. Ordinance Amendment, 1't reading of an ordinance relating to adjustment of setbacks
and dock use areas; adding new subsection c) to LMCD Code Section 2.01,
Subdivision 3;
C. City of the Village of Minnetonk ' Beach, Discussion on dock length and adjusted
dock use area variance application at Dock Site #10 on the Cross Point firelane;
*D. Robert and Susan Mellett, Staff recommends full refund of $250 deposit for dock
length, side setback, and adjusted dock use variance at 4435 Enchanted Drive,
E. Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Special Deputy Candidates;
*B. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report;
C. Addit onai Business;
EWM/EXOTICS TASKFORCE
A. Minutes of the 1/10/97 meeting;
B. 1/10/97 meetin.~ report;
C. Ordinance Amendment, 2nd reading of an ordinance relating to special events and
the transportation of exotic species; adding new subdivisions 2 through 9 to LMCD
Code' 3.09;
D. Update on RFP for new harvester;
E. Additional Business;
4. SAVE THE LAKE
$. ADMINISTRATION
A. Staff Update on ApPointments for 1997;
* Auditor Selection
* Bookkeeper
* Bank depository resolution for fiscal year 1997
B. Additional Business;
FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers for payment;
* 12/1/96 - 12/31/96
* 1/1/97 - 1/15/97
* 1/16/97 - 1/31/97
November financial summary and balance sheet;
December financial summary and balance sheet;
C. Additional Business;
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A MEETING
January 9, 1996
Present were: Chair Tom Casey, Vice Chair Bill Darling, Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Marilyn
Byrnes, Rita Pederson, City Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler,
Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Mary Goode was
absent and excused.
Also in attendance were: Mark Goldberg, Mike Aspelin, Leah Weycker, Mark Hanus, Bill
Johnsen, Mark Reschke Joe Zylman, and Ann Kelly
MINUTES
Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to approve the minutes of the
December 12, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGERS
None.
COMMONS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission decided to review each section of the Task Force recommendation separately.
SHARED DOCK POLICY
Botko and Pederson spoke in favor of the policy. Byrnes feels this policy is good for older
people who can share a site with a younger person who would help them install the dock, and
at the same time it helps reduce the number of docks on the commons.
(Darling arrived late at this point.)
Motion made by Byrnes, seconded by Pederson, to accept the Shared Dock
Policy as recommended by the Commons Task Force, as written.
Darling asked if a conflict of interest exists by having Task Force members voting as Park
Commissioners on Task Force issues, and/or if there is a conflict for those Commissioner's who
own property abutting the commons? Darling noted that the Work Rules state that if a
· · · ~inthey will excuse themselves from
Commissioner has a vested, mteres, t m a,n_:~s~U;e commissioner's were involved in the
conversation and not vote on tl~e motion, aha smcc
drafting of the document being reviewed, he asked if that would constitute a vested interest.
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
Pederson feels that everyone has a vested interest since they are dealing with public land.
(Ahrens arrived late at this point).
The motion was reviewed for Ahrens.
Chair Casey reviewed the Work Rules on packet page 100, #26 which states, "Any member
having a financial and/or personal interest in an individual action under consideration by the
Commission shall identify their personal interest prior to the discussion, remove himself/herself
from the discussion and not vote on that particular matter. In addition, members shall further
avoid any appearance of impropriety. Said member will have the same rights as any citizen who
has an interest in any action being considered by the Park and Open Space Commission."
Byrnes stated that they do not have a financial or personal interest. Casey stated that there is
no way for the Commission to personally monitor if there is a conflict since it is a voluntary
refusal, so the Commission Members would have to decide on their own if they think they have
a conflict of interest. As the Chair, Casey feels that members have the right to voluntarily
excuse themselves. The Commissioners agreed with Casey's interpretation.
Botko commented that it had never occurred to her that this was a "personal" interest. Botko,
Byrnes and Pederson agreed that they do not feel a conflict of interest exists.
Motion carried unanimously.
MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
The Commission voted on each section separately.
A. Review of underlying objectives for Commons Dock Program.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the
Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section A as written. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Multiple-slip dock objectives.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of the
Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section B.
Darling asked how they propose to pay for the docks. It was noted that they will be paid for
out of the Dock Fund. Ahrens referred to F.4. which states that the dock system will be funded
with current fees. Ahrens suggested that this specifically state, "current Dock Fund fees."
Byrnes accepted an amendment to the motion to add the following to Section
B., "4. The multiple-slip dock system is to be fully funded with current Dock
Fund fees." Motion carried unanimously.
2
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
C. Criteria for considering an area for a multiple-slip dock.
Byrnes commented that she feels it is important to get cooperation from the users of the multiple
docks and we need to chose an area wisely and take suggestions from the users.
Darling expressed a concern that this section seems ambiguous. He does not consider the survey
arlin ld like to see "2. Shoreline dock congestion" further defined, and
to be scientific. D g wou . · .... is considered
questioned what is the minimum standard for congesuon? And m 4. how much
to be "a significant percent of dock site holders interested in or willing to try a multiple-slip
dock."
Goldberg commented that dock congestion varies depending on the area and on the
dissatisfaction level of the people in the area.
Darling clarified that he feels #2 needs to state what is considered to be a minimum standard of
congestion, and #3 should state what is considered to be "close to the water" in a measurement
as a guideline. Botko commented that the distance from the water also depends on the area.
There was discussion regarding the number of boats versus number of docks allowed by the
LMCD and if this would be affected. Dock spacing, as it relates to congestion was discussed.
Goldberg commented that the idea is to identify the areas that have problems and to try and
solve those problems and to get a consensus from the people using the area. The program is
· e will look for areas where people are willing to move and also where
relatively voluntary Th .y .. _ t. ...... rdieh Goldber noted that F. 1.a. states,
a significant reduction in me congesuon can ut ,~,~,,~,,v ..... ed. g
"If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move to the multiple slip dock: a. Keep changes on
a voluntary basis."
Byrnes suggested that the interpretation of congestion be left up to staff.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Botko, to recommend approval of
"C." as written. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Pederson,
Botko, Byrnes, Casey, Meyer, and Ahrens. Darling was opposed.
D. Implementation steps.
Darling suggested that they add a #8 to this section which would requires that a hearing be held
for the people affected by the dock, and that they get the opportunity to vote on whether they
want a multiple-slip dock. Goldberg and Ahrens agreed that this was intended.
Meyer suggested that a notice be published in the local paper and advertise it as a public hearing
at either the Park Commission or City Council level. Ahrens stated that she would be opposed
to that because letters can be sent out at less cost.
It was discussed if approval of the multiple-slip docks should go through the Park Commission
and Council for approval.
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
Darling suggested the following language: "Any time that a multiple dock slip is targeted for
implementation in a commons area, a notice either via newspaper or mail shall be sent to those
affected individuals, a public hearing will be held, and all those affected dock holders for that
commons will have the ability to vote, with the majority ruling."
Ahrens stated, if she was one of the people affected, she would not want the notice only in the
paper, because you cannot guarantee that they would see it. It was clarified that the notices will
need to be mailed and that they may also be published. Darling accepted that as a friendly
amendment to the language.
Meyer explained his reason for wanting something in the paper is because of the fact that
commons are dedicated to everybody in the City of Mound, for the most part. It was discussed
who should be notified. Fackler suggested that input be collected from the affected individuals
prior to any notices being published in order to determine first if the people in the area are
interested.
Darling stated that there may be other citizens that use that commons area for swimming or
fishing, and they should be given the opportunity to be notified of a proposed multiple-slip dock
in case it may affect that citizen's use of that commons for those activities. Casey suggested that
the affected individuals be notified and their input be collected before the public notices go out.
The secretary reiterated the motion, as follows: Any time a multiple dock is proposed, all
individuals affected will be notified in writing of the meeting, and if needed a published notice
in the paper also, a public hearing will be held, and all those affected will have the ability to
vote and the majority will rule.
Casey asked if the majority has the right above and beyond the Council? Fackler reviewed the
first step would be first to determine if the people want to be involved in the multiple-slip dock
program, the second step would be the Park Commission, it would then be publicized and go
on to the Council. Casey clarified that the motion read by the secretary would be the
preliminary steps prior to Park Commission and Council.
Goldberg expressed a concern about the "majority will rule" part of the motion because there
may be a minority with a major problem that has a legitimate problem. Goldberg has no
problem with the affected individuals voting, but is not sure it should be that the majority rules.
Casey clarified that ultimately the Council will rule.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of
Section D. with the addition of//'8, as follows: "Any time a multiple dock is
proposed, all individuals affected will be notified in writing of a meeting, and
if needed a notice will also be published in the paper, a public hearing will
be held, and all those affected will have the ability to vote and the majority
will rule." Motion carried unanimously.
Park and Open Space Commission
Janua~ 9, 1997
E. Use Plan for Pubic Lands issues to review that will affect the multiple-slip dock.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Pederson to recommend approval of
the Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section E, as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
F. Installation and transition issues.
It was agreed that //4 should be amended as follows, "Dock fees: No surcharges are
recommended based on the commons dock fund financial projections, the proposed multiple-slip
dock system is fully funded with the current Dock Fund fees."
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Pederson to recommend approval of
the Multiple-Slip Dock Program Recommendation, Section F, as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY PROPOSAL
Casey referred to I.c. "The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing
a greater good." He does not think that because we have public land that we have to justify that
it is the City' s/People's right to have the land free from encroachments, he does not think they
should have to justify it, as a factor. Pederson commented that she likes "c." because at one
time the fathers of the City said it was okay to build structures and now they are saying that it
is not right.
Casey referred to Ordinance #10 dated 5/9/50, which states "no dock or boathouse shall
hereafter be erected, kept or maintained · · · without first securing a license." And, Subd. 6
states, "If at any time it shall appear necessary to the Village Council of the Village of Island
Park, in the public interest, or for the improvement of any public street, road, park or common
for the further public use or enjoyment thereof by the establishment of public docks, bathing
beaches, recreation grounds or the opening of any street, road or common or otherwise, any and
all licenses issued under the terms of the within ordinance may be cancelled by direction of the
Village Council upon 10 days' notice in writing .... "He noted that this language is repeated
on all the subsequent ordinances which acts as notice to these people that they do not have the
automatic right to keep those structures, but that it is up to the City Council. There is no
guarantee of perpetuity to have a boathouse on commons or any other public land, and this is
reflected in Ordinances #10, #20, and #94.
Pederson noted that the boathouses were built before these ordinances, and just because we don't
like them anymore, does that mean we can take them away?
Darling commented that he also has a problem with this recommendation and cannot support it
the way it is written. He is very much in favor of the concept that public land is public land.
He feels, the way this is written allows people to install structures on commons that we do not
allow people to do in public parks.
5
Park and Open Space Commission
Goldberg emphasized that they are talking about existing structures, not new.
January 9, 1997
Casey noted that they are out of time, and suggested they discuss this item further at their next
Commission meeting. Fackler noted that the Council will be reviewing these recommendations
at their meeting on January 28, 1997.
Casey moved that the Council defer its decision on the Commons Encroachment
Policy recommendation until the Park Commission has the chance to adequately
consider and discuss the rest of the recommendation that they have not reviewed.
Ahrens seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Ahrens commented that it is probably not wise to vote on this, because the Commission can ask
the Council to defer its action, but there is no guarantee that action will be deferred. Ahrens
suggested that the Commission devote the first 30 minutes after the interviews to further discuss
this subject.
Motion failed 2 to 5. Those in favor were: Darling and Casey. Those opposed
were: Ahrens, Meyer, Pederson, Byrnes, and Botko.
MOTION moved by Ahrens that the next 30 minutes following the interviews
be devoted to discussion on the Commons Encroachment Policy, except if
there is anyone present to discuss another issue on the agenda, that item will
be discussed first. Byrnes seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
INTERVIEWS FOR P&OSC VACANCY
A. Mike Aspelin, 1604 Eagle Lane
Aspelin reviewed that he has been a resident of Mound for ten years, he has two kids, and he
loves the outdoors, hunting, fishing, and recreational boating which wants his kids to be able
to do when they grow up.
He has been involved with the Woodland Point Mediation Committee and has a good knowledge
of the Commons Task Force.
He understands the pristine beauty of leaving something alone and keeping green space natural.
He feels he could add view points to discussions by the Commission.
Botko asked if his neighborhood group "Save Our Commons" is still active. Aspelin stated that
it is, and right now they are waiting for title searches to be completed on 99 homes within the
Woodland Point subdivision.
Byrnes asked if he has any ideas on how we could improve our parks? Aspelin responded that
we need to keep the parks accessible because there isn't a lot of green space left for kids in a
lot o.f areas of Mound. He likes the Bruce Miller Park and would like to see it left alone.
Park and Open Space Commission
Janua~ 9, 1997
Hanus asked if he could guess how many designated parks Mound has. Aspelin guessed 50.
Hanus asked how many other city owned parcels he thinks there are. Aspelin thinks there are
many, probably more than you can recognize.
Hanus asked, if he were given a choice between the city acquiring more land, or to improve
existing land, what would he prefer? Aspelin would like to see existing land improved, such
as improving the skating facilities at Three Points Park so we can get better use out of what we
have.
Hanus stated that one of the goals Aspelin listed in his flyer when he was running for Council
was to use the commons to their fullest potential, what was the intention of this? Aspelin
clarified that he thinks there are a lot of improprieties in the commons and the way they are
managed now. Originally, the commons was set up as something for everybody to use.
However, he feels the City has gotten too restrictive to the people who live abutting the
commons, such as trimming, existing light poles, etc. He is in favor of sharing docks and
having multiple docks, if people agree to it. He is not in favor of eliminating nonabutting dock
sites.
Ahrens asked, if he had been party to any of the decisions regarding the Lost Lake project, and
if there is anything he would have done differently, and why? Aspelin sees no drawbacks to the
Lost Lake project as proposed, it is a win win proposal as long as they can get all their permits.
He likes the idea that the wetland will now be more utilized.
Ahrens asked what parks his family uses. Aspelin replied that they use Three Points Park
because it is close to their home, they use Mound Bay Park, and Canary Beach. Ahrens asked
what improvements he would like to see at each of these parks. Aspelin would like to see the
geese problem addressed at Mound Bay Park, he would like to see a better ice rink at Three
Points Park with lights because it gets dark so early in the winter, and would like to see a face
on the storm sewer at Canary Beach because it could be hazardous.
B. Bill Johnsen, 5300 Piper Road
Mr. Johnsen explained that he has lived in Mound since 1993, he owns a home near A1 &
Alma' s, has a child that is almost one, and has a background in environmental land uses that he
feels could be an asset to the Commission. He is not involved in the dock program, they own
private lakeshore.
Casey referred to his letter which states, "I'm frequently confronted with objectively evaluating
and finding commons ground between extreme environmental groups pushing for pristine tracks
of land with no development versus over development and exploitation." Casey asked Mr.
Johnsen to elaborate on what he was involved with. Johnsen explained that he has been a
mediator between a County and State government and how their rules would apply to a property
development or a redevelopment to bring a polluted property back to a useful property and try
to establish some common ground.
Casey asked how familiar he is with the Commons issues in Mound. Johnsen said he does not
7
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
have a lot of understanding of it but, if appointed, would do research on the issue.
Darling asked if Mr. Johnsen, based on the character of the lake today, would be in favor of
more development on the lake, want to leave it like it is, or try to restrict it more? And why9
Johnsen stated he would not want to restrict it, but would prefer to strengthen the existing
development. '
Casey asked his view on the dredging of the Lost Lake channel and if he feels it is viable from
an environmental and development point of view. Johnsen stated that he is involved with
wetland protection type issues and thinks there are a lot of trade-offs. He would be a proponent
of recognizing that there are issues with developing a wetland, but that those issues are
manageable.
Byrnes asked what he thinks about'the Lost Lake development? Johnsen explained that he does
not know the details of the project, in general he is a proponent of the project. He thinks the
dredge is a tool that can become a hub for the City in terms of development that can strengthen
the community.
Hanus asked Johnsen to give an example of any projects that had an environmental extreme and
a developmental extreme that he has encountered. Johnsen explained that he worked on a
project that involved an army piece of property in New Brighten and this involved extreme
groups on both sides. The army had an extreme protective stance for the government property,
and on the other hand the citizens wanting to have unlimited access to that property and trying
to find a common ground where they recognized there is some beneficial use to install hiking
trails and nature things, versus recognizing the army's need to maintain certain areas that would
not be open to the public.
Hanus asked, if you had to make a choice, would you prefer the City take on more land in the
City's inventory for public purposes, or make site improvements to existing public properties?
Johnsen would strive towards purchasing property because you should get it when it becomes
available.
Ahrens asked if Johnsen could guest how many parks the City of Mound has. Johnsen guessed
20 to 25. Ahrens asked if he could guess the number of City owned parcels there are? Johnsen
guessed 40 to 50.
Ahrens asked if there are any improvements that he would like to see to any of the parks.
Johnsen stated that he would like to see more ball diamonds.
C. Ann Kelly, 2246 Westedge Blvd.
Ann moved to Mound in 1993 from St. Paul, and is a runner. The reason she moved to Mound
is because she was looking for a more beautiful area to run. In college she was a political
science major and has always been interested in being a part of government. She has worked
in the computer field and in the health field. She is now with Burnett Realty and has more time
to herself. She would like to preserve open spaces.
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
Pederson asked what is her favorite park. She likes Mound Bay Park because she runs by it
every morning, but would like to get to know the rest of the parks.
She is not aware of issues relating to the commons other than what she has seen in the paper.
She would be interested in knowing more. She has no opinions on any issues. If appointed, she
would like to read through old minutes and study previous issues to get up-to-speed.
Darling asked, based on the character of the lake today, would you be in favor of more
development on the lake, want to leave it like it is, or try to restrict it more? Kelly commented
that she would have to do homework in order to answer this question, but she doesn't like
anything too crowded. She would hate to see a development that would crowd the water and
poison the water with run-off. She thinks you have to protect what you have to allow for open
spaces in the future.
Hanus asked if he could guess how many designated parks Mound has. Kelly guessed 15.
Hanus asked how many other City owned parcels he thinks there are. Kelly guessed 30.
Hanus asked, if you were given a choice between the City acquiring more land, or to improve
existing land, what would you prefer? Kelly commented that she would like to see both, she
would want to add more, but also improve the existing.
Ahrens asked if she has ever utilized Mound Bay Park. Kelly stated that she has attended
Winterfest, and she loves the Music in the Park program.
Ahrens asked if she is familiar with the Lost Lake project. Kelly stated that she is intrigued
with the project and hopes it goes forward.
Byrnes asked if she was familiar with the recreation programs in Mound. Kelly stated that she
has read about them in the Community Services brochure, and her children use to participate in
a similar program in another City. She feels recreation programs are important.
REVIEW MAPLE MANORS pRELIMINARY PLAT - PARK DEDICATION
due to a affiliation with the
Commissioner Casey and Pederson stepped down personal
applicant, Joe Zylman. Vice Chair Bill Darling assumed the position of Chair for this item.
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to the memorandum in the packet. According to the
Hennepin County tax records, the market value of the subject property is $15,000, at 10% this
would result in a total contribution of $1,500. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum
dedication of $500 per lot be collected in lieu of land dedication. The total dedication would
be $5,000.
Zylman petitioned the Commission to decrease or waive the park dedication fee since he will
be paying for and installing a road which will provide access to public/park property.
Ahrens questioned if this is an official park. Fackler stated that it is just public land. Ahrens
9
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
referred to Section 330:120, Subd. 3 of the City Code which implies that there is no choice
whether a park dedication fee or land is collected. Zylman referred to Subd. 4 which states,
"Where the owner provides for public use, neighborhood park amenities such as, but not limited
to, tennis courts, ball fields, open space or other recreational facilities, the City may reduce the
amount of land to be dedicated or the cash contribution in lieu of the facilities provided."
Darling feels that it is a stretch to consider that the road will be there for the purpose of
improvement of public land, he feels the road will be used to access the new dwellings, and he
fails to see where there is a benefit· Zylman stressed, without the road there would not be any
public access to the park, and there would not even be a park.
Botko asked if there currently is access to this public land? Zylman stated that right off of
Three Points Blvd. you can access the property, but it is not easy to traverse due to topography,
it would be difficult to get to the upland part.
Byrnes asked what we could use this City parcel for? Fackler commented, when Mr. Zylman
recently asked that this parcel be released for sale, the Council decided it would be beneficial
to retain the property, however, a use has not been determined for the property.
Zylman confirmed that this road will be a public road·
Byrnes asked what this land could be used for? Faclder noted that a small portion of the
property is high, dry and level, then the rest is a steep slope. Improvements would probably
be minimal, such as grading, adding ground cover and/or just leaving it. It is probably not a
large enough parcel that would warrant a play structure. Meyer suggested that the area remain
as open green space.
MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Ahrens to recommend the City collect
$5,000 in park dedication fees, as recommended by staff. Motion carried
unanimously.
_TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMONS ENCROACHMENT POLICY PROPOSAL - continued discussion.
The Commission decided to continue discussion on this issue for 30 minutes, until 9:15 p.m.
Pederson agrees that we should not allow any more building, but is concerned with requiring
that the existing go because it would harm the people to not allow their existing structures to
remain.
Casey referred to Ordinance gl0, Subd. 6 and Subd. 8 and reviewed the intent of the language.
It is his opinion that it is clear that' the intentions since the 1950's has been that people build at
risk that the City Council may in some future time find that it is in the public interest to change
that. He thinks the focus is what rules we have been operating under since 1950.
Pederson asked about the structures constructed prior to 1950. Casey commented that Ordinance
10
932
Park and Open Space Commission
January9, 1997
10, Section 4. states, "With respect to docks and boathouses already erected at the time of the
passage of the within ordinance, a license to continue the maintenance thereof shall be applied
for in the manner hereinbefore described for the licensing of new docks and boathouses, within
30 days after the within ordinance takes effect as hereinafter provided, and all such application, s
shall be presented to the Village Council and licenses issued therefor in the same manner as ts
herein provided for licensing of the erection of new docks or boathouses." Casey summarized
that having these structures are not a permanent right and there is also the right to take them
away that's reserved by the City Council by issuing licenses in the first place.
Goldberg commented that he thinks all those points are consistent and does not think there are
any conflicts in any of the statements that have been made thus far. The City has the
responsibility to make sure use of commons, either past or present actions, be in the public
interest, and that is not inconsistent with the concept that harm to an individual citizen must be
justified by the City.
How the permit process worked in the past was discussed.
Ahrens noted that the ordinance which Casey had referred to earlier was dropped in future
ordinances, and to connect that to what the Task Force is recommending which is that it should
serve the greater public good, the key is to balance it.
Darling commented, the way that the Task Force recommendation reads, he firmly believe it
gives an abutter the perception that they can privatize that land, and his concern is the ones that
would abuse this. It is his impression that this would harm the public is that it restricts everyone
else's use of that land. He does not agree that the onus should be put on the City.
Goldberg noted that their policy proposal pertains only to existing structures. Darling
emphasized that the proposed policy would allow somebody to repair an existing structure to the
point that it would remain forever, and people would use these rules to their advantage, and the
way it reads now would open that door for them. He feels the policy will open Pandora's Box.
Darling is concerned that there is a loop hole in the proposed policy that would allow somebody
to reconstruct a dilapidated structure.
Casey directed discussion back towards "I. Key Factors." Casey referred to 1 .c., which states,
"The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a greater good." He
questioned if the City has to prove that the harm to one is more than the harm to another in
order to require something be removed. The Commission discussed the difference in the rights
of one affected individual versus the balance of the Mound population.
Encroachments and the benefits of removing them versus the rights to the owner of that
encroachment was discussed. Goldberg stated that there are only about six boathouses located
on commons. The historical value of the boathouses was discussed. Boathouses located on
Type C commons was discussed.
Botko commented that 1.d. says it all, "The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments
to confirm that they do not hinder Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe."
ll
Park and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
Darling commented that we either figure out a way to tighten up the words or he cannot support
it. He wants to make sure that people do not think they can keep these structures forever, and
the wording in the proposal allows for people to abuse their ability to have structures on the
commons. Darling referred to the amended Decision Flow Chart, and noted that either way,
existing structures would be granted a permit to continue, and would never get denied.
Casey noted that time is up. He would like to have the opportunity to further review this
proposal before it goes to the City Council.
MOTION by Casey, seconded by Darling, to recommend that discussion on
this item be tabled until the next Park Commission meeting and that the
Council not review this item until they finish their recommendation.
Ahrens suggested that the Commission schedule an additional meeting prior to the January 28th
Council meeting so they can finish discussion on the item.
Motion carried 6 to 1. Ahrens was opposed.
REVIEW RE UEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF OXFORD LANE
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, stated that he visited the site, and it was difficult to determine the
location of the road since there were no coruer markers visible due to the deep snow. This area
contains large mature trees. At this time it appears that this area is already being used by the
abutting home owners for parking and storage.
This property does not abut an existing park or nature conservation area, and a portion of
Oxford Lane to the south has already been vacated. The only benefit for not approving the
vacation request is to retain the area for green space.
Casey agreed that the site was difficult to see due to the snow, and suggested they not make a
recommendation until they have a chance to look at the property more carefully.
Darling asked if there were any responses from other staff or the utility companies that were
notified of this request. The Secretary commented that responses have been received, and none
of them were negative, however, the City Engineer did recommended that the easement not be
vacated because he did not feel it was in the "public's best interest" to do so. Councilmember
Hanus read from his copy of the Engineer's memorandum the following comments and
recommendations:
"The City does not have any utilities located in this section of Oxford Lane. The
existing watermain in Hanover Road is looped back to Island View Drive through
the portion of Oxford Lane already vacated. Our major concern is with the
undeveloped portion of Block 9, Lots 14-20, lying east of Oxford Lane and north
of Hanover Road. These lots are comprised of three separate tax parcels and are
owned by one non-resident individual. If they are ever developed, water and
sanitary sewer could be extended from the end of the mains on Hanover Road.
12
Parle and Open Space Commission
January 9, 1997
Future street construction; however poses a different problem. Hanover Road
could be extended to provide access for these parcels; however it is already a
dead end street almost 400 feet long with no turn around whatsoever. This
portion of Oxford Lane could provide another exit, thus eliminating the existing
dead end street.
With the potential for future development and elimination of a dead end street,
we cannot recommend approval of the proposed street vacation. State statutes
require that a street vacation be in the best interest of the public which in this
situation that does not appear to be the case."
MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Meyer to table the request until they can
physically view the subject property.
Casey questioned the cost to republish this request. The secretary commented that this request
is already scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, and the Council on
February l lth, so the case will still be heard by the Council even if the Commission
recommends to table the request. The secretary commented that the application fee plus the cost
to the applicant for labels would be about $300. The secretary commented that she does not
believe it is required to get a recommendation from the Park Commission on street vacations,
but she would need to verify that. Darling stated that he would rather withdraw his motion than
risk it.
Darling withdrew his motion.
MOTION made by Casey, to recommend the request be denied due to the
fact that they are unable to properly view the site due to snow, there is not
a strong public interest to do so, the City Engineer has recommended denial,
and the only thing on the application to support the vacation is to make the
applicant's house more conforming. Motion seconded by Darling. Motion
carried 6 to 1. Ahrens was opposed.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1997
Ahrens suggested that they not vote for officers until the next meeting since there is not a
complete commission present.
Botko moved, and Ahrens seconded a motion to table the election of officers until
the February meeting because there is not a complete Commission present..
Darling noted that he will be absent from the February meeting, so asked if they would wait
until a meeting when everyone is present? It was noted that Goode is the only member absent.
Meyer commented that Goode may be resigning from the Commission.
Casey referred to the Work Rules, which states, "The Commission at the first meeting in
January, shall elect from its group, a Chair and a Vice-Chair."
13 -
Park and Open Space Commission
The motion was withdrawn.
January 9, 1997
Pederson moved that the same officers from 1996 be elected for 1997. Botko
seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 to 1. Ahrens abstained.
The 1997 Chair is Tom Casey, and the 1997 Vice-Chair is Bill Darling.
REVIEW 1997 AGENDA CALENDAR
Fackler noted that the only change he made was that he moved the "Review Parks/Beach
Program" to October because it better suits Community Services schedule.
Casey suggested that they schedule the annual park tour on a date other than their April meeting
date. It was determined that the date could be scheduled when they come closer to the date.
Darling suggested they schedule a budget workshop meeting prior to March 13. It was
determined a meeting would be scheduled on February 27 at 7:00 p.m.
Fackler noted a correction under the February 13 meeting: 1996 should be 1997.
~WORK RULES
Darling's suggested changes to the Work Rules were reviewed. The following amendments were
agreed upon unanimously, unless otherwise noted.
1. Meetings will be normally scheduled from ~ 7.'OO pm to 10.'00 on the second Thursday
of each month. ~
e72. If at ~ I~O..OQ, items still remain, then the item and/or motion currently on the floor
will be immediately tabled by the chair, without a motion to table, and the chair will put
forth a continuance motion to extend the meeting for an additional thirty minutes. If
p. assed, the item tabled immediately prior will be brought back up. This cycles until all
ttems are completed or the continuance motion fails. Any items left at adjournment will
be automatically added to the next meeting's agenda prior to any new items.
43_. If all items listed on the agenda prior to the start of the meeting are not completed and
the continuance fails, then the chair has discretionary authority to schedule a second
meeting for that month without a motion. That meeting will take place on the fourth
Thursday of the month, from ~ 7.'0__.__0 pm to 10.'00 pm.
~4_. If any items, not listed on the agenda prior to the start of the meeting are not completed,
and the continuance fails, then the chair will ~ move the commission for a second
monthly meeting, on the fourth Thursday of the month from ~ 7.'00 pm to lO.'OO pm.
14
January9, 1997
Park and Open Space Commission
65. All items on the agenda will be given a 15 minute time limit, at the end of fifieen minutes
· · · , the chair will immediately request a motion to_
end discussion. . . . · · '
W the ~"~- cf the ....
(Meyer was opposed to the above changes.)
·
-76__. in alphabetical order. At the end of fifteen minutes, the timekeeper will call out "Time."
EXTEND MEETING
Darling moved to extend the meeting past 10:00 until the vote on applicants
for the Commission is completed. Seconded by Botko. Carried unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION FOR P&OSC APPOINTMENT
The ballots were tabulated. The candidate with the leas___~t amount of points is the first choice.
Following are the results:
2333132=17
3111323=14
1222211=11
Mike Aspelin
Bill Johnsen
Ann Kelly
The Commission recommends Ann Kelly be appointed to fill the vacancy created by Janis Geffre
with the three year term expiring 12/31/99
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Darling, seconded by Meyer to adjourn the Park and Open space
Commission Meeting at 10:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
15
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARy 13, 1997
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Becky Glister,
Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; City
Council Representative Mark Hanus; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon
Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James.
Absent and excused were: Commissioners Michael Mueller and Bill Voss
The following people were also in attendance: Steve Goebel, Susan Goebel, Mark Reschke,
Randy Bilger, Debra Bilger, Randall Meyer, Kurt Berglund, and Frank Niesen.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1996 were presented for approval. Burma
noted a correction on page 8, 5th paragraph, the square feet per unit should be 8,600, not 5,600.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Glister, to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of December 9, 1996 as amended. Motion carried 6 to
1. Hanus abstained.
CASE 96-03:
VARIANCE EXTENSION
DAVID HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD.
PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARR OF PIP 1ST DIV, 19-117-23 13 0003
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a one
year extension of the lakeside setback variance approved by the City Council on February 27,
1996, Resolution #96-24. The dwelling and deck are proposed to be setback 18 feet from the
ordinary high water. The deck will extend 5 feet from the house.
The Zoning Ordinance allows one variance extension subject to review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the Council. The applicant must provide facts showing a good
faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance or appeal. Resolution//96-
24 was filed at Hennepin County, as required.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance extension,
subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an
mound acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structures.
b. An updated survey shall be provided that accurately details the proposed conditions and
a 32 foot setback variance to the deck.
January l3, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes
A detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface coverage
with a maximum of 40% impervious surface coverage according to Zoning Ordinance
Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. must be developed and submitted to staff for approval.
Mr. Holm was not present.
It was noted by the Commission that the front stoop, as shown on the survey, exceeds the 32
square foot minimum size in order to be allowed to project into the front setback requirement
of 20 feet.
Weiland noted that the DNR wants the houses to be in line on the lakeside.
Reifschneider verified with staff that the height of the dwelling conforms to the Ordinance.
Reifschneider questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations. It was noted that the lot
area will need to be adjusted to be measured above the elevation of 931, and therefore will be
less which will increase the percentage of hardcover proposed.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma to recommend approval
of the variance extension with the conditions recommended by staff.
Reifschneider commented that he would like to see the hardcover calculations and the survey
corrected before they allow the variance to be extended. Weiland agreed, adding that he would
like to see the stoop brought into conformance.
Clapsaddle withdrew his motion.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle to table the request for a variance extension
pending receipt of a revised survey and revised hardcover calculations which
accurately reflect what is being proposed. Burma seconded the Motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
CASE 97-01: cONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING
RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE, 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE
LOTS I - 4, 20 & 21, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, 13-117-24 44 0014
Chair Michael outlined the guidelines for public hearings.
The applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit modification to establish a major
automobile repair facility at 4831 Shoreline Drive which has previously been approved as a
minor automobile repair facility. The difference between major and minor auto repair facilities
is that major accommodates removal of engines, transmissions, etc. where minor relates to
repairs not requiring removal of such items. Minor auto repair is also limited to passenger
automobiles and trucks not in excess of 7,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. According to the
application, Randy's Automotive intends to only service automobiles and light trucks.
i . i Il I Ii. I,, Ill
Planning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1997
Presently, Conditional Use Permit Resolution//95-79 governs the use of the site. The permit
allows minor auto repair, tire repair, valve jobs, service maintenance, gas welding and an open
sales lot limited to 10 vehicles, 7 of which must be stored outside of the fence. The operator
of Randy's Automotive is not proposing to sell vehicles on the property.
Staff is not apprehensive about the use of the building as a major repair facility but will continue
to have concerns about the overall appearance of the property since it is at one of the key entry
points into the City of Mound.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a conditional use
permit for Randy's Automotive as a Major Automobile Repair facility subject to the following
conditions.
Allowable repairs shall include those defined by the Mound Zoning Code as major and
minor automobile repairs including but not limited to engine and transmission repair and
replacement, tire repair, and service maintenance.
The sale of any vehicles on the property is expressly prohibited.
All signage on the property shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. No sign shall
be placed on any fencing.
Because of the limited interior garage capacity of the existing structure, vehicles allowed
to be repaired and parked on the site shall be limited to currently licensed automobiles,
vans and light trucks. Repairs or parking on the premises of dual axle commercial
trucks, semi tractors and/or trailers, buses, motor homes and similarly sized vehicles is
expressly prohibited.
o
o
The total number of vehicles parked on the site outside of the fence area shall be limited
to a maximum of 15, not including one vehicle per employee working on the premises.
Vehicles parked within the fence enclosure shall be limited to vehicles awaiting service.
The parking and storage of wrecked, junk or abandoned vehicles or vehicles being
retained as parts sources within or outside of the fence enclosure is expressly prohibited.
Storage of discarded parts and/or refuse shall be limited to properly screened dumpster
locations. Parks currently being used for the repair of vehicles shall be stored within the
building or within the fenced enclosure on the property.
The property shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Worn or broken fencing
shall be replaced immediately.
Gates on the existing fence shall be closed at all times except when transferring vehicles
into or out of the enclosed area.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1997
10.
11.
Boat storage or repair on the premises is expressly prohibited.
This conditional use permit shall be reviewed annually.
Staff recognized that the applicant was present.
Clapsaddle confirmed that the property is owned by the same individual when the previous
request was reviewed, Robert Williams. Clapsaddle expressed concern regarding the appearance
of the property and the lack of support from the owner relating to the maintenance of the
property.
Weiland commented that he talked with the new tenant and feels he should be given the chance
to make the business work. He is in favor of condition #11 requiring the permit be reviewed
annually.
There was discussion questioning whether all previous conditional use permits on this property
will become null and void with the approval of a new permit. Staff noted that they will verify
with the City Attorney prior to this case going to the Council if a condition needs to be added
to clarify that all previous permit will not longer be valid.
Hanus noted that if there are permit violations, the permit can be revoked. Sutherland noted that
due to noncompliance, the previous permit was on the verge of being brought back through the
council to consider revocation.
The Building Official confirmed that the applicant is currently operating in compliance with the
existing conditional use permit.
The underground gasoline tanks and the possibility of contaminated soil was discussed.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Debbie Bilger, the applicant's wife, stated that they know the history of the building. They
intend to run a nice family business and clean up the property. They want the property to look
nice so people will want to use their business. After a year they will have the option to buy the
property and they hope this will happen. The owner has informed them that he is responsible
to have the gas pumps and tank removed. They want to run a respectable clean business.
Applicant, Randy Bilger, resident of 1530 North Arm Drive stated that he understands the
concerns of the Commission because he has lived in this area all his life a agrees that the
property has been an eyesore. They have already spent time and money on cleaning and fixing
up the property. They have already removed 11 or 12 cars, there is only one car left, but it is
frozen-in, and they have removed other debris also. As soon as weather permits, they intend
to repaint the building, and they would like the chance to prove that they can do it.
Frank Niesen, resident at 6565 Bartlett Blvd. stated that he has subleased property to Randy in
the past and he took very good care of the property and ran a clean business.
Planning Commission Minutes
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
January 13, 1997
Weiland suggested that condition//5 be changed to reduce the number of Vehicles allowed to be
parked on the site because he does not feel this business will need that many spaces.
Weiland suggested that condition gl 1 be strengthened to require that the permit be reviewed by
the Planning Commission and Council annually.
Clapsaddle commented that he would like to owner responsible for these conditions, not the
applicant.
Hanus suggested that they grant a one year temporary conditional use permit, the same way they
did with Glass Plus, and allow the permit to be reissued in one year with no additional fee.
Hanus questioned if the applicant would be comfortable with reducing the number of vehicles
allowed to be parked on the site outside of the fenced area from 15 to 10. Mr. Bilger agreed
that this is okay, and commented that there is not enough room to park 15 cars on the site.
Bilger noted that he understands that the PCA demands all abandoned gas tanks to be removed
by 1998, and they will not purchase the property until the tanks are removed, and the OWner has
promised to do this.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend
approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Randy's Automotive, as
recommended by staff, with amendments to the conditions, as follows:
3. All signage on the property shall comply with the Mound Sign
Ordinance.
· ~]l!
t- ..... on any. ..... &..
5. The total number of vehicles parked on the site outside of the
fence area shall be limited to a maximum of t-5 10, not
including one vehicle per employee working on the premises.
11. This conditional use permit shall ex_~ire one year from the dat~e
_of issuance and thcre should be no fee for reapplication be
rev'.'c-,c~ ...... ,,
All revious conditional use ermits a roved for this ro ert
shall become null and void with the issuance of this conditiona_l
MOTION carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on February 11, 1997.
Planning Commission Minutes
Janua~ 13, 1997
CASE 97-02:
VACATION OF OXFORD LANE - PUBLIC HEARING
MARK RESCHKE, 4737 ABERDEEN ROAD
LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 5, DEVON, 30-117-23 22 0036
The Building Official handed out a copy of an anonymous letter received from a concerned area
land owner who requested the City of Mound not to vacate the right-of-way.
The Building Official reviewed the recommendation from the City Engineer, the utility
companies and the other City departments who responded. The City does not have utilities
located in this section of Oxford Lane. The engineer has a concern with the undeveloped lots
in Block 9 which, if they are ever developed, water and sanitary sewer could be extended from
the end of the mains on Hanover Road. Hanover Road could be extended to provide access for
these parcels; however it is already a dead end street almost 400 feet long with no turn around
whatsoever. This portion of Oxford Lane could provide another exit, thus eliminating the
existing dead end street.
The Building Off'xcial discussed this case with the City Planner who is in agreement with the
Engineer's comment that State Statute requires that a street vacation be in the best interest of the
public, and with the potential for future development and elimination of a dead end street,
approval is not recommended.
The secretary informed the Commission that the Park Commission recommended denial of the
street vacation because they did not feel it was in the public's best interest.
The applicant, Mark Reschke responded to the allegations made in the anonymous letter that he
is operating a commercial type business from his garage. He stated that he does wood carving
with chain saws, as a hobby, he is an artist. The Building Offxcial stated that the applicant
stores wood on the unimproved right-of-way, however, there is no history of complaints being
made regarding this activity.
Chair Michael opened public hearing
The applicant, Mark Reschke stated that he has lived at this residence for nine years and the
driveway he uses which is located on Oxford Lane was there before he purchased the property.
He stated that the vacant lots in Block 9 can be accessed by Hanover, and feels that if Oxford
were improved it would create a traffic hazard when exiting onto Aberdeen. He noted that his
house is only five feet from Oxford, and he would not want to see Oxford improved.
Reifschneider noted that the vacation would make the house more conforming.
Hanus commented that it appears it would be more practical to extend Hanover all the way to
Devon, and if this is the case he may lean towards supporting the vacation.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
The option of improving Hanover was discussed. Weiland commented, if it isn't in the best
interest of the public to vacate the street, and there is no dire need for it to be vacated, he would
6
Planning Commission Minutes
be opposed to the request.
January 13, 1997
MOTION made by We/land, seconded by Burma to recommend denial of the
request to vacate Oxford Lane as it is not a necessity that it be vacated, and
it is not in the best interest of the general public. Motion carried 4-2-1.
Those in favor were: Weiland, Burma, Reifschneider and Glister. Those
opposed were: Michael and Clapsaddle. Hanus abstained.
This case will by heard by the City Council on February 11, 1997.
CASE 97-03: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING
FRANK NIESEN, 5300 LYNWOOD BLVD.
LOTS 18, 19, 20 & p/21, BLK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PK, 13-117-24 34 0089
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report.
variances to construct a new one level home on an existing vacant lot.
are:
The applicant is seeking
The requested variances
REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE
Front Yard (Lynwood) 20' 10' 10'
Front Yard (Centerview) 20' 18' 2'
The subject lot is more difficult to develop than a standardresidential lot because of the
existence of two street frontages and because of the right-of-way that was established by the tax
forfeit property. Despite these constraints, the lot has a substantial buildable area which could
accommodate a conforming house with a different footprint.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances
since a conforming structure would be built on the lot. If the Planning Commission feels that
the proposed request is appropriate, it would have to determine that this case includes "practical
difficulties" and it would need to state a series of findings that would support such a conclusion.
Applicant, Frank Niesen, explained to the Commission that he needs a home with a three stall
garage, and he has already by the modular home so he cannot change the house plan. They
want a house without stairs.
Hanus asked if the Building Official has worked with the applicant. Options for a detached
garage were discussed. The applicant wants an attached garage.
MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Glister, to recommend denial of the
variance request, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on January 28, 1997.
7
Janua~ 13, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes
CASE 97-04:
VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION
STEVE & SUSAN GOEBEL, 1761 SHOREWOOD LANE
LOT 11 & P/10 & 12, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, 13-117-24 11 0028
Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applica~,t is seeking
approval of variances to allow construction of a 34' x 44' garage addition and a x 16' front
deck.
Side Yard
Lot Size
Front Yard (deck)
EXISTING/
REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE
8' -.2' 8.2'
10,000 sf 9,817 sf 183 sf
30' 29' +/- 1' +/-
An appendage on the northwest side of the existing home encroaches .2 feet onto the neighboring
property. If this appendage were removed, the home would conform to the required 8 foot side
yard setback, and reducing the size of the entrance deck from 6 feet to 5 feet would alleviate
the necessity of granting a front yard variance.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a lot area variance to
allow the remodeling of the existing home subject to the following conditions:
1. The size of the entry deck shall be reduced so that the property observes the required 30
foot front yard setback.
2. The northwest portion of the home shall be removed so that the property observes the
required 8 foot side yard setback.
The applicant stated that he has no problem conforming to the conditions as recommended by
staff.
The Building Official commented that if the applicant complies with these conditions, the
variance may not be necessary as the request may qualify to be streamlined under the recent
ordinance amendment.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend
approval of the lot size variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORK RULES FOR 1997
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Wetland to approve the Work
Rules. Motion carried unanimously.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
January l3, 1997
Hanus questioned if they should delete 2.d. which states that special assignment areas shall be
"Community Development Committee." The secretary noted that this was discussed last year
and it was determined to leave it as is.
Hanus noted two corrections to #B.2., "All public hearings shall be held at t-he City Hall and.
All meeting shall be called at 7:30 p.m. and shall conclude no later than a~ 11:00 p.m. unless
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES FOR 1997
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister to approve the 1997
Planning Commission Meeting Dates as presented, with the following
exceptions:
Due to a conflict with Memorial Day, the Commission will
review in April if they need to reschedule the May 26 meeting.
There will be no meeting on December 22.
Motion carried unanimously.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1997: CHAIR & VICE CHAIR
Clapsaddle nominated reelection of the current Chair and Vice-Chair. Weiland seconded the
nomination and moved to close the nominations.
Chair Geoff Michael and Vice-Chair Michael Mueller were unanimously reelected as Officers
for 1997.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
The permit fee increases were briefly discussed.
ADJOUR_NMENT
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the meeting
at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Attest:
Chair, Geoff Michael
9
· RECEIVES
Attention Minneapoli
Route 75 Customers
Schedule changes begin Saturday, Jan. 25
Effective Saturday, Jan. 25, several departure times for Route 75 buses will change to
better match traffic conditions. Most trips will stay on 1-394 west of.Plymouth Rd.
(bypassing the south frontage road) to improve travel times. The changes, are as follows:
Weekday. Service
· Most downtown-bound buses will leave the Plymouth Rd. Transit Center, Ridgedale
and the County Rd. 73 Park & Ride l°t one to three minutes EARLIER.
· All trips from downtown will leave two minutes'EARLIER, except trips leaving
between 4 and 6 p.m.
· Trips 'from downtown will arrive at Crosby Rd. at 7:35 a.m, 8:05 a.m. and
8':35 a.m. Trips to downtown will leave Crosby Rd. at 3:54 p.m. and at 4i53 p.m.
· All other trips will stay on 1-394 between Hwy. 101 and Plymouth Rd.
SaturdaY Service .
· Buses to downtown will leave tWo t° five minutes' EARLIER, buses exiting
downtown will leave two minutes EARLIER but arrive at the Plymouth Rd.
Transit Center three minutes LATER.
· All trips will stay on 1-394 between Hwy. 101 and Plymouth Rd.
Sunday/Holiday
Service
Buses will serve the Plymouth Rd. Transit Center.
· Trips to downtown will leave Wayzata one minute EARLIER. Departure times
between Ridgedale and the General Mills Park & Ride lot'will be one to two
minutes LATER.
· Buses from downtown will arrive at the stops between the General Mills and
County Rd. 73 Park& Ride lots one minute EARLIER.
· Buses from downtown will bypass Superior Blvd. and Lake St. on their way to the
Wayzata Park & Ride lot. Buses traveling to downtown will continue tO follow
Barry, Lake St. and Superior Blvd.
· All trips will stay on 1-394 between Hwy. 101 and Plymouth Rd.
Inside this alert are revised schedule times and a map that shows the remaining service
between the Plymouth Rd. Transit Center and Hwy. 101. Updated bus schedules for this
route currently are being printed and will be available beginning Jan. 22 from your
driver and at any MCTO Transit Store.
Thank you for riding with us.
jd/sf
1116/97
Metropolitan Council
Transit Operations
Customer Relations 373-3333
Canary Bad WI/- CoRd Way. Supe Way. PI~- SnMhShelafd Fot'd Gen- Gen. 12th 7th 2nd
& 3 -left Mound shire 15 zafa -riot z31a mou~ Lot PI~. Rd. & eral Milts -lan~ and St. & Ave.
Poinls CoRd Posf Bait Dun- Park and and Tran~. RMge Co. 73 NaiVe Fo~d Mills Park Herin 2nd aAd
ann4
Gate
- ' -~OP Count, Roa~l I .... .
~ ~h~e & B~leff 6~l ~M ......... ~and Hh~e O~ to flenn
e._,., ~.~ ~. ~ee ~ from do~t .~m A~ue.
x Th~ ~ ~n~t at Louffsiana A e~ hmes.
+ Wa~ from 6~7 to s.-, ,.. ~nu T~s~ ~nt~
' ' -'~ ~. ~n~ W' '
~ ~<m 7~7 to 7:11 ~j ~ ..... ~? ~ ~r~s due 6:40 .~
= w~ from 7~7 to 7'41 ~' ~= w~t. ,~ ~r~= due 7:10 ~'
' ' ' ~ W~h 75 ~r~ due 7:40 ~'
~nn~ ~ ~ lmm Bereft and Coun~ R~d 44.
an Duo- Park and Tm I~/, Mills -lana
~U' ":~e Lake ~. -dale .... · T~.
~ -~'.= r~H bne &Ride ~
5 735 ~ ~6 7~ 7~ 7 ~ ~ ~
..... i141 ~ ' .... 11~ 1116 1 ~ ~u~ I~0
7b m PM PM '~]U 1.23 122
~ 1~ 116 ... rm
75 ~ 141 ~ 145 15 119 123
2~ 9 201 128 I~
7 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 316 319 2__ ,~
5 4~ 43 S 359 401 4~ 323 328 ~
~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ 516 51 ~
75 ~ ~ ~S Ssg ~i 9 523 528 ~
,u~b 1019 1023 1028 I~
Sati
12th 7Ih 2Ad
.',"In '"'
no and -way
~ V~ ~sh R
~ ,o /48
· ~o 114
~ i~qj I; 16 124fl
~ 4a 1, 5 14
3
~ ~ ~8
/~ 74 748
~ ~3~ ~
Friday
Gate Wash. 111~
R~' ManI. Hsrmoo
459 .503 510
539 543 550
609 613 620
638 642 65O
707 711 720
737 741 750
806 810 819
836 640 649
906 910 919
1006 1010 .1019
1106 1110 1119
PM PM PM
1206 1210
106 110
206 210
226 23O
306 310
332 337
~ 342
359 407 ~
406 416 426
429 437 ~
432 442 452
502 512 522
1008 1012 1020
~'~?l: - -,to 75E Fa~llss - NON-STOP Harmon Place to Count'/Road 15 and HiP. side Drive.
~ar' tepid to Commerce Boulevard to County Road 15.
'~ fr, .$ to 5:23 PM. connects with Route 75E due 5:20 PM.
t~ from 5:45 to 5:53 PM. connects with Route 75E due 5:50 PM.
;e buses connect at Lou}siana Avenue Transit Centa'.
~ect$ with Route 75S.
Louis Gen. Gen- Ford Shelard Nodh South Ply- Way- Sope Way- CoRd WII- Bad' Calaly
-iaaa Mills ertl Rd. & PIofrf. Lot Lot mouth zata -dof zata 15 shill Mound -hi &3
[cans. Park Mills Ford Nathan Co. 73 Co. 73 Ridge Trans. and and Park Omi- Bad Pod CoRd I~
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM A~ ~m 448 '454 457
~ ~ 526 530 ~ 632 ~ 635
519 521 ~ ~ ~ ...... 606 --~'~ 614 627
559 60!
701 703
81~ 8a ~ ~_ ~,~.~ .... ~, _- ~
so1 ~03 sos 014 ---- __ .,. ~---- e20 ----
~ .... 037 841 Mz ~3
1030 1032
~ 1132
~ 13o 132 -__~_ ~ ...... 235 .... 240 ~ -- ~ -- 311
~ 230 232 3ol ~1 ~_ .........
2-~ 250 252 257 ---- 339 349 403 .'---- 408 ---- 411
346 357 359 - 404 .... 42' 435 ---- 440'---- 443 ·
~ 402 404 ---- ~6 440 441 445 4~ .... 501 +523 528 -~9 ~ 502
~ 501 506 510 511 515 523---- 531 558 ~ ~ 528
~ ~,16 629 628----~ ~, .....
~ ~ 637 641
~ ~ ~ 841 842 e46 854 -~-- 901 9o3 97 --
~ ~ ~7 941
1030 1032 .... 1037 I041.___~1042 1046 lU~4 ---- ~u~ ,~ ....
AM
609
709
807
9O7
1007
1107
PM
1207
107
207
3O7
407
5O7
607
708
809
909
AM AM AM AM AM AM
~713 730 ~ 737 740741 z44 f~J ~ ~ ~ -" ~ ~ ~ '
911 63O 932
10 1~! 1215 1~ 1223 1~8
PM PM 1245 12~ 1~ 1~ 116 ~ 121 ~ 124
21~ 2~9 ~ ~7 240 24~ 245 2~ ~ ~ 3~6 ---- 3~ ~ 324
3~ 319 ~0 ~2 ........ ,~ 4~ 524
411 419 4~ 432 ~z 44u al ~ 3 628
~ 530 21 ---- 724
-- ~ 1 ~5 ~ 7~ 7~ 716----7
611 619 6~ ~ ~0
~ 7~ ~ ~ 740 74~~
813 821 830 ~2 ~7 ~0
el~pu.~e5
'e^v
'~o!./e~ ~
punoi~l O.L
qlnos- LO L.~H
· .. fieW ue~eqe6p!ti/le6de
'JG eFepe§p!~
.-'ae~,tueO elepe6p!l
m
'PI:! qlnotu/[id
eue'-i
uG elepeBpj~
-CZ 'PEi 'o0
sU°deeuuuN
COMMONS TASK FORCE
PRESENTATION TO
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 1996
II.
III.
IV.
TIMELINE OF TASK FORCE EFFORTS
SHARED DOCK POLICY RECOMMENDATION
MULTIPLE BOAT-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
LAKESHORE COMMONS ENCROACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION
Ao
Bo
Ce
POLICY RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO DECISION FLOW CHART (AS rr
APPLIES TO LAKESHORE COMMONS)
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE MANUAL CHANGES (EXHIBIT J)
Commons Task Force
Commons Task Force Recommendations to Mound Council
November 25, 1996
Outline For Presentation to Mound Council
Task Force formed by Council Resolution 95-37 on March 28, 1995.
1. Task force established to look at the Commons that are applied to the Docks
Program to identify the frustrations and irritations that are being experienced by the users
of the program.
2. The task force would have the responsibility of making recommendations to
the City Council for consideration on how the existing Dock Program could be improved.
B. Task Force held 26 meetings from May-December of 1995.
1. Task Force developed a list of issues for three groups of people that have
similar desires/concerns regarding lake shere commons. Task Force toured the majority
commons lake shore during the Summer months. In July, a mailing was sent to all
commons dock site holders soliciting their input.
2. Three separate surveys were developed by Task Force. In October, 100 % of
all abutter(181), 100 % of all nonabutting dock site holders (320), and 550 surveys were
sent on a random bases to citizens at large.
3. Surveys were tabulated and recommendations were formulated based on survey
results. Sixty-five(65) percent of abutters, fifty-seven(57) percent of non-abutters, and
fifteen percent of citizens at large responded to the survey.
Survey results and recommendations presented by Task Force to City Council on January
9, 1996.
1. 87% on nonabutters expressed satisfaction with program. 51% of abutting
dock holders expressed dissatisfaction with the program. Response for citizens at large
was low and the sum of the results were inconclusive.
2. Task Force concluded fi-om the surveys that inexpensive boat dockage is
very important to most dock holders. Being with walking distance to dock site was very
important to nonabutters. Abutting dock holder sited that docks are too close together in
some areas and that many abutters were uncomfortable with having nonabutting docks in
front of their homes. There was a desire on the part of ~butters to keep private structures
and they were willing to take responsibility for the structures on commons. Some
commons have more problems than others(e.g. Devon, Wawonaissa).
3. To improve the level of satisfaction of abutters without lowering the
satisfaction levels of nonabutters, the Task Force made the following recommendations:
a. Maintain the total number of boats participating in the dock program, Keep
nonabutter boats within wal .king distance from their homes.
b. Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in from of some abutter's homes,
recognizing that some commons have more problems than others due to topography
and/or tight quarters. Encourage increased shared dock usage. Explore creating small
multiple boat dock complexes (about 6 boats) at neighborhood locations within walking
distance. Explore creating multiple boat dock complexes where possible, at public park
locations without infringing on existing usage.
c. Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the Shore land
Management Ordinance is justified only where nonabutting users are hindered by an
encroachment's existence. The flow chart should be amended, and then the ordinance
amended according to the flow chart to increase the number of years for which a permit is
valid from "3 years" to 'for the life of the structure". Encroachments should be regulated
by the Shore land Management Ordinance, the same as structures on private prope~rty.
The ownership/responsibility of these encroachments may need to be clarified by the City
Attorney.
d. The topography of some commons areas cause significant backyard privacy and
visual impact problems. Large boats (e.g. cabin cruisers), boat canopies, and winter
storage needs to be limited in those areas.
e. Explore establishing neighborhood associations or committees to work out
problems specific to their commons.
f. Direct the Task Force to work with city staff.to make implementation
recommendations for specific commons areas with problems.
g. Communicate with the public to increase understanding and give opportunity
for additional dialogue through open forums, newspaper articles and through the city
newspaper.
Mound Council takes action on recommendations from Task Force after February
20 th Committee of the Whole meeting.
I. Council accepted Task Force recommendations. Council directed Task Force to
continue their work as a task force and to work with city staffto make implementation
recommendation for specific commons areas with problems.
Eo
Go
According to survey, Devon Commons had the highest level of dissatisfaction among all
abutters in the Commons dock program. On Devon Commons, 75% of abutters were
dissatisfied with having nonabutter docks in front of their homes and 75% felt that dock
spacing was to close. The Task Force looked at the Pembroke access to Devon Commons
as a potential cite for a pilot multiple dock location due to the closeness of the houses to
the commons, the close spacing of the docks on the commons and the general
dissatisfaction of the dock p~:ogram among the abutters in this area.
Task Force developed a plan to place a multiple dock for 7 nonabutting dock site holders
at the Pembroke Beach access to Devon Commons. The Task Force presented the
multiple dock proposal to the Mound Council on April 9, 1996. The council authorized
the purchase of the dock for the 1996 Summer boating season. On Saturday, April 20, the
Task Force, city officials, and the affected dock holders on Devon Commons meet to
discuss the pilot project for the multiple dock system. The dock was installed mid May.
A follow up meeting was held with multiple slip dock complex users and affected abutting
property owners at the Sept. 19 Task Force meeting. The overall reaction to the pilot
project was favorable. Comments were made that the inside dock slips were too shallow
and maneuvering into them was difficult. Dock configuration needs to change to improve
the accessibility of three of the slips. We did have an unusual Summer this year in that the
lake level dropped a foot and one half. Vandalism was about the same as when boats
were at individual docks. A security light was installed by the city at the multiple dock
and was appreciated by the dock users. Trespassing was a little more than previous years
of individual docks. More kids using the docks for fishing. Some neighborhood people
consider it a municipal dock open to everyone. A no trespassing sign was installed during
the middle of the Summer too cut down on the trespassing problem. Abutting
homeowners expressed appreciation for reducing the number of docks in the
neighborhood. In conclusion, the nonabutting dock site holders were comfortable with
continuing the multiple slip dock program at Pembroke Beach access. There is a need to
reconfigure the dock so that all slips are easily accessible. Consideration should be given
to placing a gate at the entrance to the dock to restrict the dock to permit holders and
their guests.
Task Force prepared recommendations to make the Pembroke Beach access to Devon
Commons multiple dock slip permanent. They also developed implementation plans and
criteria to used in selecting other locations for additional multiple dock slips. See exhibit
A.
The Task Force made recommendations for share of docks that would allow the
participants to place their original site on hold for their future use. See exhibit B.
The Task Force also made recommendation related to encroachment that coincides with
the original recommendations made to the City Council in January of 1996. See exhibit C.
Iii ,i III J ,J il, J ,1~, ,
C'
SHARED DOCK PROPOSAL
Draft September 5. 1996
Enable commons dock users to combine onto single dock while still
applying and paying for their existing dock sites:
OBJECTIVES:
- Reduce dock density.
- Reduce amount of dock in/out labor for dock site holders.
- Reduce number of docks in front of abutter's property.
- Enable people to share docks without loss of permit rights.
PROGRAM:
- Two or more dock site holders can share one dock.
Ail parties would maintain their "primary" dock site holder
status. The next year they would all maintain their status as
dock site holders.
Dock sites without a dock due to shared usage would not be given
out to others for use.
Permit holders will continue to pay the full dock fee in order to
maintain their primary permit holder status.
Commons Task Force
Proposed Multiple-slip Dock Program
Drafted:
November 7, 1996
November 25, 1996
November 26, 1996
Review of underlying objectives for Commons Dock Program.
Maintain total number of boats participating in the
commons dock program.
Keep nonabutter boats within walking distance from
their homes.
Recognize that some commons have more problems than
others due to topography and/or tight quarters.
Work to improve abutter's "sense of privacy" without
affecting nonabutters use of the lakeshore commons.
Multiple-slip dock objectives.
To improve the level of satisfaction with the commons
dock program by reducing or eliminating the number of
dock sites in front of abutter's homes.
Reduce nonabutter cost by providing permits for boat
slips that do not require them to have their own docks.
3. Improved shoreline appearance and reduced congestion.
Criteria for considering an area for a multiple-slip dock.
High level of dissatisfaction with current commons
program. Use November 8, 1995 tabulation of commons
survey satisfaction levels as a basis for proceeding.
First priority (based on dissatisfaction level) is
Devon Commons.
2. Shoreline dock congestion.
Topography/tight quarters: Houses close to the water
and/or at eye level with the water.
I1~ J ia ,I ,Il ,~i~,, · ii 4 ,
'Commons Task Force
Proposed Multiple-slip Dock Program
November 26, 1996, Draft
p. 2of3
De
A significant percent of dock site holders interested
in or willing to try a multiple-slip dock.
®
Existence of a logical location for a multiple-slip
dock in that area:
a. Convenient access.
b. No undue burden on adjacent abutting homes.
Implementation steps.
Relocate dock holders to a commons user-fee supported
and maintained multiple-slip dock. This will be
accomplished by placing multiple docks at the ends of
fire lanes, street ends, and other locations that are
not directly in front of an abutter's property.
The City will be the trustee and manager of the
multiple-slip dock system.
Being that the Pembroke multiple dock pilot project was
a successful program in 1996, make the Pembroke
multiple dock a permanent program with a suggested
long-term goal maximum of seven twenty-four foot dock
slips.
When an individual dock site permit holder moves to a
multiple-slip dock, that individual dock site will no
longer be used as a dock location.
The multiple-slip dock is to be used for ingress and
egress by the dock permit holders and their guests
only. This is needed for boat security and user safety
for the permit holders.
Where possible, leave room for a visitor boat.
visiting would be limited to three days.
Measure the outcome: Measure dock holder's
satisfaction with dock program, dock spacing between
docks, privacy, etc.
Use Plan for Public Lands issues to review that will affect
the multiple-slip dock.
what is the total number of boat storage units that the
system needs to and can support:
a. throughout the program.
b. In this area?
Commons Task Force
Proposed Hultiple-slip Dock Program
November 26, 1996, Draft
p. 3 of 3
Does the topography of this particular area require any
restrictions on nonabutter boat sizes, or other things
that would unduly impact abutting homeowners and/or
nonabutting dock holders?
Installation and transition issues·
If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move to the
multiple slip dock:
a. Keep changes on a voluntary basis.
b®
Keep nonabutters within walking distance of their
homes.
Solutions: Move the permit to the multiple-slip dock
when the permit holder leaves the program, and no
longer use that individual dock site. If a "share"
exists, they cannot assume that dock site. Attempt to
accommodate that "share" at the multiple-slip dock.
What if a dock site holder has more than one boat and
therefore wants more than one slip at the multiple-slip
dock?
The multiple-slip dock can only financially
support one boat slip per permit holder.
Solution: Leave the permit holder at his/her own dock
site. When the permit holder either chooses to join
the multiple-slip dock, or leaves the program, then
move the dock site to the multiple-slip dock and no
longer use the individual's dock site.
Secondary benefit: Limiting the multiple-slip permit
holders to one BSU gives more flexibility for allowing
the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat
while still maintaining the number of participants and
stay within LMCD BSU limits.
When an area is targeted to have a specific number of
BSU's at the multiple-slip dock, yet some of the
targeted dock site holders don't move to the multiple-
slip dock, do as follows. Create the multiple-slip
dock with slips only for those that move to it from
targeted dock sites. Then expand the number of slips
over time as the remaining dock sites are consolidated
onto the multiple-slip dock.
Dock fees: No surcharges are recommended based on the
commons dock fund financial projections, the proposed
multiple-slip dock system is fully funded with current
fees.
Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal
Drafted 7/26/96
Rev. 8/15/96
Rev. 9/5/96
Key Factors.
a. Encroaching structures existed before rules restricting them existed.
The City's mandate regarding existing encroachments is as follows: The
Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may
deem advisable to protect Mound resident use of the commons shoreline.
The City must justify actions that harm individual citizens by showing a
greater good.
de
The City has a responsibility to monitor encroachments to confirm that they
do not hinder Mound resident use of commons and that they are safe.
Commons Task Force Recommendation.
The onus is on the City to show that there are sufficient use hindrances or
safety problems to justify taking actions beyond those that would involve
structures on private lakeshore.
Five year permit renewals are justified to aid the City in monitoring the
encroachments.
Ce
Rules governing maintenance of encroaching structures should be consistent
with the Shoreland Management Ordinance and no more restrictive than all
other shoreline within the City unless use hindrance or safety issues exist.
Reduce the level of permit renewal authority needed. The objectives are to
1) lessen the "hassle" felt by the abutter in straight-forward renewal
situations, and 2) reduce the politicalization of renewals:
Give City staff authority to renew permits unless additional
hindrance or safety issues arise.
Write detailed rules under which staff must go to the Park
Commission/Council before renewing a permit.
eo
Abutters should be made legally responsible for their encroaching structure
through the use of legal encumbrances or other means.
Iq
Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal
Rev. 9/5/96
Page 2
Issues to discuss.
a. Transferability.
b. Definition of use hindrance, safety hazard.
c. Allowable maintenance without permit.
d. Request to Council to review steps required for implementation of
recommendation.
Definition of Hindrance: An encroaching structure that significantly inhibits Mound
resident use of this commons where the encroaching structure exists.
PROPOSED REVISIONS
COMMONS TASK FORCE
11-7-96
(AS IT APPLIES TO LAKESHORE COMMONS)
DECISION FLOW CHART
Adopted b~ Resolution J93-5~ on~p~il 27, ~993
IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE
STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS
(REGULATED BY CITY CODE SECTION 320)
HOTEl All permits granted are for a
limited time, ara transferable, end
the structure must meet City
guidelines for renewal of Public
Land permits (Exhibit J in the
Procedure Manual}. ..
RECEIVE "PUBLIC LAND
PERMIT APPLICATION"
I (9)
.... Will the [ ' {WILL THE REQUEST (10)
R~'"~st .%W~_( Request [ } ENHANCE AND ENCOURAGE
qu ~'--'~'~'~esult ~NO { THE USE OF THE PUBLIC
mn · negative['~------[LANDS BY THE GENERAL
t~:ag:.°~lan?] {PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY
Orant permit up to
five years and renewable.
SHOULD THE CITY ~1)
BUILD OR MAINTAIN?
d. S~cfu~ }ikebo~o~, ~afio~,$he~,~ {'DOES REQUEST INVOLV~(2)
mil NO~~G U~. It ~ ~e i~ City { A STRUCTURE OR
tobfin{nll~~nfo~m~t {BUILDING ~T IS {YES
tho~st~tumwillat~fut~veto~ {ATTACHED ~ ~
~ov~ f~~ ~~nt~ ~
[~ISTING ~SIDENCET J
for ~~m mm{mmfmbl~ md ~{ ~
DOES PROPOS~ I~ROV~E~
~QUIRE ~PROVAL FROM
~OTHER AGEN~T IF YES,
RECEIVE APPROVE ~OM AGENCY
~EN PROCEED.
- CONSTRUCTION ON ~(4)
PUBLIC ~DS (new)
- ~ND ETE~TION
(grading, r~ining
wall~, tr.~, ~.)
HOUSE OR OTHER
REQUEST. YES BUILDING?
{ ~ YES
YES
DENY REQUEST.
DEVELOP PLAN
ACCORDING TO
PRIORITIES.
(1,3[
(14)
1 (3)
SEPARATE
LEGAL REVIEW
IS REQUIRED.
(3.5)
EXISTING
NANCE (repair exist-
ing structure)
CONTINUATION OF
STRUCTURE (to remain
"as is")
EN~NCE MD ENCOU~GE
THE USE OF THE PUBLIC
LAmS BY ~E GENE~L
PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY
THE USE PLAN?
(5)
NO
u; ............. [(12)[ IS the negative impact{
.......... Wv. oz ] [ on the Use plan [
RESULT IN A {¥~J substantiel enough
NEGATIVE IMPACT ~ to override the I
ON THE USE PLAN? [ I negative imp. act on.
· [ ] the owner oz removes9 |
[ [ the structure?
YE~S AND ~N~ABLE, ~ }YEARS, NOT RENEWABLE. [
CONTINGE~ UPON USE [ [
PE~IT IS T~S~BLE.I
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Exhibit J
Page 1 of 3
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits
Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances, regulations, and policies,
including:
Use Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200)
"Policy for Structures on Public Lands" adopted by Resolution No. 93-142 on October
26, 1993
Recommendations for permissible uses, according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as stairways,
retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following:
If a structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to
the City Council permit approval for 5 years.
b. & c.: Use a means of enforcement other than witholding dock permits. Instead, use fines, liens,
special assessments, etc. (Abutters need to be made legally responsible for their encroachments).
If a structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend
approval and the structure must comply with code within the time specified by the City
Council and dock permit will not be issued until structure meets code. If structure is not
corrected or removed within time specified by City Council that dock site will be exempt
from dock license issuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct
the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal
channels.
If a structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction
immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets
code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is
corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license.
Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable
regulations shall be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Buildings or other structure may require separate legal review, and the following information
should be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft
report. This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review,
when necessary.
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96
.PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 2 of 3
4. Stairways:
New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform
Building Code standards for residential stairways.
Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this
Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise
unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal
nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures,
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.
Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any
stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided
the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway.
Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. All stairways, both existing and new,
and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the
permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance. ~': ..... : ........ c .......... 4-,_
,,,;4.1,~..+ ..... :+ T,,.4. .... 4- k~,,~ ~,-~ ......... ~1 ~- ~{.,~ ,Il; .... ~-;~ ~' ~-1.~ ~ ..........
.~,, ......... ;:p~r~. The City shah inspect aud approve such repairs where .
building permit is required.
Minor Maintenance of Stiarways and Ohter Structures. Minor maintenance of any
currently permitted stiarwa¥, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can and
should be done at the discretion of the homeowner or upon the direction of the
Building Official. Parks Director or Dock Inspector.
Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by
the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal.
Electrical: All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a
qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical
Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan
must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land.
All power supply to from the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical
contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify
disconnection with staff. Pre-existing electrical installations that do not meet code shall be
eiven thirty (30) days to be brought up to code.
Expiration Date for Permits:
concurrently.
All permits, for each property, will be made to expire
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 3 of 3
e
Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted encroachments enisfing
by can and should be made (without a public land permit) at the discretion of the permit
holder or upon the direction of the Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The
Dock Inspector currently writes correction orders for minor items such as loose treads,
handrails, or replacement of boards on docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all
correction orders regarding building code items.
Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8',
consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class
A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility.
e
Riprap; Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 100 year floodplain
elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the
Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources.
Permits are required from these agencies before a Public Lands Permit can be granted by the
City of Mound.
10.
Seawalls: Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management
Ordinance for more regulations.
11. Vegetation Alterations and Trimming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisione 11-26-96
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
TERMINATING THE WEST HENNEPIN HUM.a~N SERVICES
PLANNING BOARD (SUBURBAN ALLIANCE)
WHEREAS, several cities in western Henncpin County entered into a joint powers
agreement datcd July 5, 1973 ("the Agreement") to create the West Hennepin Human Services
Planning Board ("the Board"), also known as "Suburban Alliance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has participated in the activities of Suburban alliance from
time to time; and
~fHEREA$, the Board has operated since 1973 to provide human services planning and
coordination for the western portion of Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, although the Board has provided valuable service in this area, these human
service needs can now be better addressed through other means, and the Board should be
dissolved; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the cities of Hopkins, Mirmetonka, Plymouth, and St.
Louis Park have formed a "Coordinating Committee" to oversee the Board's dissolution;
NOW, THEREFOR'E, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota;
1. The City Council of the City of Mound,. Minnesota, joins with the other cities
which have participated in the Suburban Alliance ("Participating Cities") to terminate the
Agreement and the existence of the Board. This termination will become effective when all
Participating Cities have filed a resolution to the ~ame effect with the city manager of St. Louis
Park.
2. After the termination becomes effective, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota may
act for all of the Participating Cities to take any necessary actions to effectuate the Board's
termination, including a final accounting, collection and payment of outstanding obligations, and
distribution of funds. This delegation of authority is subject to the following conditions: The
City of St. Louis Park must consult with other members of the Coordinating Committee before
undertaking tasks which are more than ministerial. The City of St. Louis Park and the
coordinating Committee may not pay expenses or incur obligations for the Board and the
Participating Cities beyond the amount of $110,000, as outlined in the letter from the
Coordinating Committee dated December 23, 1996, unless additional expenses or obligations are
approved by the Participating Cities; including the City of Mound.
3. In return for the services of the Coordinating Committee which are provided at no
cost to the other Participating Cities, the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby waives any claims
against the cities and individuals participating in the Coordinating Committee for any alleged
negligence, gross negligence, misfeasance, or malfeasance in effectuating the dissolution of the
Board. In no event, however, will the City of Mound be liable for any expenses beyond those
outlined in the Committee's December 2, 1996 lertcr without the City's approval.
4. If the Bo,rd is not terminated by consent of all Participating Cities, then fi'ds
resolution opera~es to terminate the City of Mound's participation in thc Board effective Januar7
31, 1998.
5. Resolution No. 96-126 of the City of Mound is in all respect~ readopted and
incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
seconded by Councilmember
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the af£amative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Resolution adopted: