1998-07-14MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1998, ?:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*~: 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 JUNE 23, 1998,
REGULAR MEETING.
................................ 2527-2541
*B.
CASE 98-37: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, AUDRI SCHWARZ, 5621
BARTLETT BLVD., SECTION 23, PID#23-117-24 14 0002 - RESOLUTION OF
APPROVAL ........................................ 2542-2564
*C.
CASE 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD
SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH,
DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID#24-117-24 44 0134 .............. 2565-2588
*D.
.CASE 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, TO
BRADLEY NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLE'I'T BLVD., SECTION 23, PID//23-117-
24 14 0004 ......................................... 2589-2617
*E.
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS, AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AND SETTING BID OPENING DATE OF WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1998,
11:00 A.M ......................................... 2618-2626
*F.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT RE: 1998 STORM RELIEF WITH FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ..................... 2627-2628
*G.
REQUEST TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR A WEIGH-IN ONLY, SUNDAY,
SEPTEMBER 20, 1998, OPERATION BASS RED MAN EVENT .......... 2629
2525
*H.
*I.
*J.
REQUEST TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR A WEIGH-IN ONLY, SUNDAY,
OCTOBER 4, 1998,-VIKING BASSMASTERS ...................... 2630
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE ...................... 2631
PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 2632-2651
4. APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS:
-Gregory Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive . .. ....................... 2652-2668
-Barb J. Casey, 4704 Island View Drive ........................... 2669-2698
-Michael & Diane Edwards, 2805 Halsted Lane ....................... 2699-2714
5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
6. INFORMATION/MIS CELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for June 1998 ................. 2715-2746
B. DCAC Minutes of June 18, 1998 ........................... 2747-2753
Ce
Thank you note from a resident regarding the excellent job the Public Works Department
did during the recent storms ................................. 2754
Notice from the National League of Cities (NLC) regarding the fall conference in
Kansas City, MO. Please let Fran know ASAP if you wish to attend ..... 2755-2767
E. Letter from Jan DenBeste regarding her dispute with Triax Cablevision .... 2768-2787
F. REMINDER:
HRA MEETING 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY,
JULY 14, 1998, PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETING.
G. REMINDER:
NO COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING THIS MONTH.
H. REMINDER: WCCB MEETING, WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1998, 7 P.M.,
MOUND CITY HALL.
I. Announcement of Skatepark Grand Opening ........................ 2788
2526
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session
on Tuesday, June 23, 1998, at 6:00 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Attorney Karen Cole.
The Mayor opened the Special Meeting.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
Attorney Karen Cole explained that the Council will be meeting in Executive Session to discuss
some proposals in the Woodland Point Litigation which are protected by the attorney/client
privilege so the meeting can and should be closed.
The Council then moved into Executive Session to discuss the Woodland Point Litigation.
Councilmember Weycker did not participate in the Executive Session.
The Council returned from Executive Session at 7:30 P.M.
The City Attorney explained that the City Council just concluded a special Executive Session.
The purpose was for the City Attorney and the attorney representing the City, appointed by the
League of Minnesota Cities, to update the City Council on the status of litigation and to receive
input from the City Council concerning the approaches for the City to take in the effort to settle
and resolve the Woodland Point litigation. The information received from the City Council will
be taken back and presented to the other parties in the litigation.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to adjourn the Special Meeting at
7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Mayor called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. and welcomed the people in
attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon,
Cable Attorney Brian Grogan, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens:
Glenna Loken, Michaela Diercks, Audri Schwarz, David Moore, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland,
Melvin Benjaminson, Dina Etherington, Don Pedersen, Ralph & Kris Bauer, Ben Renteria,
Nancy & David Piela, Mark Goldberg, John & Pat Tombers, Martin & Jennifer Garden,
Christine Mayer, Donna & James Geisler, Ron Christensen, Tom Bordwell, Paul Pecora, Jane
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
Bremer, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jaci & Victor Sacco, Jared Smith, Jan DenBeste, Carry Cable,
Pam Amidon, and Margaret & Bob Hanson.
*.C, PJg_e__rg_dge,_~: 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.
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.
Councilmember Hanus asked that the following be removed from the Consent Agenda:
Case 98-35; Case 98-37; the Comprehensive Plan Contract; and the Stormwater Management
Contract.
Mayor Polston asked the have Case 98-34 be removed.
Councilmember Hanus asked to add an item to the end of the Regular Agenda. It is a request from
the Planning Commission for direction on an item.
The Mayor asked that the Minutes from the June 9, 1998, Regular Meeting be corrected to reflect that
Councilmember Jensen was present.
The City Clerk noted the Case//98-36 was tabled at the Planning Commission and should be removed
from the Agenda.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as
amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1998,
MOTION
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING.
*1.1
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 16, 1998 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEE]'ING.
MOTION
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1998
CASE 98-33: VARIANCE FRONT SIDE & LAKESHORE SETBACKS
LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER, PETER LIUPAKKA, 1920 LAKESIDE LANE,
~T PID//18-117-23 23 0057.
RESOLUTION ~98-65 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES FOR FRONT
AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOT SIZE AND STREET
FRONTAGE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING DECK AT 1920
LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD
POINT, PID//18-117-23 23 0057, P & Z CASE//98-33
Weycker,Hanus, unanimously.
'1.3
APPROVAL OF TREE LICENSES AND CIGARETTE LICENSES,
MOTION
Weycker,Hanus, unanimously.
'1.4
PAYMENT OF BILLS._
MOTION
Weycker,Hanus, unanimously.
1.5 CASE 98-34: VARIANCE, LOT FRONTAGE, STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS, XXXX
WALNUT ROAD, LOT 2 & ADJ. VAC ST. BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE,
PID//14-117-24 32 0025.
The Mayor stated that in the Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 1998, the following was discussed.
"The nearest water service would come from the hydrant on the south side of the improved street. The
owner would need to extend a private water line to the property." The Mayor asked how far away the
hydrant is and how long the service line is going to be? The Mayor then stated that it is his
understanding that there are already water pressure problems in the area. He then asked if water and
sewer assessments have been paid on this parcel and if we are going to extend water and sewer in a
private drive, shouldn't we be looking at an extension of the street and utilities to provide adequate fire
protection service and collect the assessments that may be due the City?
The City Planner stated that water pressure was a concern of the City Engineer. He reviewed the City
Engineer's report dated June 1, 1998. The City watermain terminates at a hydrant located on the lot line
between Lots 4 and 5. Ideally, the watermain should be extended for much the same reasons as the
street. However, if only one service or possibly two are required, they could be run from the end of the
watermain. If the distance from the main to the home is too far, the size of the service should be
increased from 1-inch to 1-1.2-inch. Staff will need to check on whether water and sewer assessments
have been paid or need to be paid. The assessment question is addressed in the proposed resolution and
would be resolved before a building permit was issued. The Council also discussed having the benefiting
property pay a storm sewer assessment. There also might be future street assessments if the street needed
MOUND CITY COUNCIl., MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
to be improved.
The Council then asked about condition 1. f. which reads as follows: MThe City Fire Marshal review the
proposal and give his report to the Council." The Planner stated we have not yet received a report from
the Fire Marshal. The Council asked that a test be done to make sure there is enough water pressure to
fight a fire in this area. Councilmember Hanus stated this was supposed to be done before the Council
had to act on this item. The City Attorney suggested that the language be changed to read 1.f. "No
building permits shall be issued for improvements on the property until the Fire Marshal is satisfied that
there is sufficient water pressure to fight a fire." The Council also asked that no building permits be
issued until the assessment questions are answered.
Ahrens moved and Polston seconded the following resolution with the above conditions included.
RESOLUTION//98-66 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCE
ON AN UNIMPROVED STREET, LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND
TERRACE, piD #14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE $98-34
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6
CASE 98-35: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT SIZE, MARK & STACEY
GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON PD
_//25-117-24 11 0037.
Councilmember Hanus stated that there is one error in the proposed resolution that was handed out
tonight. In the 4th Whereas, the last sentence should read as follows: "A 6 4' side yard is required
resulting in a variance of 3 feet."
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution with the correction:
RESOLUTION//98-67
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD,
LAKESIDE, HARDCOVER AND LOT AREA VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK, 4853 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID #25-117-24 110037,
P & Z CASE//98-35
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.7
CASE 98-36: .VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BRADLEY
NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLg:IT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 1,1
0004.
This item was tabled at the Planning Commission. No action was taken on this item.
MOUND CITY COUNC1L MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1998
1.8 CASE 98-37: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, AUDRI SCHWARZ, 5621 BARTLETT
BLVD, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0002,.
Councilmember Hanus explained that this was before the Planning Commission last night and after several
motions, they voted 5-2 to recommend denial. The only nonconformance in this proposal is a 5' x 6'
shed that is too close to the lake. He reported that the Planning Commission did discuss this in detail.
Hanus felt it is better where it is than perched up on the bluff with no screening. It is not fully
screened, but is an earth-tone color and on a concrete slab. He stated others have been allowed to
remain. Hanus stated this is what the add-on to the agenda is about. Is the current code too restrictive
on the lock box issue?
Hanus stated he is in favor of approving this case. Ahrens agreed and also pointed out that this shed
probably didn't require a building permit when it was built because that was prior to the Shoreland
Management Ordinance. She stated she is in favor of allowing the shed to continue to exist until its life
has expired.
Weycker stated that recently there was discussion about not applying a status to this type of structure and
requiring a variance. The City Attorney stated that that discussion and suggestion did not go anywhere.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens directing Staff to prepare a resolution of
approval and bring it back to the July 14, 1998 Meeting for approval. The resolution to
include the following findings:
1) The color of the shed is a neutral color.
2)
3)
4)
The shed is partially screened. Applicant will provide more screening.
The shed is located on a slab and appears to be in sound condition.
The shed would be much more visible if the shed were to be moved where
screening would not be required.
At the time the shed was constructed, it was lawfully built.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTRACT WITH HOISINGTON KOEGLER
GgO_gO__ INC.
Hanus asked for a total price. The City Manager stated it will be, not to exceed $15,500.00.
Ahrens moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-68 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH
ItOISINGTON KOEGLER TO UPDATE TIlE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$15,500 AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE
CONTRACT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
5
1.10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
APPROVAL OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSAL FROM
,COMBS FRANK ROOS & ASSOCIATI~q
MC
The City Manager stated this proposal is not to exceed $39,800.00.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g98-69
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PROPOSAL WITH MC
COMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PREPARE A
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
MOUND AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $39,800.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRF~qENT,
There were none.
1.11
PUBLIC HEARING: CABLE TV FRANCHISE RENEWAl,
The City Manager explained that this came before the Council on May 26th and the Council asked that
a public hearing be held on the Franchise Agreement and the Regulatory Ordinance.
The City Manager introduced the City's Cable Attorney, Brian Grogan who reported that all 3 of the
other cities (Wayzata, Waconia and Chanhassen) have now adopted the Franchise Agreement with Triax
Cablevision and the regulatory ordinance. They are in the process of receiving acceptance from Triax.
The general operating standards for each cable operator are contained in the regulatory ordinance. The
Franchise Agreement governs the unique relationship between the City and Triax and serves essentially
as a contract between the City and Triax. It also deals with the system upgrade, service to public
facilities, support for the local public programming, and other related issues.
Councilmember Hanus stated that there are a number of areas in the Agreement that talk about what Triax
is willing to provide, i.e., 80 channels by a date certain; there are indications of surveys; and handling
complaints in certain ways. Hanus asked what provisions are in the Agreement that will guarantee that
those items are preformed on those dates and what kind of restitution is allowed if these items are not
performed?
Mr. Grogan stated there are several different areas. First, there is a security fund in the document that
can be drawn on for Triax's failure to perform under the contract. There is also a construction bond
requirement for the actual system upgrade. In terms of ongoing compliance when construction is finished,
there is a procedure section for revocation and termination of the franchise if Triax fails to comply with
the material terms. The Council asked who would be contacted if a subscriber wanted to file some type
of a grievance under that section? Mr. Grogan explained that the contract is governed by the City so a
subscriber would have to approach City Staff and bring it before the Council so the Council could take
action on the Franchise. He pointed out that subscribers have their own contract with Triax when they
chose to have service with Triax. If they have a dispute with Triax, they should contact Triax. If they
need further action, then they would come to the City.
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1998
The Mayor asked if Triax would like to say anything before he opens the public hearing. Their response
was, no.
The Mayor stated that the rules of the public hearing are that we treat each other with respect and dignity
at all times. Address all comments to the Chair. There will be no one on one arguing.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
~[an DenBeste, 5212 Lynwood Blvd.. stated she was at the May 26th Meeting and Triax has still
not rectified the problem of placing a cable on her property without permission. She stated she
is not a cable subscriber. She asked what recourse there is for her when something like this
happens? She is against a 15 year franchise because she doesn't see any incentive for Triax to
satisfy customer complaints.
Mr. Grogan stated that in Section 3.10, there is a provision that would allow the City to draw
frees from the Security Fund, for their breach of a provision in the Franchise. That would be
between the City and Triax. The Agreement does not flow in the direction of the homeowner.
Ralph Bauer, 1774 Heron Lane. asked if there is any provision in the agreement to allow cable
modems or is there a date when cable modem service will be available? He offered to consult
with the City on this at no cost to the City.
Mr. Grogan stated the upgrade requirement is for a 750 MHz system which means they will have
all the capacity to provide cable modems but the City cannot mandate cable modem provisions
because it is not clear under Federal Law whether a cable modem is a cable service or a
telecommunication service. The Federal Law says that we cannot condition a cable franchise on
the provision of a telecommunication service. He stated this will be driven by the market.
Mr. Bauer stated he has called Triax main headquarters in Texas and inquired about cable modems
and was told there were no plans at this time. Mr. Bauer also asked about high definition
television (HD T-V) and if this proposal covers this? Mr. Bauer then expressed concern about
granting a 15 year franchise.
Mr. Grogan explained that there are provisions in the Franchise for periodic evaluation, review
and modification. He further stated the franchise requires a 750 MHz rebuild which would give
the possibility of 110 analog channels at about 6 MHz a piece. It is contemplated that they will
have about 79 to 80 of those channels for cable T.V. and the remainder reserved for some future
applications such as some of the ones mentioned tonight. The issue of HD-T.V. is going to be
driven by FCC regulations.
Paul Pecora, Regional Manager for Triax stated that Ms. DenBeste has been more than patient
with them in getting her situation resolved. The situation will be resolved within the next couple
of days.
Mr. Pecora stated that with the upgrade, will come the opportunity to provide alternative services,
such as cable modems.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Council encouraged Triax to improve their customer service.
7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
Mr. Pecora stated Triax will continue to work on their customer service.
E~E~uTV____vv.~. CABLE FRANCHISE AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
Mr. Grogan stated that there are a few minor changes that need to be made in the Franchise and that will
be done before the Agreement is executed.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-70
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CABLE FRANCHISE
WITH TRIAX CABLEVISION AND AUTHORIZES THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
Motion carried.
1.12 RDINANCE//9 -1998 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17-A OF THE CITY
CODE APPENDIX G ENTITLED CABLE TELEVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE.
Mr. Grogan stated that there are a few minor changes that need to be made in the Ordinance and that will
be done before the ordinance is published.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #99-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17-A OF THE CITY
CODE (APPENDIX G) ENTITLED CABLE TELEVISION
REGULATORY ORDINANCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
_PUBLIC HEARING:
1.13 CASE 98-26: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MOTOR FUEL STATION LOCATED
WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT & CASE 98-27: VARIANCE HARDC VER
LAFAYETTE PARK PID//13-117-24 22 0025.
The Mayor stated that there is a person who would like to make a presentation before the public hearing
and prior to the applicant's presentation.
Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce Blvd. stated that there is one house between his townhouse
and the proposed site.
He stated that Amoco must demonstrate why the City should grant the variances. They
specifically requested variances for items such as, driveway access width, hardcover and
signage. Mr. Garden pointed out that it is their position that the undue hardship standard
for a variance, to increase the width of the driveway access to 40 feet, is not necessary
because Amoco can still make reasonable use of the property without it. He then referred
to a Minnesota Supreme Court case of Sun Oil Co. versus _the Village of New Hope,
8
, I 1, ,I ,, ,l~,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1998
which dealt with the an existing gas station that was a/ready part ora zoned ara and Sut~
Oil wished to put another gas station there. The Supreme Court said that even though
there is a station already there, like PDQ across the street, that was no reason to permit
another gas station even though the property was zoned for limited business use. The court
indicated that there were other appropriate uses for that property, such as an office building
or a medical clinic, or dental clinic. He stated that they are not against the fact that this
piece of property is zoned commercial and can be used for a commercial use but, believe
that it would be an inappropriate use as a gas station. He stated that the Council has an
obligation to balance the interests of Amoco with those of the residents.
Mr. Garden stated Amoco's request for a hardcover variance should be denied because that is
going to have adverse impact on the environment. He stated Amoco's proposal exceeds the
ordinance hardcover limits by 34% to 49%, depending upon which figure is used to determine
Amoco's total property area. He asked that Amoco be required to show that the increased
hardcover does not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Mr. Garden stated that at the Planning CommissionMeeting, there was some discussion about
signage but, there was no guarantee and no approval by Amoco that they would go along with the
smaller signage. He wanted Amoco to show that a larger sign will not endanger the neighbors
right to enjoy their residential property. ~_
Mr. Garden stated there was some discussion about glare and other lighting but, there was nothing
in particular that would nail it down to something that would not harm the residents.
Mr. Garden stated that another issue that was not raised before the Planning Commission, was that
the City and Amoco, have an obligation to meet State and City shoreland management
responsibilities. He stated that it is his understanding that under Minnesota Statute 103f205, the
regulations define shoreland as the land located within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high level water
mark. He stated the proposed site is roughly 125 yards or approximately 375 feet from that so
called high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. This station being within the 1,000 feet should be
sufficient for the City to limit or at least deny the permit and as far as Mr. Garden knew there was
no attempt, by Amoco, to seek a variance on that issue.
Mr. Garden went on to say that 3 sets of townhouses have been built since the other gas stations
went out of business, but if a station had existed, some of the people would not have bought
townhouses in this area. He admitted that he and others should have been on notice that the
property was zoned commercial.
Mr. Garden pointed out another issue with respect to shoreland management and environmental
objections. Since 1987, the MPCA has ordered the removal of 23,000 underground and above
ground fuel tanks because of standards exceeding pollution. He pointed out that the MPCA
presently has 12,000 leak sites State wide. He claimed that corrosion and leakage of underground
fuel tanks depends in large part on the matter of how the soil is made up. He questioned how
much underground and water pollution already exists from past gas stations on that site. He cited
an April 5, 1994 planning report, and in that planning report, when this site was being considered
for the Westonka Intervention Project' s, battered woman' s shelter, it was reported that fuel tanks
were removed in 1990 and 700 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and removed from
this proposed Amoco site. He stated there was no indication in the file that the MPCA has yet
issued a letter that clears the proposed Amoco site of all contamination. He then recommended
and suggested that the soils should be tested, the extent of underground existing water pollution
9 ~~
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
be determined, and that, before approving Amoco's application for a Conditional Use Permit, the
City should require Amoco, pursuant to Minnesota Rules 44110-1000 to complete an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to evaluate the potential of a gas station operation
for significant environmental affects.
He stated that at the Planning Commission on June 8th he was surprised that there had been no
traffic report or survey done with respect to this application. He stated that the traffic pattern may
well affect the residents ability for ingress and egress from the townhouses because cars will be
backed up. He then talked about the traffic light at the comer of Three Points Blvd. and County
Road 110. Mr. Garden stated that there is going to be increased traffic which will be a major
annoyance. He complained that it will be a 24 hour station with people getting out of their cars,
opening the doors, slamming the doors, and talking in a voice that will be totally heard within that
neighborhood. He stated he could present expert testimony, if given the opportunity, to really
argue this issue, about what that increased noise will do to the enjoyment of their property.
He stated that they already have an adequate station and convenience store across the street.
He argued that the site is not essentially a commercial site because it is 90% a residential site.
He encouraged the Council to exercise discretion, and turn down the limited use as well as the
variances or, if the Council does not want to rule for or against the proposal, it should be
remanded to the City Planning Commission to have the Planner do the necessary homework and
bring back more facts on which to base a Council decision. He again stated he would like a
chance to present substantial testimony, from experts, to guide the Council in a decision.
He and the neighbors feel that their interests are not being balanced in this particular proceeding.
The Mayor asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation.
.Victor Sacco, 5016 Enchanted Road stated that he is the owner, under contract, of the property
at Three Points and Commerce. He stated the property was available (for sale) for quite some
time and he felt there was a need for a gas/convenience store that was an up-to-date modem
facility with a car wash, since the nearest car washes are at the Spur in Spring Park and the SA
in Long Lake on Highway 12. He went to Amoco and they wanted to purchase the property from
him. He agreed and they came up with this plan which he thought would be great for the City
trying to bring some new business into the community. It was already zoned B-2. He stated they
do need a Conditional Use Permit but he thinks the things that they are asking from the City are
reasonable.
The 40 foot curb cut that they are looking for was a suggestion from the Hennepin County
Highway Dept for the transport trucks delivering and the ease of customers getting in and
out of the site.
As far as the environmental issues, .he stated the tanks are double wall fiberglass tanks that
do not corrode. There's a leak detection system that is between the fiberglass walls so if
there are any vapors at all, it immediately shuts down the whole system. This is state of
the art. It supersedes what the MPCA mandate is for federal requirements. There is a
closure letter, on this site, from the MPCA, stating that no further action is required on
the site, and the site has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the MPCA. Amoco doesn't
want to take any chances with environmental leaks.
,I, ,~, ~,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
As far as traffic, Mr. Sacco stated that wJ~ Se stop light there, it makes this site a very
logical site for this use. The stop light changes very quickly. There is an access on
County Road 110 and one on Three Points Blvd. Amoco is interested in the site because
of the growth in the area that we are seeing in Minnetrista to the north. The station will
not be the cause of the increase in traffic. They will be servicing the community that is
there already.
He pointed out that a lot of the property in the area is zoned B-2, including the townhomes
where Mr. Garden lives.
The Mayor opened the public heating.
The following persons made statements opposing the Conditional Use Permit for a motor fuel station:
1. Ron Christensen, 1764 Commerce Blvd. -
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Ralph Bauer, 1774 Heron Lane, Mound.
Michaela Diercks, 2765 County Road 110, Minnetrista.
Dina Etherington, 4932 Glen Elyn Road, Mound.
Pam Amidon, 1909 Lakeside Lane, Mound.
Bob Hanson, 5425 Bartlett Blvd., Mound.
Chris Mayer, 1790 Commerce Blvd., Mound.
Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce Blvd., Mound.
Their reasons for opposition: noise; traffic increase; hardcover issues and environmental impact on the
Lake; impact on the residential neighborhood; lighting; garbage; ingress and egress to the site; congestion;
and being open 24 hours. They would like to see this referred back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration.
The following petition was submitted and signed by 20 persons.
"We, the undersigned, are residents of the Three Points Boulevard area of Mound, Minnesota, and
are IN OPPOSITION to the convenience store proposal for the site at the south east quadrant of
the Three Points/Commerce Boulevard intersection."
The Mayor closed the public hearing and asked the City Attorney to address the legal issues that were
touched upon and try to convey to those who are here the legal constraints that the City Council is under
in making a determination as to whether or not to grant or deny a Conditional Use Permit.
The Council agreed there have probably been traffic studies done as far as the number of vehicles
ingressing and egressing from Three Points Blvd. and the amount of traffic that is on the County Road.
There was discussion about the lighting and glare. The City Planner responded that there was a lighting
plan submitted and that does show the amount of lighting on site and at the property lines. The Amoco
Architect stated that the lighting calculations were revised since the last meeting with the Planning
Commission. The plan was just received today and he did not have time to reissue them for the Council.
The pole height has been reduced. The wattage of the fixtures has been reduced. He did not know
what methodology had been used to do that, but if we need to get calculations and numbers, he would
do so. He stated he has certified plans that say that there will be foot candles at .4 or under.
The Council discussed this issue and stated that if this is approved a .4 foot candle would be required for
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
lighting.
The Council then discussed the fact that the City is under a time constraint because the applicant has had
the application in for quite some time. There are legal ramifications if an applicant's request is not acted
upon within a certain period of time.
The Council discussed the issue of stormwater and the site. The City Planner stated the applicant will
pay the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for treatment costs for the stormwater.
The City Attorney stated the Council has three options: 1. Approve the CUP and variances as recommended by the Planning Commission, with
further modifications as the Council desires; or
2. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further study; or
3. Deny the requested CUP and to deny the requested variances.
Weycker asked if there are any projections on traffic with Minnetrista's increasing development. The
City Planner stated he has some from a count that was done in 1995 which was somewhere short of
10,000 vehicles and over the next twenty years it could increase about half again. That will also be
dependent on the improvements to County Road 110.
The Mayor stated that the City Council is very cognizant of the public concerns as far as noise, lights,
traffic, congestion, and wanting to enjoy your property. He further stated that the applicant who has
bought property that was zoned commercial, also has the right to come before the City Council and ask
for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct a business that is within the zoning code.
Conditions can be attached to the Conditional Use Permit, that will, safeguard and minimize the impact
that it is going to have on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission has attached some conditions that
the Staff has proposed, that would minimize the impact that this is going to have on surrounding area.
The Council discussed the ingress and egress onto County Road 110 from the site. There was
discussion about requiring that vehicles only be allowed to turn right onto County Road 110 and not left
and heading back toward downtown Mound. If egressing from that establishment, people can only turn
in a northerly direction or go onto Three Points Blvd. and onto 110 at the stop light if travelling south.
The Council spoke about another condition which would require the applicant to hire a traffic engineer
to address this ingress and egress concern.
Councilmember Weycker expressed concern about creating a traffic back-up on Three Points Blvd. at the
stop light with people exiting from PDQ and this new Amoco.
Councilmember Hanus stated that there are other permitted uses that don't require a CUP that would
produce as much traffic as this would and in some cases even more. He pointed out that the light is a
quick light and could be adjusted to regulate the problem. He also expressed concern about the noise
from the vacuums. He suggested that another condition be put on the CUP requiring the vacuums to be
placed in a location and shielded to project the noise away from the adjacent residential areas.
Mr. Garden expressed concern about the noise from the dryers in the car wash.
Councilmember Hanus stated that was addressed at the Planning Commission and is part of the proposed
resolution. It reads as follows:
"3.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1998
The Car Wash only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
as regulated by the zoning code. The doors be required to remain closed while in
operation. All employees must be notified of this."
The Council discussed timing on this application.
Councilmember Hanus stated that it is not up to the Cit~] Council to legislate competition,
decide whether or not we need another type of business in town.
Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-71
We do not
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR AN AMOCO GAS AND
CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED AT 1730 COMMERCE
BLVD., PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13-117-
24 22 0025, P & Z CASE/]98-26 & 98-27
The following conditions were added to the resolution:
The City requires that the applicant hire a traffic engineer to study the specific safety issues
of the ingress and egress and have that person make a recommendation as to what is the
safest possible solution to ingressing and egressing the site. Staff to review and approve
before Building Permit is issuance.
Require that the vacuum be shielded to deflect the noise away from the residential area.
Lighting does not exceed .4 foot candle on the neighboring property as per code.
The CUP will be reviewed annually.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.15 CASE 98-05: MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND CASE 98-28: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO AI.LOW TWIN HOMES, AND CASE 98-07: VARIANCE, LOT AREA,
HARDCOVER. JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELIN~
DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID//13-117-24 44
0032.
The City Planner explained the request. The request is to replat 6 lots that already exist by moving the
existing lot lines in order to accommodate a 6 unit twinhome development. The preliminary plat also has
some variances because of the lot area. A conditional Use Permit is also required.
The Mayor opened the public heating.
Dave Moore presented his request and spoke in favor of it.
The Mayor closed the public heating.
Councilmember Hanus stated the only reason he voted against this at the Planning Commission was
because of condition//6 in the proposed resolution which reads: "Developer to pay 51% of assessments
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 23, 1998
for road development." His concern was the City might be caught in a position where we might have
to finance part of this road improvement. He would rather see this be assessed in a normal fashion.
The City Attorney stated that he has spoken with the City Planner and there are some other properties
that could potentially benefit by the street improvement and assessing would be a logical move. The
Council discussed having the road improvement worked out before the subdivision has any value.
The City Attorney then suggested that the Council can combine all the hearings and start the 30 day
clock at the assessment running at the same time, but before you actually order construction of the
improvement. That way you know that either there will or will not be any challenge to the assessments
before the road is built. He also pointed out that we are only approving the preliminary plan and
conditional Use Permit. Before doing the final plat the Council will want to have the public improvement
authorized.
The Council discussed the 5th Whereas in the proposed resolution which reads as follows: "WHEREAS,
the developer will pay for 51 percent of the street and utility assessments for the project; and"
The Council decided to delete the 5th Whereas in the proposed resolution and//6 in the Now, Therefore,
be it resolved.
The City Attorney suggested the following be inserted. "The City Council authorizes construction of the
roadway and utilities for said public improvements to Norwood Lane in accordance with laws governing
the public improvement process. This would be a precondition to final approval of the Final Plat." The
City Attorney advised that a lot of cities are streamlining the assessment process by authorizing
preparation of plans and specifications, authorizing letting of the bids, and also setting a date for a public
hearing on the special assessments before any improvement is done. He advised that we would determine
the amount of the special assessments after the bids come in and are tabulated, but before the contract is
awarded. There is a 30 day hold on the award of the contract to see if there is any appeal on the special
assessments. If there is no appeal on the special assessments, then the contract is awarded and the road
is built. This is the condensed process and you would know whether you are going to be challenged
before you spend the money.
Councilmember Weycker asked if the lots would still be considered a lot of record if the lot lines are
changed. The City Planner state that because we are maintaining the same property area by shifting
property lines, it seemed to keep the intent of the lot of record status. It is a minor shift in property
lines.
Ahrens moved and Polston seconded the following
RESOLUTION//98-72
The vote was unanimously in favor.
resolution:
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR 4901
SHORELINE DRIVE TWIN HOME PROJECT, LOTS 1-6,
BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID//13-117-24 44 0032,
P & Z CASE/~98-28, 98-05, & 98-07
Motion carried.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus, to authorize the City Engineer to prepare
a feasibility study, and plans and specifications for the improvement of Norwood Lane, to
be brought back to the City Council at the July 28, 1998, Council Meeting, looking at the
~ L~O 14
~ov~ c~7 covlvc~ M~mm~S- ~V~ ~, ~9s
2nd week in August for a bid ope ng.
The City Attorney told the applicant that if he could get the other property owners to sign an
agreement indicating that they would pay 49% of the improvement cost, then this process could
be shortened.
The Council indicated they would not be willing to pay any difference for this public
improvement.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
_ADD-ON ITEM- HANUS
Councilmember Hanus stated that the shed issue in Case//98-37 brought up an issue at the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission is requesting that the City Council direct Staff to have them
revisit the lock box portion of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The planning Commission feels
that it may be too restrictive, size wise. The Council agreed that the Staff should look and this and bring
it back to the planning Commission.
iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. MAY 1998 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO,
FINANCE DIRECTOR.
B. MCWD NOTICE OF RESIGNATION OF DIANE LYNCH, ADMINISTRATOR.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1998.
D. REMINDER: INTERVIEWS WITH ARCHITECT AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRMS WILL BE HELD WITH
THE WCCB ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24 AND THURSDAY, JUNE 25,
RESPECTIVELY, MOUND CITY HALL, BEGINNING AT 6 P.M.
E. REMINDER: NEXT REGULAR WCCB MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY,
JUNE 30, 1998, 7 P.M. MOUND CITY HALL.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 11:40 P.M. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
15
Ju~ 14, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR A CONFORMING PORCH, PATIO, AND IN-GROUND POOL,
AT 5621 BARTLETT BLVD,
PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 23,
PID # 23-117-24 14 0002
P & Z CASE #98-37
WHEREAS, the applicant, Audri Schwarz, has applied for a lakeshore
setback variance of a shed to allow for construction of a conforming porch, patio, and in-
ground pool; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, lakeshore
setback of 50 feet and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the existing shed is 8 feet from the shoreline resulting in a 42
foot lakeshore setback variance; and,
; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include a 22. feet by 14 feet
screened porch, patio, and a in-ground pool are all located in conforming locations; and,
WHEREAS, the existing shed has the following finding:
a. The color of the shed is a neutral color.
b. The shed is located on a slab and appears to be in sound
condition.
c. The shed is partially screened.
d. The shed would be much more visible if the shed were to be
moved where screening would not be required.
e. At the time the shed was constructed, it was lawfully built.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended denial of the variance; and,
July 14, 1998
Schwarz - 5621 Bartlett Bird
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant a 42 foot lakeshore setback variance for the shed.
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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain
as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions
of Section 350:420.
o
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construction of a conforming porch, patio, and in-ground pool.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 1 1 7 NORTH, RANGE 24 WEST
OF THE 5TM PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLETT BOULEVARD (FORMERLY
CHAPMAN AVENUE) WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 120.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT
LOT 1; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOUTH 84 DEGREES 30 MINUTES O0 SECONDS
WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BARTLETT BOULEVARD, A DISTANCE OF 127.80
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ABOUT 382 FEET TO THE
SHORELINE OF LAKE MINNETONKA; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG SAID SHORELINE, TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN SOUTHERLY FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND PARALLEL
WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID
PARALLEL LINE ABOUT 347 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
o
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
July 14, 1998
Schwarz - 5621 Bartlett Blvd
Page 3
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill
Voss, Michael Mueiler, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Building Official
Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and
Orr Burma, Assistand Planner Loren Gordon.
Public Present: Audri Schwarz, Bradley Nordgren, Thomas & Amy Reese, Mark
Goldberg.
Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 8, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mueller made one correction on page 12 of the Minutes on a Motion it should state,
"MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table this case until a accurate survey is
submitted and completed application is submitted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed:
Burma."
So noted and corrected.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the
June 8, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-37: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, AUDRI SCHWARZ, 5621
BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID # 23-117- 24 14 0002
Jon Sutherland presented Loren Gordon's case.
The applicant, Audri Schwarz, has submitted a request to build a conforming pool and
porch addition. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance
Shed -lakeside 8' 50' 42'
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
The property is located at 5621 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce
Blvd. The lot is 39,600 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current
improvements to the property are a one-story house and a boathouse.
The planned improvements include a 22 feet by 14 feet screened porch, patio and in-
ground pool all located lakeside. Side yard and lakeside setbacks would be reduced
with the proposed improvements, but would remain above minimum requirements. The
porch would reduce the side yard setback from 19.7 feet to 16 feet. The pool would be
setback approximately 85 feet from the 929.4 contour reducing the lakeside setback
from the current 127 feet.
Additional pool regulations which would be maintained as proposed include:
Side yard 10 feet
Lakeside 50 feet
Other structures 10 feet
Principal building20 feet
A fence enclosing the pool would also be required with a height between 5 and 6 feet.
The site plan shows the existing shed location. It is approximately 8 feet from the lake
and 11 feet from the side lot line. The floor elevation is not indicated, but is probably 3
to 4 feet above the lake level. The shed is a standard 5 feet by 6 feet steel shed with a
sliding front door. It is used for storage of recreational equipment. It is not know exactly
when the shed was placed there, but the applicant states it existed before shoreland
regulations were adopted.
The proposed porch, patio, and pool improvements will all be conforming and add value
to the property. Prior to submitting the variance application staff visited the property to
look at the large trees, namely the 3 feet diameter oak that is around 50 feet in height.
Because this and two other adjacent trees are so tall, they shade the pool from summer
sunshine for a portion of the day. The bottom of the canopy is high enough that it
doesn't screen the house when viewed lakeside. The owner has indicated that this tree
will be removed to provide additional sunlight on the pool. Staff discussed possibilities
that could keep the tree, but the owner will probably cut the tree down. Due to the
circumstances, the code does not provide protection to a single tree and it is the
owner's discretion if it stays or goes.
The existing shed is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location. Although its
status will eventually require its removal, the applicant states it is used on a daily basis
for storage of equipment. A lock box is an option that could be approved to eliminate
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
the shed. This case similar to other lakeside structure cases, except that the shed could
be moved relatively easily. Other lakeside structures such as the boathouse next door
are much more difficult to remove. If the Commission feels there is reason to remove
the shed, the findings should be stated as such. Conversely, if there is reason to allow it
to remain, finding should reflect this decision.
In keeping with Staff's position on the nonconforming accessory uses, it is
recommended the structure be removed or moved to a conforming location. If the
Planning Commission agrees with Staff, the resolution should reflect an appropriate
time period for its removal and assurances in the form of an easement or bond.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approve the request as stated with the following condition.
1. The existing shed be removed or moved to a conforming location.
DISCUSSION:
Hanus clarified staff's recommendation. That it is a recommendation for denial.
Sutherland stated you could view it that way and essentially, that is what it is stating.
Mueller asked what the shed is made out of. Sutherland stated metal.
Audri Schwarz commented that she would like to keep her shed. She feels that it is a
hardship for her if the shed was to be moved. She stated that she would paint the shed
and plant more shrubs to screen the shed.
Mueller suggested to the applicant to consider getting a lock box. The applicant stated
she likes her shed the way it is.
Hanus commented that it is an older tin shed on a cement slab that appears to be
sound. It has conduit lighting with a yard light on top. The color of the shed is a neutral
color. The shed is very well screened from the lake. It is used to store boating items,
other outdoor furniture and water toys. If the shed were to be moved it would be a fairly
long walk to the lake since there is a hill. Hanus feels it would be better off where it is
than up on the hill where it would not be required to be screened.
Thomas Reese commented that Mound should revisit its ordinance on storage sheds
along the lake front.
Mueller commented that Orono does not allow sheds within 100 feet of the lakeshore.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
There are other communities that also do not any structure along the lakeshore within
50 feet.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Michael to approve the location of the
shed to remain due to the Finding of Facts: 1) The color of the shed is a
neutral color. 2) The shed is well screened. 3) The shed is located on a slab
and appears to be in sound condition. 4) The shed would be much more
visible if the shed were to be moved where screening would not be
required. Motion failed 4-3. Opposed: Voss, Hasse, Weiland, Mueller. In
Favor: Michael, Glister, Hanus.
Mueller stated that on a lot with 39,000 square feet with all the structures on the lot
being conforming that we would extending the situation of the property to become a
nonconforming because of a shed at the lakeshore.
Weiland stated that he would like to see comments a, c, e, f of the planner's report
taken off the report for this case.
There was some discussion on the comments section of the report.
Thomas Reese commented on a line of sight for the pool. Sutherland stated that
Mound does not have a line of sight ordinance.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend staff
recommendation of denial. Motion carried 5-2. Opposed: Michael and
Hanus.
This case will go to the City Council on June 23, 1998
L ........ I i, i
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 22, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Audri Schwarz - 5621 Bartlett Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 98-37
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5ee
LOCATION: 5621 Bartlett Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a conforming pool and porch
addition. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Shed - lakeside 8' 50' 42'
The property is located at 5621 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce Blvd.
The lot is 39,600 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current improvements to
the property are a one-story house and a boathouse.
The planned improvements include a 22 feet by 14 feet screened porch, patio and in-ground pool
all located lakeside. Side yard and lakeside setbacks would be reduced with the proposed
improvements, but would remain above minimum requirements. The porch would reduce the
side yard setback from 19.7 feet to 16 feet. The pool would be setback approximately 85 feet
from the 929.4 contour reducing the lakeside setback from the current 127 feet.
Additional pool regulations which would be maintained as proposed include:
Side yard 10 feet
Lakeside 50 feet
Other structures 10 feet
Principal building 20 feet
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (6i2) 338-6838
p. 2
Schwa~ Variance Request
June 22, 1998
A fence enclosing the pool would also be required with a height between 5 and 6 feet.
The site plan shows the existing shed location. It is approximately 8 feet from the lake and 11
feet fi'om the side lot line. The floor elevation is not indicated, but is probably 3 to 4 feet above
the lake level. The shed is a standard 5 feet by 6 feet steel shed with a sliding front door. It is
used for storage of recreational equipment. It is not know exactly when the shed was placed
there, but the applicant states it existed before shoreland regulations were adopted.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Do
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed porch, patio, and pool improvements will all be conforming and add value to the
property. Prior to submitting the variance application staff visited the property to look at the
large trees, namely the 3 feet diameter oak that is around 50 feet in height. Because this and two
other adjacent trees are so tall, they shade the pool from summer sunshine for a portion of the
day. The bottom of the canopy is high enough that it doesn't screen the house when viewed
lakeside. The owner has indicated that this tree will be removed to provide additional sunlight on
the pool. Staff discussed possibilities that could keep the tree, but the owner will probably cut the
tree down. Due to the circumstances, the code does not provide protection to a single tree and it
123 North Third Stre. et, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Schwa~z Variance Request
June 22, 1998
is the owner's discretion if it stays or goes.
The existing shed is a nonconforming use in its present lakegide location. Although its status will
eventually require its removal, the applicant states it is used on a daily basis for storage of
equipment. A lock box is an option that could be approved to eliminate the shed. This case
similar to other lakeside structure cases, except that the shed could be moved relatively easily.
Other lakeside structures such as the boathouse next door are much more difficult to remove. If
the Commission feels there is reason to remove the shed, the findings should be stated as such.
Conversely, if there is reason to allow it to remain, finding should reflect this decision.
In keeping with Staff's position on the nonconforming accessory uses, it is recommended the
structure be removed or moved to a conforming location. If the Planning Commission agrees
with Staff, the resolution should reflect an appropriate time period for its removal and assurances
in the form of an easement or bond.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the request as stated with the following condition.
1. The existing shed be removed or moved to a conforming location.
123 North Third Stre. et, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee: $100.00
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
.Distribut on:
.~-~ City Planner~/ _~-21~-~:~ DNR
.~ City Engineer v' Other
Public Works ~
Case No.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
t. PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Lot
Block
Subdivision~
Aa r s, /
Phone (H) ~7~ - 3 ~ (W) ~-~ ~
B-1
(M)
Plat #~/-~_~., ~~
B-2 B-3
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
f
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? yc,~r4~. No ~k). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. ~,._e~!.~, lot area, etc.):
..
REQUESTED VARIANCE
SETBACKS: REQUIRED
(or existing)
Front Yard: ~ E W) 4~2 ft. Jkfll j~' ft. ft.
Side Yard: (~- S(]~L,? [O ft. J~ ~ ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E~) [1~ - ft. J~ ~ ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N(~E W ) ft. ' ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N E W ) .~'0 ft. ~ ft.
· (N SEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: c~:~,i:5~ sq ft ~./~ sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Variance Application, p. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road~
Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: ·
o
Are the conditions of hardship for whic.h you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), No,j~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date_
Date ~/2//~
( Rey. l.~l /14/9. 7)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS_
(IM~PERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOT AREA 3c~(o O _ · · = ...........
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
v/LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . ·
· Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED~S~
V/DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~-~ 'x ~/ :
~ x z~ : ~c~l
.............
.~ x ~ '
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
~'~o ~/./~ =
X =
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a X
pervious surface under are X
not counted as hardcover
x ~q
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
= 4 ~q
TOTAL OTHER .........................
iMP'~ROVIOUS SURFACE
TOTAL HARDCOVER /
O~ / OVER (indicate differ?nce) ...............................
I
.~077
, !
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
SITE Subjec! Address__ ~--~--~-~ "~
~usiness Na~e~ennant
The applicant is: ~owner ~contractor ~tenant
~GAL Lot ~ock Plat
DESCRIPTION Subdi~sion PID~
Address ~-~ ~
Phone (H) ~?Z '- ~;'~ (WI (M)
Address Y~;~ W~'~'~
Phone {H) (Wi ~ - ~ 7~ (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
~GINEER Phone (H) (W) .(M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK:
//_yr' ~ .¥ _7_p_~
ALUATION ¢~
OF WORK: /,~j ~ VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE ~ERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEA]qNG, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING°
PERMITS SECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANOONED
I=OR A PERIOD CF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER wORK I$ COMMENCED.
~ ~ , , ANT '0 A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N E".N CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS. REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
T~EL MI'~ST~NBU LDING ~0MPLET,0N. ALLWCRKTOBEPERFORMEDPURSU .~' - ' ' T F i= RMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
T T~I~ --; ~.~i~R$ 0F ANY 5L~IL~ING' OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZON NG OISTRIC, SHALL SE COMPLETED ~dlTHIN ONE Il) YEAR FROM THE OAE O E
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE -'OR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR 0FI=ENSE. THE CITY
COUNC:L MAY -:.XTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRI3-TEN REClUEST OF THE I=ERMITT~E, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OOUNCIL THAT
C~RCUMSTANCE$ BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE RERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK I=OR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQ, UESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY {301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~4D OF THE ONE-YEAR PEa"tlO0.
I HERESY CSR,-]FV THAT I HAVE R~O AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS ANO ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS T'Y'PE Si= WORK. W~LL SE COMPLIED ~/ITH wHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING Dj= A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
//////m//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// '/////////////m///////////////////////////////////////////////////m/
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: ~ [~ TI~ IX~)[[ L'O~,l~OI;~.t'~llk[~-
CONSTRUCTION TYPE; OCCUPANCY GRCUP/ DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED
I ZONING
~I~L~G SIZE (SO i=T} ~' STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED7 CITY ENGINEFJ~
~ UNrrS YES I NO PUBUC WORKS
04/' 38/1 ~'98, '-'5:28
6124246247
$CP MINNEAPOLIS
/
5' R2'
PAGE 81
2?'
2,25'
225' ELk
~,' P, ACIIUS
PACIFIC ST['P
~]~[I]~O[JTO00 Dllildirl~t & Remodelin9 Co.""
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
Neighborhood Building & Remodeling Co.""
933-7673
NAME
$ ~x~o
PHONE
J63033-001238.56
Prepared By:
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Engineers · Surveyors · Planners · Soils Testing
0' '~''''--~V~DU 10550 Wayzata Boulevard
B~.TL.___CT~op~n ~,~.}/.s~_~, ~e. ~,./um,',~ouS Minnetonka, Mn. 55343Tel. 546-7601
( ~rmer[~ Chop~on
O
O.
'~o
o~
~0
(coOKe
o0! 0 .~
'*'"'/ GENERAL NOTES:
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared under my
supervision and that I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
lheodor~ D. Kemna
-Date: 28 August 1986 License No. 17006 ~A~ ~ ~HF_D/~ ~-~
DESCRIPTION:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 23,
Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th
Principal Meridian described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the south
line of Bartlett Boulevard (formerly Chapman
Avenue) with the west line of the east 120.00
feet of said Government Lot 1; thence on an
assumed bearing of South 84 degrees 30
minutes O0 seconds West, along the south line
of said Bartlett Boulevard, a distance of
127.80 feet; thence South 6 degrees 10
minutes O0 seconds East about 382 feet to the
shoreline of Lake Mtnnetonka; thence
easterly, along said shoreline, to the
intersection with a line drawn southerly from
the point of beginning and parallel with the
east line of said Government Lot 1; thence
northerly, along said parallel line about 347
feet, to the point of beginning.
1) o- Denotes iron monument set.
2) Bearings shown are based on the
south line of Bartlett Boulevard
having an assumed bearing of South
84 degrees 30 minutes O0 seconds
West.
3) Area = 39,600 sq.ft.+ or 0.91 ac.+.
^DDRESS: ,..,/ ! I
StlRVEY ON FILE'~ ~rYES }!
CITY ()F MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
I.OT OF RECOltl)?
ZONING DIS YRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTII:
R~ lO, ooo/6o~ B~ ?, So0/o
R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6°000/40 B3 10,000/60
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
YARD
O/
I lOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
NO
DIRECTION
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED
LOT DEPI'tI:
VARIANCE
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
~].AKE
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, $IIEI) .....
FRONT
(e~S E W
N S E W
N SOW
N S ~.(~)
N S E W
N()E W
DETACI IED BUII.I)IN(iS
?O
lC)
50'
I0' OR 30'
Iq.
N S E W
FRONF N S E W
SIDE N S E w
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N s E w
TOP OF BI.UFF
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONI:ORMIN(i? YES I N~ , ? lB,.:,'~
Zoning Info, tarelton Sheet only SOlllnlarize$ a portion of the rcquir~
Plaru'ting I)epamnent at 472-0600.
47
(Z3)
(49)
R3LE
outJined iii the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
50'
I0' OR 30'
July 14, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO
CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING SUN PORCH,
AT 3065 DUNDEE LANE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN
PID # 24-117-24 44 0134
P & Z CASE #98-32
WHEREAS, the applicants, Dennis and Carolyn Leininger, have applied for a
front yard and side yard setback variances to allow for construction of a conforming sun
porch at 3065 Dundee Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the existing garage has a 18 foot front yard setback and a 4.2
foot side yard setback, requiring a 2 foot front yard setback variance and a 1.8 foot side
yard setback variance.
WHEREAS, the existing house has a .6 foot side yard setback to the North
and a 5.1 foot side yard setback to the South, requiring a 5.4 foot side yard setback
variance to the North and a .9 foot side yard setback variance to the South; and,
WHEREAS, there are two encroachments to adjacent properties:
Lot 6 (North) - the sidewalk encroaches approximately 3 feet into
this lot.
Lot 4 (South) - the retaining wall encroaches approximately 4 feet
into this lot.
; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommend approval of the variance with conditions; and,
July 14, 1998
Leininger- 3065 Dundee Lane
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 2 foot front yard setback, 1.8 foot side yard setback
variances for the garage and a 5.4 foot side yard setback (North), .9 foot side yard
setback (South) variances for the House for the purposes of constructing a conforming
porch addition with the following condition:
The applicant would obtain easements for the sidewalk and retaining wall
encroachments on lots 4 and 6 from the homeowners. The easements could be
removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. The
easements are required to be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit.
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
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures 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 improvements:
Construction of a conforming porch.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF OF VACATED
KINMAN PLACE WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE WESTERLY EXTENSIONS ACROSS SAID PLACE OF
THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOT 5, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY '13, '1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael
Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon,
Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry
Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland
Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn
Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood.
Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
No corrections were made.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO
CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH, DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE
LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0134
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, Dennis and Carolyn Leininger, have submitted an updated survey as requested
by the Commission at the June 8th meeting. The survey shows the side yard to exceed 1.6' for
the house and as conditioned in the motion is back on the agenda for further review. Again, the
request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is
listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Garage
Front Yard 18' 20' 2'
Side Yard 4.2' 6' 1.8'
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1998
Existing/Proposed
Required Variance
House
Side Yard north 0.6' 6' 5.4'
Side Yard south 5.1' 6' 0.9'
The detached garage shows an 18 feet setback from the property line and 22 feet from the
back of the curb measured at the southeast corner of the garage. The northeast corner is 23
feet from the property line. The survey also shows that portion of vacated Kinman Place which
has been combined with the parcel.
Hardcover as proposed for the property including the sidewalk not indicated on the survey, is
2916 sf, which is under the 3077 sf limit for this 7693 sf lot of record.
The updated survey shows the house and garage setbacks as listed above which are different
than those shown on the previous site plan. The survey does not show the sidewalk on the
north side of the house or the retaining wall on the south side of the house that encroach onto
the adjacent properties. I have drawn them on the survey for reference. The sidewalk appears
to encroach approximately 3 feet onto lot 6 along with a corner of the concrete patio in front of
the house. The retaining wall is about 4 feet in height and encroaches onto lot 4 approximately
4 feet.
A site inspection of the property would not suggest that the sidewalk or retaining wall are
encroaching. The property has been maintained such that the trees along the north and south
property lines appear to define the property boundary. The initial siting of the house and garage
are probably to blame for property boundary assumptions. The sidewalk along the north side of
the house was probably poured when the house was constructed. It is difficult to determine
when the retaining wall was built, but it too may have been built in some form when the house
was constructed. Subsequent property improvements to planting beds have relied on the house
orientation for property boundaries rather than an accurate survey.
The property has existed in this condition for many decades and outside relying on adjacent
property surveys, this may be the first time the property has been surveyed. Given the
circumstances, there are a couple options the Commission could look at to address the
encroachments. The first would be to remove the encroaching sidewalk, patio, and retaining
wall. Removal of that portion of the encroaching retaining wall will require additional grading on
lots 4 and 5 to prevent erosion. The second option would be to obtain easements for the
encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer
useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the
property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Input from the neighbors
should be considered before any motion is made.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options and determine which
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1998,
approach best fits the situation.
Discussion:
Mueller questioned the easement, he believes that would be an agreement between the two
property owners. Gordon stated that in the past, a copy of the easement would be on record at
the city.
Mueller stated that if the applicant could not obtain the easement agreement from the adjacent
property owner then the applicant would not receive his variance. He stated that the retaining
wall has been there prior to the applicant owning the property. He stated that from the
information provided in the application that the adjacent property owner would not likely grant
the easement to the applicant. He stated he didn't see why the city was getting in between the
issue of the easement, he feels it is between the two property owners.
Sutherland stated that the city has been involved in other cases such as the Meisel's on Bartlett
Blvd, where the City Attorney advised that the encroachment could be removed.
Mueller asked the applicant if he asked his neighbors about granting the easements. Dennis
Leininger stated that the abutting property owners do know that there are encroachments on
their properties.
Carolyn Leininger questioned what do the other issues have to do with the addition and why
there are concerns with the encroachments on adjacent property when the addition they want to
put on is in a conforming location. Michael and Mueller explained the reasoning behind the
encroachment questions and that the city has a right to deny the addition due to the non
conforming issues.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Voss to recommend staff's second option
recommendation which states, "The applicant would obtain easements for the
encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the
house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. This option
would prevent disruption of the property but assumes the neighbors will agree to
the easements.
There was further discussion on the retaining wall encroachment easement.
Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Mueller.
This case will go to City Council on July 14, 1998.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request - updated report
OWNER: Dennis and Carolyn Leininger- 3065 Dundee Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-32
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5z
LOCATION: 3065 Dundee Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted an updated survey as requested by the
Commission at the June 8th meeting. The survey shows the sideyard to exceed 1.6' for the house
and as conditioned in the motion is back on the agenda for further review. Again, the request to
add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed ~ Variance
Front Yard 18' 20' 2'
Side Yard 4.2' 6' 1.8'
House
Side Yard - north 0.6' 6' 5.4'
Side Yard- south 5.1' 6' 0.9'
The detached garage shows an 18 feet setback from the property line and 22 feet from the back of
the curb measured at the southeast comer of the garage. The northeast comer is 23 feet from the
property line. The survey also shows that portion of vacated Kinman Place which has been
combined with the parcel.
Hardcover as proposed for the property including the sidewalk not indicated on the survey, is
2916 sf, which is under the 3077 sf limit for this 7693 sflot of record.
123 North Third Stre. et, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#98-32 - Leininger Variance Request - updated report
July 13, 1998
The updated survey shows the house and garage setbacks as listed above which are different than
those shown on the previous site plan. The survey does not show the sidewalk on the north side
of the house or the retaining wall on the south side of the house that encroach onto the adjacent
properties. I have drawn them on the survey for reference. The sidewalk appears to encroach
approximately 3 feet onto lot 6 along with a comer of the concrete patio in front of the house.
The retaining wall is about 4 feet in height and encroaches onto lot 4 approximately 4 feet.
A site inspection of the property would not suggest that the sidewalk or retaining wall are
encroaching. The property has been maintained such that the trees along the north and south
property lines appear to define the property boundary. The initial siting of the house and garage
are probably to blame for property boundary assumptions. The sidewalk along the north side of
the house was probably poured when the house was constructed. It is difficult to determine when
the retaining wall was built, but it too may have been built in some form when the house was
constructed. Subsequent property improvements to planting beds have relied on the house
orientation for property boundaries rather than an accurate survey.
DISCUSSION: The property has existed in this condition for many decades and outside relying
on adjacent property surveys, this may be the first time the property has been surveyed. Given
the circumstances, there are a couple options the Commission could look at to address the
encroachments. The first would be to remove the encroaching sidewalk, patio, and retaining wall.
Removal of that portion of the encroaching retaining wall will require additional grading on lots
4 and 5 to prevent erosion. The second option would be to obtain easements for the
encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer
useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the
property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Input from the neighbors should
be considered before any motion is made.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options and
determine which approach best fits the situation.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (6i2) 338-6838
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris
Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss
Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen
Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim
Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer
Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed
with the Public Hearings.
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused.
Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read, "Hanus
commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional
variance.
So noted and will be corrected.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12,
ARDEN
PID # 24-117-24 44 0134
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1998
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard.
The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Garage
Front Yard 18'8" 20' 1' 4"
Side Yard 4' 6' 2'
House
Side Yard - north 5'10" 6' 2"
Side Yard - south 1 '6" 6' 4'6"
The property is located at 3065 Dundee Lane. The lot has frontage Dundee and
Churchill Lane, some of which has been vacated. Drainage on the property is from east
to west. Existing nonconformities on the property include the house and detached
garage which do not meet code setback requirements. The detached garage is a two
stall front entry and is in good condition. The 11 feet by 14 feet sun porch is conforming
to front and side yard setbacks.
The proposed addition will not increase or expand the nonconformity of the house. The
improvements should increase the owners enjoyment of the property and its overall
value. The porch does not appear that it presents a negative impact on the adjacent
properties or the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variances as requested with the following condition.
1. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan for the proposed sun porch.
2. An updated survey accurately locating structures on the property.
Discussion:
Weiland suggested that if the survey shows a discrepancy that this case be brought
back to the Planning Commission for approval.
Hanus suggested that the sun porch be in a conforming location.
Weiland questioned if there can anything be done with the drainage between the two
parcels.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval with the
following conditions:
1. Updated survey be required
2. Complete drainage plan be reviewed and approved by City Engineer.
3. The proposed sunporch be conforming.
4. Should the variances exceed 1.6' for the house or 1.0' for the garage
then the case come back to the Planning Commission for further
review.
Motion carries 7-0.
This case will go to the City Council on June 23,1998
Mueller moved to bring back case 98-32 for reconsideration. Hanus seconded.
Mueller stated that he discovered that the hardcover would increase with the sun porch
addition. Hanus stated that it was calculated at 30% and the 40% lot of record status
could be used.
Gordon stated that there may be encroachment of the retaining wall.
Case # 98-32:
Mueller motioned to rescind the prior motion, Michael seconded to
reconsider this case after a current survey is obtained.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to table this case until an
accurate survey is obtained.
3
612-SS868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 862 PO1 JUL 89 '98 12:44
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
DENNIS LEININGER
OF LOT .5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN
AND PART OF ADJOINING
VACATED KINMAN PLACE
HENNEP!N ~.OUNTY, IvIINNESOTA
; so ' L O ]'
,,, ..... ,,,.,, .
LEGAt. D[$CI~IPTION OF
.... ~ot .St Bl~ck .1~,. A~DEN,-to¢~tk~r .~t~ that ~ort of th..E~st half of ...........................
vocate¢ Kinm~n Place w~ich lies between the westerly extension~
acr~s sold Piece ~f the northerly aha $outherl~ lines ~f ~afa Lot 5.
This survey friends to show the boundaries of ~e abo~e described
property, and the Iocat;on of an exlstlng house, ~arage.
· . driveway and sldewolk 'thereon. an~ the proposed'location of a ' '
prepared addition, It doss not purport to sho~ any othe~
' ..... '-.merits oF encroechmcn[s.. ' .... .......
o ; Iron marker
~e,,~ ; Existi~g Spot elevation
~ : Proposed spot elev~tio~
Bearings shown are based upon ~n a~oumed datum
RECEIVED
~ COFFIN & GRONB~RG, INC. ,b~tl~yr~t~E~.~L~ey,~r 1"=30'
eT~ ~m~ 6/22/98
~.S. 6ronb~ ~.t{ Lbe~e ~,r ~27S5 98258
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Dennis and Carolyn Leininger - 3065 Dundee Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-32
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5z
LOCATION: 3065 Dundee Lane
ZONING: Residential District R- lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming sun porch in the
front yard. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance.
Garage
Front Yard 18' 8" 20' 1' 4"
Side Yard 4' 6' 2'
House
Side Yard - north 5' 10" 6' 2"
Side Yard - south 1'6" 6' 4'6"
The property is located at 3065 Dundee Lane. The lot has frontage Dundee and Churchill Lane,
some of which has been vacated. Drainage on the property is from east to west. Existing
nonconformities on the property include the house and detached garage which do not meet code
setback requirements. The detached garage is a two stall front entry and is in good condition. The
11 feet by 14 feet sun porch is conforming to front and side yard setbacks.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#98-32 - Leininger Variance Request
June 8, 1998
mo
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result fi-om lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
Bo
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
D°
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum vahance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed addition will not increase or expand the nonconformity of the house. The
improvements should increase the owners enjoyment of the property and its overall value. The
porch does not appear that it presents a negative impact on the adjacent properties or the
neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variances as requested with the following condition.
1. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan for the proposed sun porch.
123 North Third Street, SUi/e 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
~;341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
I .... 11, L
/v/AY, 8 98.' '
C.?:' C:7: ...... '-
Application Fee: $100.00
:(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) ~
Planning Commission Date: Case No. -
City Council Date:
Distribution: G~-~g City Planner , O'/_'~-//~
-~A~I~. c~ ~ City Engineer Other
~--~,~,---~ ~ ~ Public Works '"
SUBJECT Address.'_¢~2/z.¥ /?,'~ ~i~
PROPERTY Lot ...~ C' '~
LEGAL Block ~ /,~ ~
~sc. s~ivisio~ ~,?/~ ~
._1 ..1 ._:
PROPERTYName ~/'~ ~~/~/~
OWNER AOdress,~.~~7/~2~' ~~ v
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~po. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resi~'t~ions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
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 (describr
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
,'~'.~,~'L,~'~/~, Front Yard:
Side Yard: (Q~)S E W
~,~' Side Yard: ~S E W
Rear Yard: ( N S E W
Lakeside: ( N S E W
Stre~ F-rontage: ~-
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
: ft.
ft.
to
ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
~ ft. ./' ~ '~ ft. ~'~ ft.
ff. ff. ft.
sq ff sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
,,
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
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 J,~ existing situation
) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
~'~~ '(Rev. lll14197)
Variance Application, ~. 3
Case No._
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No'~). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No~{/)'. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the properW
described in this petition? Yes (), No ~>~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
9. Comments'
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Sig natu re/. ~.,.'~.~ ~,. ,~ ¥~ff'
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 11114/97)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOT AREA /[~ ~ '- SQ. FT. X 30% (for all lots) ............
LOT AREA SQ. ~. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*)
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE ~o..,~ - ,~' '''/ '~ ' '
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open d.~cks (1/~--" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X -
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
I
UNDER / OVER (incJ~cate difference) ...............................
P,REPARED BY. . ~., ~ ~, ~ ~/,. ~2/¢',,~/~- DATE
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
SITE Subject Address 3065 Dundee Lane
Bus[ness Name/Tennant
The applicant is: __owner .._~Xcontractor __tenant
LEGAL Lot Block Plat #
DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID#
Dennis & Carolyn Leininger
OWNER Name
Address..3065 Dundee Lane, Mound, MN 55364
Phone (H) 472-1704 (W) same (M)
CONTRACTOR Company Name Patio Enclosures, Inc. License # 1676
Contact Person doe ~onn
Address2123 0£~ Hwy 8, New Brighton MN 55112
Phone (H) b31-.Ll0
(W) (M).
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M).
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK: Sunroom Addition
VALUATION
OF WORK:
$18r625.00
VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR F_,.ECTRICAL, PLUMBING. HEATING. VENTILATING OB AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOiD IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED W~THIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION, ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING. AND ALTERATIONS
~-O TH~; ~.XTERiOR$ OF ANY ~LJILDtNG OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED W1THIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
O6TAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OVVNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL RE RESPONSIBLE I:OR COMPLETION, A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON 9VRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMI'CrEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ENO OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THiS TYPE OF WORK W1LL BE COMPLIED W;TH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GiVE AUTHORITY TO V[OLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
~~~~~~~~fill~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS.~-=~z~ ,/. flirt I ...... ./z~ ~ .....
~ _~ .... , _ :'~-~r~, ~..~ ,.-~', [ ,~ I~[~-%~ ~_.~.'~) '3/
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP ! DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED
ZONING
BLDG S;ZE {SQ F-r) · STORIES .... FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED~ -_ CiTY ENGINEER -
· u~errs YES / NO PUBLIC WORKS
REDErVE~ S~ ~ OATE: ~S CHECKED "~: ' .......... ~. AP,R6V£~ S~ ~D^+~ ............ ,.,'ASSESS,NO
~ ~ -I~
/ ~ ~,V t~ '
· - o .~ '~;
i
"" /
11'
,.4'O
OLJklO~ LLI.
110'
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound MN 55364- 1687
Phone 472-0600
Fax 472-0620
May 11, 1998
Certified Mail ~ Z 381 251
Dear City of Mound Building Permit Department, Planning
Commission and City Council.
The enclosed certificate of survey from city records shows my
neighbors house is built 3.4 feet or less from my lot line. This
means that parts of some of the structures built on the lot are
likely on my property. I understand this violates setback
requirements. These setback requirements are part of my property
rights. Changing any of these requirements gives rights to my
neighbor by taking rights away from me. It is not clear where the
lot line is so I will have it surveyed as quickly as practical.
Please contact me at the following address in writing well in
advance of any building permits or variances being approved for the
existing structure or for any additions to this property. I do not
want any actions taken that would allow or make easier any more
building within the setback area (higher or wider) along the
southernly lot line of lot 5 block 12 Arden that borders on my Lot
4. The structure on lot 5 has a number of rotten areas and it is
clear at some time it will need a rebuilding. The southern wall of
the structure should be moved out of the setback area if a
rebuilding of the structure or addition to the southern side of th~
property is planned.
MAIL ALL NOTICES TO MY PERMANENT MAILING ADDRESS.
PETER PERRINE
PO BOX 41479
PLYMOUTH MN 55441
TELEPHONE 612-577-0859
I DO NOT CURRENTLY LIVE AT THE PROPERTY, I WILL NOT GET THE NOTICE
IF YOU MAIL IT TO THE PROPERTY.
I own lots 3 and 4 Block 12 Arden, 3069 and 3073 Dundee lane Mound.
My neighbor owns Lot 5 Block 12 Arden, 3065 Dundee lane Mound.
My neighbor has not shared his plans with me.
Does city policy or law require or should it require that I be
notified of building permit applications or requests for variances
in this type of situation at my permanent mailing address specified
in this letter ? How many days in advance will I be notified ?
Can I be assured that I will be notified and allowed to communicate
any concerns I may have to my neighbor and the city before a
decisions is made on this property ?
Peter Perrine
PO Box 41479
Plymouth MN 55441
612-577-0859
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
SURVEY ON FILE? YES /~)
LOT OF RECORD? ~/ NO
YARD [ DI RE(.FFION [
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH~
R1...~ln.ooo~60_.._...~ B1 7,500/0
R1A 6,000/40.~ B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/B0
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30o000/100
REQU1RED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WID'I 1-1:
LOT DEt'Ttt:
VARIANCE
IIOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W ~
R.E'A"R-' N S E W ~
oE.XK"g-- N S E W
GARAGE, $11ED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
REAR N S E W 4'
,g
LAKE N S E W 50'
'FOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
llARDCOVER ~ 30% OR 400/, /%, , {...- ,~
CONFORMING? YES / NO I(~' ) IIIY; II'AT D: I
'l'hi,~ Zoning hdormadon Shc~l only summarizc.s a portion of thc requiremcn~otulli~cd ~n thc City of lvlound Zoning Ordinance. For further iuformaiion, coutacl Ibc Ciiy of Mound
Planning Deparm'sent at 472-()600. ,~.~.
(hlO) II
July 14, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO
CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE,
AT 5661 BARTLETT BOULEVARD,
PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 23,
PID # 23-117-24 14 0004
P & Z CASE #98-36
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bradley Nordgren, has applied for a front yard and
side yard setback variances to allow for construction of a conforming 12 x 22 addition to
the existing garage at 5661 Bartlett Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 50 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the existing house has a 12 foot front yard setback and a 3.62
foot side yard setback, requiring a 18 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.38 foot side
yard setback variance; and,
WHEREAS, the existing garage has a 5 foot side yard setback, requiring a 1
foot side yard setback variance; and,
WHEREAS, the property exceeds the hardcover requirements by 13%; and,
WHEREAS, according to the Zoning Code Ordinance Section 350:1225,
Subd. 6, B, this lot of record is allowed up to 40% hardcover with an approved drainage
plan; and,
WHEREAS, this property also serves as an access drive to lot 5 with a
substantial amount of bituminous; and,
WHEREAS, garages are limited to 1200 square feet and the proposed total
area for the garage would be 936 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance with conditions; and,
July 14, 1998
Nordgren - 5661 Bartlett Blvd.
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 18 foot front yard and a 2.38 side yard setback
variance for the house and a 1 foot side yard variance for the garage with the
following conditions:
The poly be removed or perforated to the requirements set by staff.
An agreement be entered into by the applicant with the city to reduce the
hardcover to 30% (or 40% with an approved drainage plan) within a one
year period of time and be approved by the City Attorney.
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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain
as lawful, nonconforming structures 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 improvements:
Construction of a conforming addition to the existing garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
THAT PART OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED LINE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DISTANT 234,4 FEET
SOUTHERLY AS MEASURED ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID WESTERLY LINE A
DISTANCE OF 93.46 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID TRACT; ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 1 17, RANGE
24, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHICH LIES SOUTH OF CHAPMAN PLACE NOW COUNTY
ROAD NO. 7 AND EAST OF LAKE AVENUE AS SAID AVENUES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
MOUND BAY PARK DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY ROAD NO.7
WHICH POINT IS DISTANT 200 FEET EASTERLY MEASURED ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FROM THE
EAST LINE OF LAKE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES, 46 MINUTES EAST 452.2 FEET TO
AN IRON MONUMENT IN LAKE SHORE; THENCE NORTH 65 DEGREES 10 MINUTES EAST ALONG
SAID SHORE, 90.8 FEET TO AN IRON MONUMENT; THENCE NORTH 9 DEGREES 42 MINUTES
WEST 420.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY
ROAD NO. 7, 100 FEET EAST OF POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID
July 14, 1998
Nordgren - 5661 Bartlett 81vd.
Page 3
SOUTH LINE OF CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY ROAD NO. 7, 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT TO MAINTAIN A PRIVATE FOOT PATH 5 FEET IN
WIDTH FOR PRIVATE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA AND THE
RIGHT TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN STEPS DOWN THE BANK OF SAID SHORE AND A DOCK FOR
THE PRIVATE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE GRANTEES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OVER THE
LAND AS SHOWN BY DEED DOCUMENT NO. 1049730, FILES OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES.
o
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
Mound Planning Commission
July 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY t3,
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael
Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon,
Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry
Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland
Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn
Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood.
Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
No corrections were made.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BRADLEY
NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID # 23-117-24 14 0004
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case.
Since the June 22"~ Planning Commission meeting, staff has visited the property to confirm the
survey and revised hardcover calculations. The property has a number of mulch and rock
planting beds that are lined with poly located within the loop driveway, at the rear and east side
yard of the house, and in front of the detached garage. The survey does not delineate the
planting areas with poly underlay however, staff estimates there may be 1,500 sf or more of
additional hardcover. This increases the hardcover substantially further complicating the
hardcover issue. Additionally, the calculations are in error and should be corrected to show the
following:
Hardcover w/o poly
Hardcover w/poly (est.)
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
7955 sf (36%) 6674 sf 1281 sf
9455 sf (43%) 6674 sf 2781 sf
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1998
There are couple options the Planning Commission could pursue to address the hardcover
situation. The first would be to require that the hardcover meet the 30% required by code which
would mean the poly and driveway or structure would need to be rem ve l, ^ e 0nd option
would be to find that there is a practical difficulty present with the additional hardcover added by
the driveway that provides access to lot 5. An access drive for a lot without street frontage is
not typical however, there are a small number of similar lots in the city that gain access through
an adjacent lot. If the loop drive and bituminous apron were not present, the property would
gain approximately 3300 sf of hardcover which would put the property into conformance with
hardcover requirements even with the poly planting areas included.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options presented and make a
recommendation based on the merits of the case.
Discussion:
Mueller questioned the blacktop that is at the south end of the property. The applicant stated
that it benefits the homeowner to the south. The applicant stated that the poly will be removed.
He also stated that he intends to remove some of the blacktop that extends to the south to
reduce some of the hardcover on his property.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of the variance
with the following conditions: 1) The poly be removed or perferated to the
requirements set by staff. 2) An agreement be entered into by the applicant to
reduce the hardcover to 30% within one year period of time and be approved by
the City Attorney. Motion carried 7-0.
Sutherland stated that according to Zoning Code Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6, B. up
to 40% hardcover is permitted with an approved drainage plan.
There was further discussion of the lot of record hardcover interpretation.
This case will go to City Council on July 14, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: July 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request - updated report
OWNER: Brad Nordgren - 5661 Bartlett Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 98-36
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5dd
LOCATION: 5661 Bartlett Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: Since the June 22na Planning Commission meeting, staff has visited the
property to confirm the survey and revised hardcover calculations. The property has a number of
mulch and rock planting beds that are lined with poly located within the loop driveway, at the
rear and east side yard of the house, and in front of the detached garage. The survey does not
delineate the planting areas with poly underlay however, staff estimates there may be 1,500 sf or
more of additional hardcover. This increases the hardcover substantially further complicating the
hardcover issue. Additionally, the calculations are in error and should be corrected to show the
following:
Hardcover w/o poly
Hardcover w/poly (est.)
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
7955 sf(36%) 6674 sf 1281 sf
9455 sf(43%) 6674 sf 2781 sf
There are couple options the Planning Commission could pursue to address the hardcover
situation. The first would be to require that the hardcover meet the 30% required by code which
would mean the poly and driveway or structure would need to be removed. A second option
would be to find that there is a practical difficulty present with the additional hardcover added by
the driveway that provides access to lot 5. An access drive for a lot without street frontage is not
typical however, there are a small number of similar lots in the city that gain access through an
adjacent lot. If the loop drive and bituminous apron were not present, the property would gain
approximately 3300 sf of hardcover which would put the property into conformance with
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Nordgren Variance Request- updated report
July 13, 1998
hardcover requirements even with the poly planting areas included.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options
presented and make a recommendation based on the merits of the case.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill
Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Building Official
Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and
Orv Burma, Assistant Planner Loren Gordon.
Public Present: Audri Schwarz, Bradley Nordgren, Thomas & Amy Reese, Mark
Goldberg.
Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 8, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mueller made one correction on page 12 of the Minutes on a Motion it should state,
"MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table this case until a accurate survey is
submitted and completed application is submitted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed:
Burma."
So noted and corrected.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the
June 8, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BRADLEY
NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID # 23-117-24 14 0004
Jon Sutherland presented Assistant Planner Loren Gordon's case.
The applicant, Bradley Nordgren, has submitted a request to build a conforming 12 feet
by 22 feet addition to a nonconforming garage. The associated variance request is
listed below.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
Existing/ProposedRequired Variance
House
Front Yard 12' 30' 18'
Side Yard 3.62' 6' 2.38'
Garage
Side Yard 5' 6' 1'
The property is located at 5661 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce
Blvd. The lot is 22,247 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current
improvements to the property are a one-story house and a garage. The house is
nonconforming with a 12 feet setback from the front property line.
The garage addition would be built in a conforming location in the rear with a 2 feet
offset from the west wall. The applicant wants to use the addition for a shop area.
Garages are limited to 1200 sf, and as proposed total area would be 936 sr.
The shop would be an improvement to the property that would not increase the existing
nonconformities. The Building Official will perform all necessary building related
inspections to ensure the improvements meet code.
The house is in good condition and does not appear to present any safety issues in its
location 12 feet from the right-of-way. The applicant states it was built in 1946. Moving
the house to a conforming location would not be recommended.
The garage is offset slightly causing the SVV corner to encroach 1 foot into the setback.
The NW corner is conforming at 6 feet. Staff views this encroachment as minor and
would recommend no action be taken on the garage to bring it into conformity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approve the variance as requested.
DISCUSSION:
Hanus questioned if there is an easement for the driveway that goes to the southerly
lot. Sutherland stated that it is an easement and not a through lot.
Mueller questioned the detached structure next to the garage. It is not on the survey.
Bradley Nordgren stated that it is a pad with a screen house on it with a chimney.
Mueller stated that it appears that the screen house is very close to the garage. Mueller
stated that it was not included in the hardcover calculation sheet nor was the pavement
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1998
that goes between the house and the garage. Nordgren stated that he only calculated
the existing structures not the proposed.
Mueller questioned Nordgren on the letter he submitted asking him to explain his views
on the pros of variances since he expressed the cons in his letter. Nordgren explained
his stance on the subject.
Mueller questioned the applicant if he understood the reason for a hardcover
calculation sheet. The applicant stated that he understood it.
Sutherland requested Mueller to identify the items missing from the survey and
hardcover calculation sheet. Mueller stated the new addition to the garage, the
driveway slab, the asphalt up to the garage, and the screen porch.
There was lengthy discussion regarding hardcover.
Mueller stated that for the size of the lot there should not be a hardcover issue.
Nordgren presented Mueller with an old survey that was not turned in with the
application.
Sutherland commented that the driveway serves two homes and if you considered both
parcels the total impervious surface is negligible.
Hanus stated by taking an extreme approach one could take out some of the loop of the
asphalt driveway to alleviate some of the hardcover.
Hanus stated a Finding of Fact: Practical difficulty for the driveway that serves two
homes.
Mueller commented on the length of the driveway and the water run off issue. Hanus
commented that a driveway could be crowned to divert the water flow. Nordgren stated
that the driveway is pitched and the water does run off to the west side.
Mueller stated again that the survey is not complete.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to table until accurate updated
survey with hardcover identified. Motion carried 7-0.
Nordgren restated what he addressed in his letter about having surgery.
3
· ~::~ i~::)~c ~ '~o CITY OF MOUND
· HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(~..O~,(CA.~-tOCA O~~(3Z- (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5661 BARTLETT BLVD
J U 'z 5 I998
MOUND , , ..... :
OWNER'S NAME: Brad C. Nordgren
LOTAREA22'247 SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only) . .
6,674
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE 13 X 21.4 = 280
29 X 27.5 = 800
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
DETACHED BLDGS 28 X 24 = 672
Screen 19x14
(GARAGE/SHED) Addition 12x22 X = 530
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING 393
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,Aprons on driveway
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
X 10 = 3930
X = 1477
~9 X ] 4 = 76
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
21.7 X 10.6 = 226
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
1080
1202
5483
(excluded)
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I 7, 6_~9
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I 1050 over
N O TTq:T'I O>,I .'
RECEIVED
J~IN ].. 5 1,99a
~j~l~l ~G &~lh~- .....
~oKT ~4
~£&L~. l"~ 50
JAN ~$ 1~90 ~
f
/
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 22, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Brad Nordgren - 5661 Bartlett Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 98-36
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5dd
LOCATION: 5661 Bartlett Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a r~equest to 'build a conforming 12 feet by 22
feet addition to a nonconforming garage. The associfited variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
House
Front Yard 12' 30' 18'
Side Yard 3.62' 6' 2.38'
Garage
Side Yard 5' 6' 1'
The property is located at 5661 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce Blvd.
The lot is 22,247 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current improvements to
the property are a one-story house and a garage. The house is nonconforming with a 12 feet
setback from the front property line.
The garage addition would be built in a conforming location in the rear with a 2 feet offset from
the west wall. The applicant wants to use the addition for a shop area. Garages are limited to
1200 sf, and as proposed total area would be 936 sf.
123 North Third Street, Suite_ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Nrodgren Variance Request
June 22, 1998
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
Bo
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Do
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The shop would be an improvement to the property that would not increase the existing
nonconformities. The Building Official will perform all necessary building related inspections to
ensure the improvements meet code.
The house is in good condition and does not appear to present any safety issues in its location 12
feet from the right-of-way. The applicant states it was built in 1946. Moving the house to a
conforming location would not be recommended.
The garage is offset slightly causing the SW comer to encroach 1 foot into the setback. The NW
comer is conforming at 6 feet. Staff views this encroachment as minor and would recommend no
action be taken on the garage to bring it into conformity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite_ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner v' (o-8' ~uq
City Engineer v' Other
Public Works i,/
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
*APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
~Address,-~--~ _~i-- ~.S~,~-'t!~__~~ '~)\V;).
Lot
DNR
Block
Subdivision ~,~~ ~
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
Address ~~ ~ ~~fft ~ '~~'---' -
Phone (H) ~ ~ ~'~~ ~ (W)~G' ~~ ~ (M)
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Has an application ever be_~for~ing, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this pr°perty~~-~f~. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies df resolutions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with a~ea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. set. back, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard' (~)S E W) ~{~ ft. I~ ft. t8 ft.
Side Yard: ('~-~,_..) ~p ft. ?),(o~ ft. ~,~f~_~., ft.
Side Yard: ( N $ E ~ ~ ft. ~" ft. i ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ~ ft. ~-'~_ ft. ~ ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
· (N SEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ~ ft. I ~2) ft. ft.
Lot Size: IC___J,~-3.~sq ft ,"~j~"~ sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: ir~'~l~ sq ft ~'~ _~c.~ sq ft -- sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~J,;'lqo (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
( ) soil
(-,/~'existing situation
o~er: specify
(R'ev. 11/14/9 7)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone haying property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (/v~. If yes, explain:
7. Was th~hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes k~, No (). If yes, explain:
affected ?
Are the conditions of hardship for which yo,,u request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), No (H~'. If no, list some other properties which are similarly
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mo for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
v,?~gnd
maintaining and removino~'ch notices as may be re~:~ffed by law,
Owner .... /.' .
Applica~
Dat ' '
Date
(Rev. ll/14/97)
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The a..licant is: ~wner ~c~c~or __tenan~ '
DESC~IP~ON Subdi~sion PID~
Phone {.)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
~GINEER Phon.
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FQR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING. VENTILATING DR AIR CONDITIONING.
PC. RMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC,TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A P~.RICD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
T~M E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALLWORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING. AND ALTERATIONS
TO Tr~E ;.XT~P, IOR$ OF ANY ~,UILDIN'~' OR STRUOTURE iN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED W1THIN ONE {ll yF_AR FROM THE DATE OF: PERMIT iSSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLAT30N OF THIS ORDINANCE iS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNC:L MAY F_XTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRI3-TEN REQUEST DF THE ~aEP, MI3-rEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRC:JMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMI'~'EE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PC. RMIT WAS GRANTED. THE F_3(TENSION SHALL BE ~EQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30! BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIL0.
I HEREBY CERT1F'" THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW ,'HE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES ,~GVERNING
THiS -'YPE GF WORK WILL SE COMPLIED W1TH wHETHER SPECiFiED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GI~/E AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVlSiCNS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTI~FQRMAI~E OF CONSTRUCTION. //
~~/~~~/~~~~j~/~~/~~~~~
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMM~z~TS:
CONSTRUCTION ,'TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED
S~ ZONING ~-
~iSC~ Fl'} # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLER CiTY ENGINEE~ ~
~' UNITS YES / NO ~ PUBLIC WORKS
REC.~ ED BY / ATE; IpLANS CHECKED BY: APPROV~ BY/DATE; ! I ASSESSING ..
That part of the following described tract lying Northerly of the following
described line:
Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said tract distant 234.4 feet
.~Southerly as measured along said Westerly line from the Northwest corner of
said tract; thence Northeasterly at right angles to said Westerly line a
distance of 93.46 feet more.or less to the intersection with the Easterly line
of said tract;
All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24,
Hennepin county, Minnesota which lies South of Chapman Place now County Road
No. 7 and Rast of Lake Avenue as said Avenues are shown on the plat of Mound
Bay Park described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the South line of Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7
which point is distant 200 feet Easterly measured along said South line from
the East line of Lake Avenue; thence South 10 degrees, 46 minute~ East 452.2
feet to an iron monument in Lake shore; thence North 65 degrees 10 minutes
East along said shore, 90.8 feet to an iron monument; thence North 9 degrees
42 minutes West 420.5 feet to a point on the South line of sai~ Chapman Place,
now County Road No. 7, 100 feet East of point of beginning; thence Westerly
along the said South line of Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7, 100 feet to
~.~the place of beginning.
Together with an easement to maintain a private foot path 5 feet in width for
private ingress and egress to the shore of Lake Mlnne~onka and the right to
install and maintain steps down the bank of said shore and a dock for the
private use and enjoyment of the grantees, their heirs and assigns over other
land as shown by Deed. Document No. 1049730, Files of the Registrar of Titles.
Post-it" Fax Note 7671
oaie J #of · /
T00 ~ I~¥E~0J HqiIi HD¥iNYAfl¥ 6~ltS~ IT9 Y~ g8:~T 13~? c~/~?/ene
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPERIY ADDRESS:
OWNER S NAME:
LOT AREA ~-~/'~-t? SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
(for all lots) ..............
-- (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only) . .
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS
x ¢' .....
~-~ x ~ = ~a
TOTAL DECK ..........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY('~~ '~ O~,~ ~ DATE
(REV. 8/29/94)
summary of hardcover rules
Excerpts from the Mound Zoning Ordinance
Section 350:310. .Definition.~.
Impervious Cover. Any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of
water or surface moisture. Impervious cover shall include, but not be limited
to all driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts,
sidewalks, patios, and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening
between boards) shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations.
Section 350:645. General Requirements Applicable to All Residential District,-.
- Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area.
Accessory buildings shall not exceed 15% of the total lot area.
Section 350:1225, Subd. 6..Shoreland Manaqement,
Impervious surface coverage of lots in residential zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area.
On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent
providing that the following techniques are utilized as applicable.
Impervious areas should be drained to vegetated areas or grass filter strips through the use
of crowns on driveways, direction downspouts on gutters collecting water from roof areas,
etc.
Dividing or separating impervious areas into smaller areas through the use of grass or
vegetated filter strips such as the use of paving blocks separated by grass or sand allowing
infiltration.
c. Use grading and construction techniques which encourage rapid infiltration such as the
installation of sand or gravel "sump" areas to collect and percolate stormwater.
d. Install berms to temporarily detain stormwater thereby increasing soil absorption.
Impervious surface coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones shall not exceed 30 percent
of the lot area. In business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an
approved stormwater management plan, impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 75 percent
of the total lot area.
7_.
,/
NORTHGREEN
PAGE 02
Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr.
Civ/Manager
CITY o! MouND
5341 May~ood Road
Mound MN 55364
RE: Building Variance Permit / Case #98-36
June 4, 1998
Dear Mr. Shulde;
Several days ago I submitted my building permit application with all required materials. It
was then I learrted of the extend length of time it would take as my new residence is
subject to a variance review requirement (R27). Circumstances are such that I am
approaching you in hopes of expediting my permit request.
B K~~_~9_~Q_L~ First, the srrmll addition I plan to build onto my garage does not create
any encroachment issues on existing set backs. It's being built on the south side of the
garage, away from Bartlett. There are no unique structural issues. Everything is very
standard, with the exception that my 1946 built home (5661 Bartlett) is 'too' close to the
boulevard. When the 1982 set back ordinance was implemented it automatie_~lly created a
variance issue for future projects on this property. I have been informed by both John and
Chris the plan complies in every respect, and a permit would norm~y be issued...with the
exception of the variance requirement.
The critical reason I am requesting help here is that in early July I am sUl~X~sed to have
my left leg surgically broken to straighten it. This then results in a full leg cast which I'll
have 5-7 weeks. Then my right leg is supposed to be done. Not a good ~ for
someone who likes being outdoors. Anyway, the quote from my builder (Kathryn Taylor
Homes) includes my ~ providing support labor to one of her crew (lifting framed
walls, trusses, hammering, etc.) If I'm in a ca~t I can't help. IfI can't help I can't afford
the additional labor expense. Something of a catch-22. My neighbors, the Reeses,
Smith's, etc., don't have a problem with the project, and I can obtain documentation and
sin
5661 Bartlett Bll~t'.
Mound
RECEIVED 2 1998
North Gree Corem unlcations Inc.
603 East Lake Street, Suite 200-Q · Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 · (612)476-g501 -- -
Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr.
CITY of MOUND
5341 Maywood Road June 11, 1998
Mound MN 55364
Dear Ed; 6~0~0~, ' ~/~ ""
I want to thank you for your part in helping to expedite my variance permit request on my
home at 5661 Bartlett Blvd. This will help me get some of my labor into the s~ project
before the surgery I mentioned.
This whole process does prompt a question about variances and their pros & cons. The
pros are understood. My experience seemed to be a con not only for me, but I would
think the City as well.
Just as a refresher. 5661 Bartlett is an older home very close to the road, understandably
creating the need for a variance for certain types of projects. Such projects would include
alterations/additions to the house, or other property and detached structure changes that
may have other ordinance issues, such as set backs. It would seem a case like mine only
served to bog down the system, making your day longer. My garage addition met every
criteria for a standard, rubber stamp building permit. I'm not building toward the road or
creating any set back issues, etc. Wouldn't it benefit the system to create a set of criteria,
that if met, the variance issue would be waived? Right now the blanket policy applies a
bureaucratic layer that appears to burden your people and antagonizes the citizens.
It isn't necessary to respond to my letter. You have more important things to do. This
has just been an observation by someone who knows little above the issues you and your
people deal with day in and out.
Thanks again for yo help.
G ee. Communications
~3 ~e S~t. Suite 2~. Warm, Minn~m 55391. (612)476-9501
Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
CITY of MOUND
5341 Maywood Road June 11, 1998 6
Mound ~ 55364
De~ Ed;
I w~t to th~ you for yo~ p~ ~ help~g to expedite my v~i~ce pe~t request on my
home at 5661 B~lett BNd. T~s w~ help me get some of my labor ~to the ~ project
~fore the s~geU I mentioned.
T~s whole process does prompt a question about v~ces ~d theft pros & co~. The
pros ~e understood. My experience seemed to be a con not o~y for me, but I would
t~ the City ~ we~.
Just as a refresher. 5661 B~lett is ~ older home veu close to the road, ~derst~dably
creat~g the need for a v~i~ce for ce~a~ t~es of projects. Such projects would ~clude
alteratio~/additio~ to the house, or other property ~d detached stmct~e ch~ges that
~y have other ord~ce issues, such ~ set backs. It would seem a case ~e ~e o~y
se~ed to ~g do~ the syste~ ~g your day longer. My g~age addition met eveu
criteria for a st~d~d, robber strop bu~d~g pe~t. I'm not buBd~g towed the road or
creat~g ~Y set back issues, etc. Wouldn't it ~nefit the system to create a set of criteria,
that ff met, the v~ce issue would be waived? ~ght now the bluet po~cy apples a
b~eaucratic layer that appe~s to b~den yo~ people ~d ~tago~es the cit~ens.
It isn't necess~ to respond to my letter. You ~ve more ~po~t t~gs to do. T~s
h~ just been ~ obse~ation by someone who ~ows tittle a~ve the issues you ~d yo~
people deal Mth day ~ ~d out.
Thanks again for yo , help.
: ez
--,n
CI'I'Y OF MOUND - ZONING
SURVEY ON FILE'! YF.S / NO
LOT OE RECORD'?. YES / "NO
y~ DIRECTION
IIOUSE .........
FRONT ~ E W
FRONT
SIDE
REAR
.KE
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SiiED .....
INFOI(MATION SIIEET
FRONT
-~-6NING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
.~ ~o,ooo/~0 ~ ~,~oo/o
'R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTtI:
N S E W
REQUIRED
SIDE
REAR
N S E W
DETACIIED BUll.DINGS
~EW
N S E W
N S E~
N S E W
w
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
4' O~ ~
4' OR 6'
EXISTING/I'ROPOSED
VARIANCE
%KE N S E W 50'
Tiffs Zoning Infotmatiou Shcel only summarizers a poztion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mouud 7oning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
I'lamfi ng Depal m. tt_'nt.at 72-06ff0. x,/
Jul, 8, 1998 11'18AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
No, 9606 ?, 2/2
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
CITY OF MOUND
AUDITORS ROAD MSAP 145-108-03
Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M., Wednesday, August 5,
1998 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing
of all labor, equipment and materials for the consmaction of State Aid Project - Auc/itors Road.
The estimated quantifies of major items are: common excavation - 2,330 CY, common borrow-
1,560 CY, granular borrow - 2,300 CY, aggregate base - 2,400 TON, bituminous paving - 1,030
TON, concrete curb and gutter - 1,700 LF, bituminous curb and gutter - 390 LF, 10" watea~ain
- 630 LF, 8" PVC sewer - 700 LF, and related work.
The bi~ will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1998,
All proposals shall be addressed to:
Fran Clark, City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Auditors Road -
MSAP 145-108-103" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the project.
Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with
the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North,
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plato and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the
offices of the Engineer upon payment of $30.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON-
REFUNDABLE. Individual sheets of the plans and sections of the specifications may be purchased at
the rate of four dollars ($4.00) per sheet (includes MN sales tax) of plans and twenty-five cents ($0.25)
per page (includes MN sales tax) of specifications, which is NON-REFUNDABLE.
Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of
not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60)
days a~er the bids are opened.
therein. The C. ity reserves the fight to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities
City of Mound, Minnesota
Robert Polston, Mayor
ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk
!
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
,IlI ~ ~
I
Engineering ' Planning ' Surveying
July 7, 1998
Construction Bulletin
ATTN: Rita
9443 Science Center Drive
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Auditors Road - MSAP 145-108-03
Advertisement for Bids
MFRA #9968
Dear Rita:
Please publish the attached Advertisement for Bids in your Friday, July 10 and 17, 1998 editions of
the Construction Bulletin. Please bill the municipality for this publication and furnish one copy of an
Affidavit of Publication to the City of Mound, Minnesota.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
City Engineer
JRC:pry
Enclosures
cc: Fran Clark, City Clerk, City of Mound
e 5rnain:\9968\adltr7 -7
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
July 7, 1998
The Laker
PO Box 82
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Auditors Road - MSAP 145-108-03
Advertisement for Bids
MFRA #9968
To Whom It May Concern:
Please publish the attached Advertisement for Bids in your Saturday, July 11, 1998 edition of the
Laker. Please bill the municipality for this publication and furnish one copy of an Affidavit of
Publication to the City of Mound, Minnesota.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
City Engineer
JRC:pry
Enclosures
cc: Fran Clark, City Clerk, City of Mound
e 5raain:\9968~adltr7.7
15050 23rd Avenue North · P/ymouth, Minnesota · 55447
_ phone 612/476-6010 . fax 612/476-8532
e-ma/7: mfra@mfra, corn
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR
FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND SIGN SUB-CRANT
AGREEMENTS AND AME~~S ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound, Minnesota, enters into a Sub-grant
Agreement with the Division of Emergency Management in the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety for the program entitled Infrastructure Program for FEMA 1225 DR-
MINNESOTA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby authorize City Manager, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. or Finance Director,
Gino Businaro to execute and sign such Sub-grant Agreements and amendments as are
necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Mound.
I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, on July 14, 1998.
SIGNED:
WITNESSSETH:
(Signature)
(Signature)
(Title)
(Title)
(Date)
(Date)
6-24-98
Ed Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
We would like to request a permit to use Mound Bay Park for a bass tournament weigh in on
Sunday September 20, 1998. The time of the weigh in will be 2:30 p.m. until approximately 4:00
p.m. We would need to set our weigh station prior to the 2:30 time. This would entail the use of
the park at the launch end and the use of shoreline for the boats while they are weighing their
fish.
This is a Operation Bass Red Man event. The local contact person is:
Dan Niccum
P.O. Box 546
5547 Spruce Rd.
Mound, MN. 55364
(h) 472-5054
There will be approximately 50 boats in the tournament and the tournament will be easing off
from another part of the lake. Multiple launch sites on the lake will be used. All anglers will be
reminded they can launch but cannot park in the parking lot at Mound Bay Park, most will
probably launch at Spring Park or North Arm landings.
Thank you for your consideration. When permission is granted could you please furnish to us in
writing at your earliest convenience as we need to forward that written permission to Hennepin
County Sheriffs Dept. as soon as possible.
Dan Niccum
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT
Use of a public park or commons by any group consisting of 15 or more individuals.
Use is not to interfere with traffic and general use of the park or commons or to be beyond the
ability of the police in maintaining order.
NO LIQUOR OR BEER MAY BE USED IN ANY OF THE CITY PARKS OR
BUILDINGS.
Group is to remove all litter and trash and provide a deposit to insure cleaning up of the park
Date of Use
Area to be Used
Time Frame ~
Intended Use
Expected Attendance
Organization ~,~
Representative's Name
Telephone No. Home:
Work: ~2{,~ - 21 v&
Drivers License Number ~ - .~5~G - ~a.~- CE-/- 1 & cC
RESOLUTION b'98
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
authorizes entering into a cooperative agreement with the Office of the Drug Policy in the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the project entitled, "Southwest Metro Drug Task
Force" during the period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Edward J. Shukle,
Jr. is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project
on behalf of the Mound Police Department.
I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound on July
14, 1998.
Signed:
Witnesseth:
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
Fran Clark
City Clerk
Dated: Dated:
BILLS
July 14, 1998
BATCH 8063
BATCH 8064
Total Bills
$124,448.59
202,369.85
$326,818.44
,11
(::3
F-I
', l"TZ_j.'-- -,
I I Il
u~ LuZ
oo~ooLoot = o
,Ol
~x> oo (D Oo 0
o- o, ~-- 0-
,o ~ z
)[2
z
Z
o{
.j
z
bJ
oL
o
u.ll
o~
z
o~o
, I
Z
ooo~
b
° ~
>"2-
° ~
r ~
co
o~
O~
uJ
July 14, 1998
RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR
MR. GREG KNUTSON AT 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
LOT 1, BLOCK 7,DEVON
DOCK SITE # 42077
WHEREAS, the applicant, Greg Knutson, is seeking a Public Lands
Maintenance Permit to replace the light previously approved by the City Council by
Resolution # 95-73. This light was damaged in the May 15, 1998 storm; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is on Devon Commons and abutts 4701
Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 1, Devon; and,
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a
four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or
the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons; and,
WHEREAS, the subject light serves security and safety purposes for the
general public traversing this portion of the commons and the adjacent public
access/fire lane; and,
WHEREAS, the lights do not shine out into the lake, only on the shore and
beach area; and,
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request
and recommend approval by 4-1 vote; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to reconstruct the subject
light pole with two spotlights, and an electrical outlet upon the following
conditions:
Approve the permit subject to meeting State guidelines within one (1)
year or the dock permit will b held.
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved as agreed within
one year of the date of the city council resolution, the Parks Director/Building
Official shall refer the matter back to the City Attorney for prosecution.
July 14, 1998
Dock site 42077 - Knutson
P. 2
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following Coun¢ilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS
1. GREGORY G, KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
The application is to replace a storm damaged light. The light was previously approved
by the City Council. Staff recommends it be approved with the same conditions as the
previous approval.
Polston asked if the electrical inspector reviewed the site as was directed in 1995.
Fackler stated no information has been received from the applicant. Polston noted the
inspector has indicated there are four violations and questioned why it has existed since
1995. Fackler indicated the Building Inspector stated it is up to the applicant to bring
the light into conformance.
Polston was concerned about the safety issues involved with a light which is in violation
of the electrical code.
Hopkins asked if the applicant was notified by the electrical inspector that there are
violations. Polston noted the applicant did receive a copy of the letter from the state
electrical inspector. Knutson noted the electrical contractor will bring everything into
conformance and up to code. All concerns will be addressed.
Fackler stated there isn't a limit on when the electrical inspection should have been done
in the original resolution.
Polston asked if the proposal as submitted would address the four violations.
stated the Building Inspector would address this issue.
stated the work will be done and will meet existing code.
Faclder
MOTION made by Poiston, seconded by Hopkins to approve the permit
subject to meeting state guidelines within one year or the dock permit will be
held. Motion carried 4-1 with Ahrens voting nay.
3
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
June 11, 1998
June 18,1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
June 23,1998 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official <~'.
APPLICANT: Gregory G Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive
LOCATION: DOCK SITE #42077, DEVON COMMONS, SHORELINE TYPE 'D'
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE STORM DAMAGED
LIGHT
Backqround and Comments The applicant, Greg Knutson, is seeking a permit as
described in the attached application in order to replace the light previously approved by
the City Council by resolution #95-73. This light was damaged in the recent storm, please
note the attached estimate from the electrical contractor.
Recommendation. Staff recommends the Dock &Commons Commission recommend
approval of the request to replace the light with the same conditions of the previous
approval.
JS:kl
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
ltTDISTRIBUTION:
!:~BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR ,-"'"'
-DNR ~
~MCWD ~
' - ~PUBLIC WORKS ,--"/
Icheck one):
55364
DATE RECEIVED
DOCK MEETING DATE~J'L('I0
CITY COUNCIL DATE
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
I
I
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE _ to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. 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 are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
~ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Applicant Name ~/./~ ~.' ~ O ,,n.- ~, X /Cr~-./ (./ "7'"-S' O
Address ~?a / ~C~A ~ [F ~ ~/~ ~ o
Phone (home) ~ 7 ~ 3--L ~ (work) '~7~
~utting Address ~' 7o / .~f(~] V/~ b~
Property Owner ~'~ 6 ~(-~ ~fa ~
Legal Lot, / Block
Description Subd. ~ ~ ~ 0~
Pub 1 i c Name
Property Dock Site g Shoreline
Contractor Name f ~ L ~ ~ ~ [ <
Address ~ [ 3 ~ ~ff~'~6 ~/~ ~ A ~
hone 7
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:/~,,",..~//E
-- '
3134 Island View Dr.
Mound, MN 55364
(612) 472-6271
PROPOSAL SUBMI'I-TED TO
STREET
CITY.STATE AND ZIP CODE
ARCHITECT
IDATE OF PLANS
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
PHONE
JOB NAME
JOB LOCATION
,!
Page No.
IDATE
of
PHONE
Pages
Interest at a rate of 11/2% per month will be charged on any unpaid balance.
~t~ ~J~t'1313139t~ hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
dollars ($ ).
Payment to be made as follows:
All material is guaranteed to be as sl~ecified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica-
tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written order, and wilt become an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
delay~ beyond our control. O~ner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance.
worker~ are fully covered by Workmen's Compenr, ation Insurance.
Authorized
SigT,ature
Note: This proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
days.
__A~']~"J~' Jif ~JrJ~pJ~s~ - The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to 'do ~he work ag specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceotar;ce:
Signature
Signature
April 23, 1997
State of Minnesota
Board of Electricity
Marty Kumm
Electrical Area Representative
6820 147th Street
Prior lake, MN 55372
(612) 440-7455
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
At your request, I made an inspection of existing electrical wiring at Greg Knutson's residence, 4701 Island View Drive,
on Thursday, April 17, 1997. My inspection of the property revealed the following:
The 14/3 with ground NM-B that runs between the house and the pole by the deck is not listed to be
installed in direct sunlight or underground. This violates the National Electrical Code (NEC) section 110-
3.
The 14/3 with ground NM-B that is ran on the house nmst be protected from physical damage by conduit,
electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC nonmetallic conduit, pipe, guard strips or other means. NEC
300-4, 300-5, and 336-6.
Boxes are required for all devices and splices. The devices at the pole require boxes. NEC 300-15
The receptacle at the pole is required to be Ground Fault Interruption Circuit (GFIC) protection. NEC
210-8
When there is mutual agreement between the City of Mound and the individual landowner, the Board of Electricity will
make an inspection of existing electrical wiring in the commons area for the purpose of identifying safety concerns.
Minnesota state law requires that all corrections, alterations or repairs to the existing wiring be made by a licensed electrical
contractor who has filed a Request for Inspection certificate with the Board of Electricity. Upon receipt of a Request for
Electrical Inspection, the inspector will verify ,a4th the City of Mound that pernfission for the electrical work has been
granted.
__.~_~_~,~-~a~,4 .... ic .~ ,'opv... - ~ ne. ..... The [au.'; on~ Rules Regulating Licensing of Electricians and Inspection of Electrical Installations
for your reference. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (612) 440-7455.
Sincerely,
Marlylqumm/ t
Area Electrical Representative
Cc:
John 1. Williamson. Director of Inspections
Allen Tollakson, Contract Electrical Inspector
Greg Knutson
[~821 Unive~'sily Ave * Ste S-128 · St. Paul, MN 55104-2993 · (612) 642-0800 · Fax (612) 642-0441 * TDD 297-5353 Metro or (800) 627-3529 Greater Minnesota
July 25, 1995 -
RE OLUTION //95- 73
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND
TO ALLOW REPLACF_3IENT OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY
ON DEVON COMMON
ABUTTING 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
LOT 1, BLOCK 7, DEVON
DOCK SITE//42077
WHEREAS, Gregory Knutson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit
to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Devon Commons, and;
~AS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote
for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the
natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the stairway will provide access to dock site #42077 on Devon Commons,
W-I:W. REAS, the existing retaining wall is in good condition, and;
WHEREAS, the light located on Devon Common was approved by Resolution/t92-13.
The light must meet LMCD regulations, and;
WHEREAS, stairways are considered permissible by the Use Plan for Devon Commons
and also by the new Shoreland Management Ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,'
Minnesota, to approval of a special permit to allow a private structure on public lands known
as Devon Commons, abutting dock site//42077, subject to the following conditions:
This permit includes the existing retaining wall and the applicant shall continue to be
responsible for repair and maintenance.
2. This permit includes the light pole with two spot lights, subject to the following:
a)
Lights will be directed so as not to illuminate the area beyond the
end of the dock or shine laterally across the water.
164
RESOLUTION 95-73
JULY 25, 1995
b)
Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City
Building Official.
The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by
the Building Official.
4. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance.
The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval. If
the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this
permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been
achieved.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and
seconded by Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Polston. Jessen was absent and excused.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Mayor
ttest: CityLan~ger
165
MtNUTE. S - MOUND CtTY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 25, 1995
1.10 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON COMMON, DOCK SITE
#42077, REQUEST TO REPLACE STAIRWAY.
Building Official, Jori Sutherland, stated that Mr. Knutson has applied for a
Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the reconstruction of a stairway on
Devon Commons, providing access to dock site #42077. Council discussed the
changing of the wording regarding the light in the 5th Whereas to read "The light must
meet the LMCD regulations." Councilmember Hanus wanted to change item #2a, to
read as follows: "Lights will be directed so as not to illuminate the area beyond the
end of the dock or shine laterally across the water." Also, the 5th Whereas to be
changed to' Thc ~:~' ..... ~,,, ,.~,:^1.,.,.~ ..... ,~. ~ .^ ~ ~,-.r-, ..... ~.:,.~ To: "The
.,~,,~ ,,,.~.,~ ~.~ .~ ..... .~.~.~ ~. .... ,~ ~ ..... ...~. ,~..~ ........ .~_
light shall meet LMCD requirements".
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution as changed:
RESOLUTION 95-73
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND SO ALLOW
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON DEVON
COMMON ABUTTING 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1,
BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #42077
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JULY 13, 1995
GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON COMMON, DOCK SITE #42077.
REQUEST TO REPLACE STAIRWAY
The applicant is requesting approval to replace the existing stairway located on Devon
Common used to access his dock.
The light located on Devon Common was approved by Resolution #92-13. The light must be
shielded according to LMCD regulations. This site also contains an existing retaining wall that
is in good condition at this time.
Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a 5 year permit to allow
construction of a stairway at Dock Site #42077, subject to the following conditions:
This permit includes the existing retaining wall and the applicant shall continue to be
responsible for repair and maintenance.
2. This permit includes the light pole with two spot lights, subject to the following:
a. A shield shall be installed on the spot lights, as approved by the Parks Director.
b. Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City Building Official.
The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the
Building Official·
4. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance.
The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval· If the
stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit,
the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved.
Knutson confirmed that the stereo speakers, as referred to in a previous resolution, have been
removed. Knutson also confirmed that the stairway will be construct in the same location as
the existing stairs, and they will be constructed to code.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval of the
public land permit to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Devon Common,
Dock Site #42077, as recommended by staff.
Casey commented that it is his opinion the these new stairways should not have to be built
to code. It is his opinion that these stairways are over-built, over-safe, and they detract from
the shoreline, they look like cattle chutes. Ahrens noted that it was the former council that
3
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
July 13, 1995
voted in favor of requiring the stairs be constructed to code, and noted that if this was private
shoreline, a permit would not be required.
Knutson questioned the issue with his light. He stated that the bulbs are frosted, and he has
checked with several places and nobody sells shields. His light does not shine into the lake,
and it does not stay on all night. The Parks Director stated that he can work with the
applicant on this issue, and it is his opinion that if the light is adjusted so it does not shine into
the lake it is probably okay.
Meyer agreed that the City could ease up on the code requirements for stairways. The
Commission determined to place on the next Park and Open Space Commission meeting
agenda the discussion of stairways.
There was discussion relating to the requirement for an electrical inspection, and Ahrens
questioned what the electrical inspector looks at when a light is existing. What is involved
in an after-the-fact electrical inspection? Is it really needed? Darling noted that the
consequences of having hazardous electrical service on the commons should be considered.
MOTION carried with 6 in favor and 1 abstention. Those in favor were:
Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Schmidt, Casey, and Geffre. Ahrens abstained.
This case will be heard by the City Council on July 24, 1995.
The issue of electrical inspections was further discussed. Schmidt questioned the
consequences of a dock license not be issued. The Parks Director confirmed that no dock
licenses have been denied to-date due to noncompliance of a public land permit.
Meyer suggested that the Electrical Inspector attend a meeting or provide an explanation about
after-the-fact electrical inspections and inspections on commons property. The Commission
agreed and directed staff to follow-through.
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE: July 13, 1995 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting
TO: Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff
FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official J~:)~J[ ~-~ -
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE STAIRWAY
APPLICANT: Gregory G. Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive
LOCATION: DOCK SITE//42077, DEVON COMMONS, SHORELINE TYPE 'D'
Applicant's Request
The applicant is requesting approval to replace the existing stairway located on Devon Common used
to access his dock.
Background and Comments
The light located on Devon Common was approved by Resolution//92-13. The light must be shielded
according to LMCD regulations.
This site also contains an existing retaining wall that is in good condition at this time.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of a 5 year permit to allow construction
of a stairway at Dock Site//42077, subject to the following conditions:
1. This permit includes the existing retaining wall and the applicant shall continue to be
responsible for repair and maintenance.
2. This permit includes the light pole with two spot lights, subject to the following:
a. A shield shall be installed on the spot lights, as approved by the Parks Director.
b. Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City Building Official.
printed on recycled paper
16
January 28, 1992
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~92-13
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
FOR 3 YEARS RENEWABLE
TO ALLOW A LIGHT POLE WITH TWO 8POT LIGHTSv
AND AN ELECTRICAL OUTLETt DEVON COMMONSv DOCK SITE #42077,
4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 7~ LOT 1, DEVON
WHEREAS, Greg Knutson has applied for a Construction on
Public Lands Permit to allow an existing light pole with two spot
lights, an electrical outlet, and stereo speakers to remain on
Devon Commons, Dock Site #42077, abutting property 4701 Island View
Drive, Block 7, Lot 1, Devon, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council
approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any
public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or commons, and;
WHEREAS, the subject light pole was erected by a previous
owner without Council approval and without the proper electrical
permit, and;
WHEREAS, the subject light serves security and safety
purposes for the general public traversing this portion of the
commons and the adjacent public access / fire lane.
WHEREAS, the lights do not shine out into the lake, only
on the shore and beach area
WHEREAS, no complaints have been received relating to the
stereo speakers and the outlet is used for a weed whip to trim the
commons area, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this
request and recommehded approval by a 6-1-1 vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to continue
the use of the subject light pole with two spot lights, and an
electrical outlet upon the following conditions:
ae
The permit is approved for three (3) years from the date
of City Council approval, at which time an application
may be made to renew the permit.
The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan
for City records.
17
Co
17
January 28, 1992
Shielding of the spot lights on the pole to be as
recommended by the Park Director.
Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the
City.
e. Elimination of the stereo speakers by May 15, 1992.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Jessen and seconded by Mayor Johnson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
Councilmember Ahrens abstained.
~./
2
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 28, 1992
1.2 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: LIGHT
POLE ON PUBLIC LANDt 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr GREG KNUTSON
The City Manager reported that at the Park & Open Space Commission
Meeting the Park Director informed them that the pole existed prior
to Mr. Knutson purchasing the property. He recommended that the
lights on the pole be shielded so that they do not create a hazard
to navigation. At that meeting, Mr. Knutson confirmed that he did
not install the pole, however he has replaced the spot lights and
the speakers on the pole. He stated that the lights are needed for
security and safety purposes since the grade is steep and the area
is difficult to traverse in the dark. The outlet on the pole is
used for a weed whip to trim the Commons area.
The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval on a 6 to 1
vote and 1 abstention with the following conditions:
The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan for
city records.
The lights be shielded.
Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City.
The Council discussed the stereo speakers on the light pole. The
City Attorney stated that allowing this would set a precedent of
allowing private property on public property.
The Building Official recommended not allowing the speakers.
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-13
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 3 YEARS RENEWABLE
TO ALLOW A LIGHT POLE WITH TWO SPOT
LIGHTS, AND ANELECTRICAL OUTLET ON DEVON
COMMONS, DOCK SITE J42077, 4701 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1~ BLOCK 7, ARDEN
The Council asked that the following be added to the proposed
resolution:
Elimination of the stereo speakers by May 15, 1992; and
Shielding of the spot lights on the pole to be as
recommended by the Park Director.
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens abstaining. Motion carried.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JANUARY 9~ 1992
4701 ISLAND VIEWDRIVE - GREGKNUTBON: Liqht pole on public lands
The secretary handed out copies of the Maintenance Permit
Application received from Mr. Knutson today. Park Director, Jim
Fackler, informed the commission that apparently the pole existed
prior to Mr. Knutson purchasing the subject property. Fackler
referred to the LMCD's requirements for lighting commercial docks,
which our commons docks are classified. The LMCD ordinance states:
"Dock lighting shall not be directed toward the lake in such
manner that it impairs the vision of or confuses operators of water
craft. No lighting in the area of the lake shall be installed or
directed so as to affect adjoining dock use areas or create a
hazard to navigation..
The Park Director stated that a shield should be required on the
subject lights to help prevent glare.
The applicant, Greg Knutson, spoke on his behalf and confirmed that
he did not install the pole, however he has replaced the spot
lights and the speakers. He emphasized that the lights are needed
for security and safety purposes. He stated that the lights do not
shine on the lake, only on the beach area, and to the sides. There
is a fire lane to one side that is used by other dock holders for
access and the light is very important for them since the grade is
steep and the area is difficult to traverse in the dark.
Knutson does not know where the wires are buried, but they could be
located with a metal detector. If the light pole was moved onto
his property, it would not properly illuminate the areas where
light is needed for safe traversing.
Skoglund questioned what the outlet is used for. Knutson stated
that the only use he has for the outlet is to operate a weed whip
which he uses to mow the commons area. Knutson pays for all the
electric. He uses the speaker to listen to ball games when he is
raking milfoil.
Fackler recommended that if the Commission is in favor of allowing
the light pole to remain, that 1) The electrical line be located
and shown on a site plan for our files, 2) the lights be shielded,
and 3) proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City.
Skoglund asked Ahrens, since her house is two down from Knutson's,
if she is affected by the lights or the speakers. Ahrens commented
that they have no problems with the speakers and they do not
benefit from the light.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson to recommend
that the pole be allowed to remain as is, upon the
following conditions:
The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan
for City records.
The lights be shielded.
Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the
City.
Casey moved to amend the motion to require that the
speakers be removed. Motion died for lack of a second.
Asleson commented that there have not been any complaints regarding
the speakers.
MOTION carried 6 to I with 1 abstention. Those in favor
were: Andersen, Eischeid, Byrnes, Asleson, Skoglund and
Schmidt. Casey was opposed. Ahrens abstained.
This request will be reviewed by the City Council on January 28
1992. '
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS
4. BARB J. CASEY, 4704 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE:
Faclder reviewed the public lands permit request to remove trees and plant grass at the
dock site. Several residents in the area have petitioned the removal. The applicant is
not in favor of relocating the dock for safety concerns.
Goldberg stated it is relatively tight quarters to get to the existing dock site and had
concerns about removing the trees.
Hopkins believed some of the trees could be cleared out for better access to the dock.
He noted there are several trees in a five foot area. He believed the largest tree should
remain.
Funk believed there is a precedent for approving this kind of application.
Goldberg discussed his concerns about the impact on the abutting property.
Polston stated he would be opposed to having the trees removed.
Ahrens stated granting a permit to a non-abutter is something that has been permitted
before. He believed it is unfair to do this.
Bob Schmidt stated this will impact more than just the Casey dock, and this should be
taken into consideration.
Greg Knutson, stated he hoped the abutting property owner would not be allowed to
vote on this issue. Polston stated the City Attorney has indicated Ahrens can vote on the
tree application. Knutson indicated the rock wall is a safety hazard. He stated the only
way Casey can get safely to her dock is to have the scrub trees removed.
Funk understood Ahrens' concerns and the concerns raised by the DNR. Goldberg
noted the trees targeted for removal are some of the largest ones in that area.
Polston stated he is opposed to the removal of the trees.
Andrea Ahrens stated one of the points being missed is the Casey's dock location.
Polston stated we are not discussing docks. Ahrens then stated the trees do not need to
be removed, because there is another option.
Goldberg stated he is reluctant to make any changes to the situation as it currently exists.
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
Knutson stated it makes sense to clear out the scrub trees as recommended by the DNR.
Ahrens stated he would be willing to pay for ground cover on the existing path area.
~ stated there is no way to get through the trees if the scrubs are removed
without removing the cottonwood.
Gene Smith was concerned about what will happen when more trees are planted here.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Goldberg to recommend denial of
the application for tree removal. Motion carried 3-2 with Hopkins and Funk
voting may.
7
for l~r L, ~den
of Lot 1, Block 7, ~on
He~epin ~ty,
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date : 6-16-71
o : Iron ~arker
Certificate of Survey:
I hereby certify that this
is a true and correct represen-
tation of a survey off ~he boundaries'
of Lot 1, Block 7, Devon. It does
not purport to show improvements or
encroachments.
Gordon R. Coffin g. No. 6064
Land Surveyor and Planner
Long Lake, Minnesota
RECEIVED
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 12, 1998
MEETING
DATES:
June 18, 1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
June 23, 1998 City Council
TO:
FROM:
Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official --':"-<-~-~ ·
APPLICANT: Barbara J. Casey 4704 Island View Drive
LOCATION: DOCK SITE # 41956 DEVON COMMONS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO REMOVE TREES AND PLANT
GRASS AT ABOVE DOCK SITE
Background: The applicant, Barbara Casey, is seeking a Construction on Public Lands
Permit as described in the attached application. The applicants request is supplemented
by a petition from several residents in the area and a letter from the Department of Natural
Resources area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss. In discussions with Ms. Casey regarding her
application, she stated in addition to improving the access to her dock site she would like
to address the safety concerns raised by the city council at their previous meetings and she
is not in favor of the option of relocating her dock site to the west side of the trees due to
steepness and it is not as safe as her current location.
Comments and Recommendation: Included in this packet is a letter and recommendation
from the assistant City Planner Loren Gordon (assisted by Todd Halunen, ASLA,) and Mr.
Gordon lays out two options for your consideration. Option #1 allows for the tree removal
and sod, and Option #2 would relocate the dock site and not approve the request. In
addition to the above information there is a letter from the abutting owner Frank Ahrens
that presents his position with regards to the request.
JS:kl
Creative Sohlrions fc~ Land Planning aad Dedsn
June12,1998
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Jori Sutherland
Building Official
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Devon Commons
Dear Jon:
e?teah .b. een~as ,1~1 to~revie~.v, and provide comment on a public land 'alteration permit application
..0_y~.ar_..0.~.a_C_ase,.y ro..r Devon Commons. My comments are related specifically to the
It is my understanding of the Barbara Cascy, a mn-abutter, is requesting the City address access
and safety issues regarding the dock site #-41956, The dtx:k'site is adjacent to 4673 Island View
Drive, at the southwest corner of the property. On June I 1.1998, Jori Sutherland, Todd Halunen.
~u umtu ua: aoc£ slre. contrlouung problems include a number of trees and a landscape
retaining wall on the adjacent private property. The lack of sod also poses some threat to safety if
the grc)m:d is wet. There is about 2 aA f~Jt between 'the retaining wall and the trees, This doesn't
lend much area to walk along the commom. A Green Ash tree east of the dock also blocks much of
the commons area.
Based on cmr review of the site we would recommend the following two options fbr addressing
accessibility.
Option One
This option takes into consideration the City's Shoreland Manageanent Regulations and the
removal and priming of trees. It also addresses the users accessibility by expanding the space
between the retaining wall (prOperty line) a~mI the remaining trees by approx. 2 feet (4.5' total
clearance at zero grade).
· Leave 'all but the 1't (approx. 10" caliper) and 2.`4 (approx. 5" caliper) northerly Maples.
Also remove also small Linden (approx. 1" caliper), Trim sparingly lower branches in
question on remaining trees.
· Regrade the sloped area in question while minimizing root and root zone disturbance.
· Restore groundcover to the original comlition to minimize potential slippery area in
question.
Option. Two_
This option takes into consideration the City's Shoreland Management Regulations and the
preservation of shoreline trees for screening of structures with vegetation. It also addresses the
users accessibility issue by leaving all trees in question as is and moves the location of the dock
west of the area in question.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 lax (612) 338-6838
SP:60 86, 2I Nn£ 20d L2L ~39930M NO±BNISIOH 8£898££-~9
p. 2
· Install dock approximately 3 feet west of the ¢~sfig large Cottonwood.
· Disturbance of common area to be restored by adjacent homeowner back to its original
condition.
· With this option, the height of the dock in relation to the commons area will need to be
considered. Traversing the slope to thc first section of dock could present a problem ii' the
dock is set too Iow at thc shore.
Either of these options will provide a ~eater level of accessibility to the dock site llama is currently
available. We concur the interpretation of the Shorelanfl Management Ordinance prov~defl by Ceil
Strauss and feel both approaches would be consistent with its intent.
If you have any additional questions regarding this issues, please contac~ me.
Sincerely,
Loren Gordon, AICP
Assistant City Planner
cc:
Ed Shulde, City Administrator
Jim Fackler, Parks ,and Recreation Director
John Dean,. Kennedy and Graven
Todd Halunen, ASLA, Hoisington Koegler Group
123 North Third Street., Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
~399B0~ NOIgNISIOH
8£89@££-~9
.Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
55364
DISTRIBUTION:
~o~-C~ BUILDING OFFICIAL
~"-'- --~PARKS DIRECTOR L/
(o~.~q~SPUBLIC WORKS
one):
DATE RECEIVED
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. 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 are granted for a limited time and
are non-trausferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
}ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Applicant Name --~¥~ 1~-23 yAX~. ~-~ .~ C'
Address L/7(~W '7~)~C-~x3 ;~t~
Phone (home) A//7~ - ~] ~ (work)
Legal Lot I_~ 'Block
Public Name '"~) I?51%-~'~ ~, ' %">x%"ax "~. ('-'_~_~:_.~
Property Dock Site # ~/~~ Shoreline Type
Contractor Name
Addre s sc/
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
S [gn~ture~ 9f~ppiicax~- ~
Date
RECEIVED
.IUN- ~ i998 '
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
RECEIVED
J UN - 8 1998
MOUI~D PIA~II~IIVG & INSP.
We would all like to be able to enjoy the commons area.
We respectfully request the trees be removed in front of docksite #41956 (Casey)
RECEIVED
JUN - q 1998
,~10UNL~ ,~LAi'~{~iiNG & INSP.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Prepo~ed for:
FRAI'JK AHRENS
o Denotes iron monument
x Denotes cross chiseled in concrete
x93h3 Denotes existing spot elevation
~ Denotes proposed spot elevation
.- Denotes surface drainage
Dashed contour lines denote proposed features
Solid contour lines denote existing features
Lot 17 and the southeasterly 25.00 feet,
front and rear, of Lot 18, in Block 1 of
DEVON, according to the plat thereof on
file or of record in the office of the
~.. ~ng~:stor~ar. Of Titles, Hennepin County,
GENERAL NOTES:
Proposed top of foundation elev. =
Proposed basement floor elev. =
Proposed garage floor elev. = 950.9
RFCEIVE[
BENCHMARK:
JUN -
A~LL- METRO LAND_.
S__U R__V_E Y__..O R_._~S
2340 Daniels Slreel
Long Loke, Mi.nesolo 55356
Ph: 475-143,3
,.
MOUI~I~ hL/~I~NING
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State
DATE 79 REG. ~UHBER
I.SC^L;.=
I1
IFILE NO,
INSP,
,I ,I ~; ,I ·
CII'Y OF MOUND I ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
SURVEY ON FILE? ~ / NO
LOT OF RECORD? ~ I NO
YARD -- I DIRECTION
IIOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
ZONING DISI'RICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
~~ ~1 ~,~oo/o
_RiA 6,000/40) ~2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
I REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
ti.
LOT' WIDTH:
qq,
VARIANCB
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF
10' OR 30'
GAr(AGE, SIIED .....
FRONT
FRONr
DETACIIED BUILDINGS
N S E W
N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR6'
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER
30% OR 40%
BY:
CONFORMING? YES / NO
DATED:
This Zuning Infommtion Shce! only sumlnarizes a portion of die requirements outlined in die Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furfller information, con.ct the City of Mound
~ Planning Department at 472-06~. .
',"'~". "''~ ~'6''s 4 3"-F ~ u ,~ ,6' g ~;' ~ ~ '5 ~ ~ ' ~':~' ',~~- '
Public $~... Fax:612-2~2-6586 Jun 12 '98 8:15 P. O1
June II,1995
Jon Suthcrland, Building Tnqpeetor
City of Mound
534I Maywood Road[
Mound, MN 55364
Dear M~'. Surherbmd,
I am writ?rig thi~ letter to you hi response to the Barb Cnscy trimming on p,hlic lands
tuque,st. My pr~Tion on thin request is that no curt,ns of tree,,; be allow=d as requested by Casey.
Nun,=mus rrces hove been lost on the commons anc~ private propcrtie~ iu our neighborhood in the
May 15 storm. It makes no sen.sc to me to cur clown ~rees on the commou,~ when we h~ave
recently lost so m~ny trees re .storms. To the best r~f my knowledge, thc city has never replaced a
~inglc tree. on the commons in our neigliborhood, thn~ have been dcstroy,d due to high vdnds or
disea_s~.
The t~ees in queqlion provide us with a great de~l of privacy and scrce,s the g~eho Ii'om the
la.k~. These treAs are some of the few shade treeq remaining on the commons in
n*ighborho{m It is only a mutter of time befim~ the large cottonwood tree tha~ i.~ within ::evend
f, ct of one nt the maple trees wilI bc taken down. We need to pla~ for the fur, re by .saving
,uoocl rree.q that we do have.
Thc Ca.sey clock can be moved to tl'm~ westerly ~u.~e of the cottonwood tree, thus eliminating thc
n==d to trim branches from thc trees. The altemntive to trirmning is to move [Ne r~ock
approximately tire feet to the west of' the dock'~ center location vers=~ the £en and a half feet
Ca~cy has Iocnred the dock to the ea~t.
I mn also opposed to thc Cascy requc.st to place .,od grass on thc commons in Front of our §azcbo.
A., you know. sod gras~ is gro~a~ iu full sun an~ tbs ~ea is in full shade. To c~t down ali thc
trees in the nrea to provide sun light ~s Suggested by Casev
e~pense, w~ are willin* to -'.---- ' ' . . ~ . b. ulutely rldimHous. At our
As t hav~ stated before, we will be efrecren the most by thc d=cision rhar i~ mode. We have to
look at what will be done. Tre=~ t~e year.~ to ~ow, I m not willing to wait ye~s to recover
Rom thc mist~e of cutting duw~ ~rfectlv good shade trees at the whim of only one non-
abutting dock ~ite holder.
Sincerely.
Frank A..~ren~ ~
46/3 Island View Drive
at, Bo
May 20, 1998
Mr. Jim Faclder
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DNR Waters - Metro Region, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
RECEIVED
HM 2 6 !9§5
MOUND Pt. ANNING & iNSP,
Cutting Trees in Shore Impact Zone on City Commons, City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Faclder:
I am ~xiting as a result of a site inspection I made, on 5/19/98, at City Commons adjacent to 4673 Island View
Drive. Area residents had asked me to meet with them and discuss the applicability of the Shoreland
Management Regulations in relation to the trimming and cutting of trees at this site. I'm aware that the City is
currently examining some broader issues related to the docks on the City Commons, and that the issue I was
asked about is only one piece of the total picture being discussed.
At the site in question, there is a line of 5 young maple trees in a 5-6 foot line running perpendicular to Lake
Minnetonka at the south end of where the lot line for 4673 Island View Drive would go, if extended to the lake.
In regards to discussion about traversability of the commons at this location, the question was raised about
whether some of these trees in this line could be cut in order to allow for easier access. It is my understanding
that a statement was made at a City Council meeting that because of the City's Shoreland Management
regulations, it would be "illegal" to cut any of the trees. If you refer to the City's ordinance, Section 350:1225,
Subd. 4., A., 2., b. (page 116), it specifies that in shore impact zones (i.e., within 25 feet of Lake Minnetonka)
limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, priming, and trimming of trees is allowed for a variety of
purposes, including access paths, provided the screening of structures from the water is not substantially
reduced. Clearcutting and intensive vegetation removal is not allowed. As I told you on the telephone, the DNR
would advise that leaving the 1 or 2 trees closest to the lake and removing the other 3 to 4 trees would be
consistent with the ordinance language referenced above.
As I understand, no one has actually applied to the city for a permit to remove these trees in the City Commons,
but if such an application was received, the DNR would support City approval of this selective clearing. In fact,
in this case the trees are planted so close together that it would be beneficial for the health of the tree clump, as a
whole, to do some thinning. ( Staff fi.om DNR Forestry. could get into more detail on this topic, if the city would
like more direction.) An additional benefit of removing the upper 3-4 trees would be that more sun would reach
the portion of the path that doesn't have vegetation, and an attempt to vegetate would be more likely to succeed.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
c: Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive, Mound
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Greg Nybeck
Gene Smith, 4705 Island View Drive, Mound
DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 · TTY: f~ 1%296-5484. 1-800-657-3t)29
An Equal Opportunity Employer ~ Printed on Rcc. xclcd Papc~ Cmmmml~ a
Who Values Divcrsit)
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUIES - MAi' 26, 1998
1.16 REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING FACTS ASSOCIATED WlTIt
DOCK#42129 (BARB CASEY).
~Ihe City Attorney stated that Councihnember Alu'ens has asked hi~n to inform the City Council
that she has voluntarily decided to absent herself fi'om the Council table at this point a~d will not
participate in these discussions.
The City Manager explained that at the last meeting the Council directed that the Staff prepare
a fact finding report indicating what the safety issues were in the Roanoke Access m'ea,
specifically the Casey dock that is located in the front of the Ahrens property on Conunons.
The l'ark Director prepared the report that is in the packet.
The Mayor commented that in this report there are a number of ite~ns which cm~ or could be
done, in the Staff's opinion, that would eliminate or alleviate a safety situation. The report is not
specific and lists a number of items. He stated that as far as he is concerned, the Staff has the
authority to implement whatever they need to do to assure the health, safety mid welfare of the
people who are using that Commons and docks. The Casey dock is installed. The Mayor asked
if there were any questions or comtnents by the Council.
Councihnember Hanus asked for clarificalion on the following that was in the report because if
wasn't very specific:
Hanus asked Mr. Fackler, "If you picture yourself walking down the access aJ~d
then down the shoreline to access this general area, this dock site's water space,
either east end or west end, where are you walking? Are you walking on the
hillside, on top of the rip-rap, or where?" Mr. Fackler respm~ded, "In this area
when you start out you are down by the rip-rap, and as you get in front of the
abutting home (Gabos), you begin going up a little bit of m~ incline and at that
point is about the point where this dock site location would begin. It is about a
40 foot site. So as you start going toward the center of the dock location, you are
going up hill. By the time you get to about the tniddle of the dock location, that's
where you start going back dow~dfill. You are up from the shoreline about 4 feet
from the rip-rap, and then once you get over the nfiddle of the dock location, there
is a slight hill which does not have any ground cover on it at this time. It is the
area that is adjacent to the retaining wall."
Councihnember Hanus stated that he has a picture of the top of that rip-rap mid
he asked, if Mr. Fackler would show hint where he was talking about walking.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
He asked why he would not walk on top of the rip-rap where it is flat." Mr.
Fackler responded, "You could walk on the first few feet of rip-rap, but after that
you would be walking one foot on the hill and one foot on the rip-rap and also
one of the things that he looked at when he looked at it was that would be at the
far westerly end of the dock location which would then begin to upset the next
abutting dock location. It would be to the far end of their allotted 40 feet."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "I walked that today, and if you want to walk on
the hillside, as you're describing you can, but first of all the hillside doesn't show
any evidence that people are doing that because it is pretty lush grass there, but
use does show on the top of the rip-rap. It's flat. I walked very easily next to
the rip-rap up to the large tree. I can't get beyond, why someone would walk on
the hillside when they have a flat area to walk on." He stated he did not
understand that. It has been talked about several times, but no one seems to
address tlfis."
Mr. Fackler stated that when he looks at an area, he does not look at rip-rap wheu
it is installed as ma~g an area traversable. He stated he stays on the grass area
when he walks it. He suggested asking the people who utilize the area. He stated
that he agrees that when you begin the 40 feet it is traversable on the grass, but
then it narrows down and you would have two different footings. He stated that
putting the rip-rap there was not to make it traversable, it was to save the
shoreline. Mr. Fackler poh~ted out that one of the things that is done when a site
is assigned, they ask the person to go down and visit the site. He is very specific
as to where it is and how the access point goes and where the boundary lines are.
Then the person comes back and says whether it is acceptable or unacceptable.
Councilmember Hanus stated that it is pretty obvious, when you look at the
current site, that in order to gain access there has been some pretty large trimming
going o~. He stated he did not la,ow if they were done some time ago, but some
trees have been cut down and some large branches cut off to gain access, which
would probably have to take place to get reasonable access to that site. He asked
if Mr. Fackler, is endorsing trimming h~ order to gain access, even if there are
alternatives.
Mr. Fackler stated that this individual has been at this dock site for over ten years
and Staff has never had a request from them asking about trimming. If there is
a request, it has to go through a Public Lands Permit procedure. Mr. Fackler
stated Staff does not just go out and approve these.
Councilmember Hanus stated that this has already taken place and will in the.
future continue to take place whether by permit or not by permit. It's so far taken
place without a permit. It will probably conth~ue in order to use that dock site.
Mr. Fackler stated that he believes there is an application for a Public Lands
Permit to do trinuning within that area. That will be coming forth.
Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Fackler if there is a policy that a dock holder
can move anywhere within their water space that they please. Mr. Fackler stated
that this is not true. The policy is that there is discretionary ability of the Dock
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
Inspector to determine where the best access is within an area, based on either the
individual asking to move within that area due to a new boat or a new dock
design. We do say no if it will not fit in an area. The City does not just go in
and indiscriminately move people around. All sites are inspected about 4 times
a year. The City relies on the individuals to notify us if there is a problem that
occurs somewhere in between. Generally requests come from the individual.
Councihnetnber Hanus pointed out that even though this particular site holder has
been there for approximately 10 years, the area has changed substantially in the
last three years.
Councilmember Weycker stated she feels Councilmember Hanus is assuming that
people aren't going to traverse past that part, but there are at least 2 more dock
sites that have been previously issued beyond that site. Councilmember Hanus
stated he is only talking about the Casey site not the other two sites.
Councilmember Weycker stated that she also took pictures and the hill that
Councilmember Hanus is talking about is only about 1 foot high. Councilmember
Hanus stated that the hill he is talking about is if you are standing along the top
of the rip-rap, it is about waist high.
Barb Casey, 4704 Island View Drive, stated she is the one who traverses this
area to her dock and there is not a lot of traffic to her dock. Councilmember
Hanus asked Ms. Casey where she walks to get to her dock. Ms. Casey
responded that she walks on the rip-rap for awhile and then in the middle of the
hillside then np and around the tree and down to her dock. Ms. Casey suggested
that 3 of the 6 trees be removed. She stated she would be willing to sod.the area
and stake it or a step could be put in there and then there would be access to the
docks that are further down from hers and public property would remain public
property. She further stated she is getting a cost estimate on this.
The Mayor stated he objects to a step because it is placing another obstacle in the area.
Councilmember Hanus stated that if a step or steps are put in, there needs to be Public Land
Permit. Ms. Casey stated she is aware of this. Ms. Casey asked about the availability of the
docks beyond hers. The Mayor stated this is not an Agenda item for this meeting.
The Mayor stated that the City Staff has the authority to make a determination as to what needs
to be done in order to satisfy any safety concerns that are there.
Councilmember Ahrens returned to the Council table.
Gene Smith, 4705 Island View Drive, asked when the two dock sites beyond
Ms. Casey's were eliminated? Councilme~nber Ahrens, called for a point of
order. The Mayor stated this item is not on the Agenda and will not be discussed
this evening. The City Attorney stated he thinks those questions can be answered
by contacting the City Manager during regular business hours.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 12, 1998
The Mayor asked to have the following item added to the Regular Agenda: A dock problem that the
City has been working on over the past several weeks.
Councihnember Weycker stated that per Ordinance//155:20, it takes a unanimous vote to add to the
Agenda. Weycker indicated she would not vote in favor of discussing this tonight, because the public
was not notified.
The Mayor stated he is not asking for action to be taken tonight. It is a request to ask the Staff to
look into a situation. Councihnember Weycker stated that she does not think this has to be an Agenda
item. She stated he could just request what he wants staff to look into.
The Mayor stated it needs to be an Agenda Item because the Staff is looking for direction m~d they
need the Council to direct them. It does not involve action on any dock locations.
Councilmember Weycker still objected to this being put on the Agenda because it could be voted on.
The Mayor stated that at the last City Council meeting he had a discussion with Barb Casey regarding
a safety issue that concerns her dock site. He indicated that he asked Ms. Casey to call him and
arrange to have himself and two mmnbers of the Staff go to her dock site and try to see if she would
be satisfied shifting her dock over approximately 4-6 feet from center in the opposite direction. This
would alleviate the safety concern he has about the site and would allow Ms. Casey safer access to
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 12, 1998
would alleviate the safety concern he has about the site and would allow Ms. Casey safer access to
the dock. This is what he wants the Staff to look into and propose to Ms. Casey. He stated that the
ordinance could be amended to stipulate that all dock sites will be put on center. He stated the City
is trying to work with Ms. Casey, to cause her the least amount of inconvenience.
MOTION made by Polslon, seconded by Hanus to have Ms. Casey's dock site be placed
on the regular Agenda for discussion this evening, in order to direct Staff to prepare a
finding of fact on the safety issues of this dock site. Councihnember Ahrens abstained
from voting on this issue. The vote was 2 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion
fails.
The Mayor asked if any member of the Council had an objection to having Staff look into this
situation. There was no objection.
The Mayor accused Councilmember Weycker of trying to politicize the issue.
The Mayor stated he would like to direct Staff to go and look into the issue and report back on the
safety of this. He stated he wants the dock in the safest possible position to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the residents and the people using that dock. He then asked that the Staff bring a
finding of fact back to the Council. Councilmember Weycker stated there is objection if we are
voting on this motion. The Mayor stated it was not a motion.
The Mayor stated it is his opinion that the Staff has the authority to go in there and make sure that
this dock is put in a safest place for access. He further stated that he has not heard from Ms. Casey
so he is proposing that the Staff take the appropriate action to keep someone from being injured on
that site.
TOM CASEY, father of Barb Casey, addressed the Council on her behalf because she was
working. He stated that it is his understanding that she was not aware she was to call the
Mayor regarding this situation.
The Mayor stated he left a message on Ms. Casey's recorder asking her to call him and she has not
done so.
MR. CASEY stated that at the last meeting Ms. Casey was told to meet with the Dock
Inspector and determine where the safest placement of the dock would be. She met with the
Park Director, Jim Fackier, and they inspected the site and both agreed the safest place for that
dock is right where is was.
Mayor Polston stated that was not true. He stated he has talked with the Dock Inspector and he has
reassured him that he never told Ms. Casey that the dock was in the safest possible place. He further
stated that he has been told by another abutting citizen that he was told by Ms. Casey that the Mayor
and the Dock Inspector told her the dock was in the safest possible place. He stated that is simply
not true. He stated he has always indicated to Ms. Casey that it is in an unsafe situation for herself
and anyone trying to use it and that we would meet with her and do anything that we possibly could
to make it safe.
MR. CASEY asked why it is unsafe the way it is?
The Mayor responded that the Commons cannot be traversed in a safe manner because of the way the
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998
dock is laid out in relation to a retaining wall that is built and installed on private property. He
pointed out that the Commons is very narrow at this point.
MR. CASEY stated he thought the Commons was 20 feet wide there.
The Mayor stated that is not the case.
MR. CASEY gave the background of the house which he sold to his daughter, Barb Casey.
He stated that to his knowledge no one has ever been injured at this site. He stated there was
never a problem here before the gazebo and retaining wall were built. Mr. Casey stated the
gazebo that was built is within 15 feet of the lake. He then asked who created the problem
here? He stated is wasn't his daughter.
The Mayor stated it wasn't the City Council who created the problem. Mr. Casey disagreed.
GENE SMITH stated the gazebo and retaining wall should never have been placed that close
to the Commons.
The Mayor stated he was not on the City Council when the gazebo and retaining wall were put in and
he is looking at safety in the future of this dock site. He stated he cannot change anything that has
happened in the past, but he can protect the health, safety and welfare of the people that use it in the
future.
GENE SMITH stated that to eliminate this hazard would be to remove the trees that were
planted, in the first place, to hinder access to this dock site. Mr. Smith stated he was in
attendance at the meeting with Ms. Casey and there was never any mention of her calling the
Mayor. He stated she was requested to move the dock 2 feet.
The Mayor disagreed with Mr. Smith and stated that the Staff also tried to call Ms. Casey twice and
never got a return call.
The City Manager stated that Mr. Fackler and Mr. McCaffrey attempted to contact Ms. Casey.
GENE SMITII, stated that his wife was in attendance at the meeting with Mr. Fackler and
the Dock Inspector when he agreed with Ms. Casey that the dock was in the safest location where it
was. He stated that to move it to the east would put the dock right behind the tree.
The Mayor stated that it is not currently in the safest location now.
GENE SMITH, stated, "We know exactly what's going on here and so do you Mark. This
is a big smoke screen to get Andrea Ahrens more dock space. That's all she wants."
Hanus responded, "It has nothing to do with that. The only access to that site is on the top of the rip-
rap. It's either that or you walk in the middle of that hillside."
GENE SMITH, "Then take the trees down that were illegally planted there just to hinder the
traffic."
Hanus asked, "Which trees are those?"
GENE SMITH,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 12, 1998
"Those little trees right there that protrude out by that illegal
retaining
Hanus responded, "Those were not planted there by any individual.
GENE SMITH, "I was there when they planted the trees. I know all about this whole deal.
If you want to continue with this, we can do it in court." He then accused the Council of
conspiring.
Councilmember Weycker disagreed that there is a safety issue here. She stated there are safety
concerns whenever we are dealing with the Commons and lakeshore and outside. She stated her
fiancee was issued a dock through the City that they could not even access the location. She further
stated that if the Council is going to talk about safety issues, then this needs to be addressed across
the board for all dock areas. She stated the Council should not withhold someone's dock because of
a safety issue.
The Mayor stated that the Council is not withholding Ms. Casey's dock. He is asking that it be
shifted a few feet because it is in an unsafe spot.
Hanus stated if it is shifted, Ms. Casey will not have to crawl over the grassy knoll to get up to the
top of the small hill and then slide down a grassless dirt hill to get to the other side.
TOM CASEY, asked why there is a dirt hill there?
Hanus stated it is probably too steep to grow grass when it rains.
TOM CASEY, stated it is because someone cut into that hill to put in a gazebo.
Hanus stated the he was on the Planning Commission when that gazebo was approved with no
variances issued.
TOM CASEY, apologized for his daughter not returning the Mayor's phone call, but
explained that she has not been at home.
The Mayor asked who installed Ms. Casey's dock.
TOM CASEY stated he assmned it was Ms. Casey's ex-husband.
The Mayor stated he would have rather have met with Ms. Casey before the dock was installed.
The Mayor stated that the Council is directing Staff to prepare a finding of fact on the safety issue
that the City is confronted with at this dock site. He further offered to work with Ms. Casey to
resolve this situation.
DOCK SITE//42129
The Mayor stated there is a Memo that was handed out tonight to the Mayor and City Council from
Park Director, Jim Fackler regarding temporary issuance of an abutting dock site//42129 which has
not been paid to date by the abutting property owner (Gene Smith) at 4705 Island View Drive. Mr.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- M.~Y 12. 1995
Faclder is issuing a Tcn porary Dock Site to Todd Stead to utilize dock site @42129 for this year.
The Mayor asked if there was any objection to this. There was none.
Mr. Gene Slnith asked if he could have the vacant site on the other side of Ahrens. The Mayor
explained that at this point there is no dock over there.
Mr. Smith asked if two dock sites have been eliminated? Councilmember Hindus stated that he does
not think that has been determined yet.
Councilmember Weycker stated that if this area becmnes a non-traversable Commons, she would like
to see the documentation of the so called safety issue which she does not believe exists. She did not
like the idea of eliminating 4-7 non abutting dock sites because of small incline in the Com~nons which
could be taken care of with a step, at a cost of probably under $100 to the City.
GENE SMITII stated that the responsible thing to do would be to remove those trees, because
they are hindering access to the area.
Councihnember Hanus, stated that those trees were used as findings when the gazebo was built as a
requirement for screening the gazebo. He stated to take those small trees out now would be in
violation of the Shorelm~d Mmmge~nent Ordinance.
GENE SMITII asked if the high water mark was ever surveyed and the appropriate setback
followed on that retaining wall.
The Council asked that this be checked out.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 14, 1998
1.12
RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY
CQMMISSION REGARDING TIlE IMI'LEMENTATION OF A MULTIPLE SLIP
.DOCK ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED AT ROANOKE LANE ACCESS
The City Attorney made the following statement: "I have been asked by Councilmember Ahrens
to make a statement at this time. Councihnember Ahrens has elected to absent herself from
consideration of this matter. She has elected not to participate in the discussion and elected not
to participate in tile vote on any matters here with respect to which there has been an assertion
that she may have a conflict of interest. That is point number one."
"Point number two. She has asked me to stress to you that her decision to do so is voluntary.
It is her choice and by making that decision she wants it to be made clear that the decision
should not be viewed as an admission of truth of any of tile assertions that there may be a
conflict of interest nor is it a consent by her that there is, itl fact, tile admission of a conflict of
interest in that matter. That's tile extent of the statement. Based upon that statement it would
appear that there is no issue for the Council to consider regarding a conflict of interest here.
As a result, the City Council is free to proceed to discuss the substance of tile issues before it."
The Mayor made the roll,ring statement: "We, as a Council are here to find solutions to
problems. We are not here to create solutions for problems. We want to hear everyone who
wishes to be heard, but tile ground rules for tile City Council, the Staff, and those participating
in the discussion here, is that we will not allow any personal attacks on any members of the
audience, the City Couucil, or Staff. All comments or discussion will be directed to the Chair.
We will recognize those who wish to comment or speak. I insist that City Councilmetnbers,
Staff and ~nembers of the public treat each other with the utmost respect and dignity. We will,
in fact, try to answer any questions that you have. And fi'oin there, I will ask if anybody on the
City Council has anything they would like to add at this point?" There was no response. The
Mayor continued. "I know there are a number of people here on this item. Are there any
questions or comments or statements that you would like to make at this time?" There was no
response. The Mayor continued. "Over the past three years, there has been a Commons Task
Force that was appointed by the City Council to address the issues.of improving the level of
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 14, 1998
comfort that both abutters and non-abutters could achieve on the Commons as it relates to docks.
As a result of the Task Force's work, there was a Docks and Commons Advisory Commission
(DCAC) was established. There have been a number of areas where the Docks and Commons
Commission have addressed the use of multiple docks to help alleviate congestion on Commons.
There was a survey of this particular area done by the Task Force and reviewed by the DCAC
that addressed the level of dissatisfaction by abutters and non-abutters alike. There was
something like 75 % dissatisfaction in the Roanoke Access area."
The Mayor related that the DCAC has done other multiple slip docks in other areas and it has
been working out just fine. The DCAC addressed multiple slip docks on Roanoke Access.
Over the past month, it has become increasingly clear that there are, in fact, a number of people
who are not necessarily opposed to multiple docks, but they are opposed to the particular
location on the Roanoke Access where this is being proposed.
The Mayor stated that he has tried to meet with the people who are affected by any decision that
the City Council would make to try and find a level of comfort that everyone can live with.
ealJzmg that there is nothing that we can do, as a City Council, or a society, that will make
everyone absolutely happy and give them everything they want as it relates to Commons Docks
and our Dock Program, but trying to give everyone some of the things they want to improve the
level of comfort they have with what's taking place. There was a proposal by the DCAC to
install a multiple slip dock up to 100 feet long and to provide for 4 or 5 slips. That raised the
discomfort level of a number of people, particularly those who live immediately within the area.
As an individual in going out to discuss this with some of the abutting homeowners and some
of the non-abutting dockholders, and asking what would be acceptable, there was a proposal
made that I indicated I would bring back to the City Council and discuss which involves moving
2 of the docks, #42886 and #41477 (Mr. Stead), to the Pembroke Park multiple slip dock. Mr.
Stead was, in fact, in favor of that because it would be closer to his home. This would be easier
for him to access and it would also be easier for who ever gets//41886 to get access because
they wouldn't have to traverse across a very small Commons. //41886 has not been used for the
last few years. This proposal would also free up another dock for a non-abutting property owner
that hasn't been used, that will probably get some use. The other proposal that I made to the
two dockholders, Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt, was that in fact the City is willing to put in a
City owned dock at Roanoke Lane Access fire lane which would facilitate 2 boats for each user
on each side of the dock, which would decongest the Commons further and would take away
what is considered a very unsafe Commons to traverse across in order to get to the dock. All
but one of the people that was affected was a non-abutter. One was willing to, the other was
opposed to it. So we come here tonight with an open mind to find a solution that is beneficial
to everyone, if that's possible. The Mayor suggested only putting Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt
on the City owned multiple dock at the Roanoke Access. The City Council could prohibit any
further expansion of that multiple dock to any other people."
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1998
The Mayor asked for comments from the people present.
BARB CASEY stated she has had her dOCk for 12 years and has never had a problem accessing
her dOCk. She stated she does not have a problem with moving #41886 or #41477, but would
prefer to have her dock and Bob Schmidt's dOCk left where they are.
The Council discussed having Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Casey share a City owned multiple dock
or a privately owned dOCk at the Roanoke Access. Ms. Casey and Mr. Schmidt do not want this
because of congestion in the area.
The Council discussed the word "congestion". Some people feel docks are congestion and others
feel boats are congestion. Councilmember Hanus stated that he believes the number of docks
cause congestion not the number of boats.
Councilmember Weycker expressed concern about increasing the size of the Pembroke multiple
slip dock to accommodate the two extra boats (Stead and dock site 41886).
GENE SMITH, 4705 Island View Drive, stated he is directly affected by this proposed
multiple slip dock on Roanoke Access and he was never notified that this was even proposed.
He felt putting two more boats between Schmidt's and Gabos' dock and two more boats on the
opposite side of that dock would create congestion.
The following persons would like to leave this area of Devon Commons the way it is with no
multiple slip docks on Roanoke Access. They were also against moving the 2 docks (Stead and
#41886) to Pembroke because they are losing 2 dOCks that could be used by two people in their
neighborhood.
Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive.
Cathy and T6m Latchum, 4711 Island View Drive.
Bob Schmidt, 4708 Island View Drive
Barb Casey, 4704 Island View Drive
John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive
The Mayor stated that when the Roanoke area was opened for 14 dOCks in 1977, 7 for abutters
and 7 for non-abutters, there was a safety issue, the narrowness of this Commons. He is
concerned about safety issues on this portion of the Devon Commons because of the narrowness
and difficult terrain to access the dOCks.
There was discussion about trimming some of the trees on the Commons.
The Mayor stated that the following petition was received by the City and signed by 9 persons:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1998
"We the undersigned, petition the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission to proceed
with the plan to place a multiple dock for current non-abutter dock site holders on the
end of the fire lane at the Roanoke Access on the Devon Commons. The multiple slip
dock at Roanoke should not exceed 100 feet in length. All other non-abutting dock sites
at Roanoke Access should be eliminated."
Also received was the following petition signed by 14 persons:
"We the undersigned are opposed to placing a multiple dock site at the Roanoke access.
We are opposed to any multiple dock even for a trial period. We hereby petition the city
council to vote against any motion for a multiple dock site at the end of the Roanoke
access."
RENEE LA FORTUNE, 4649 Island View Drive, agreed that there is a safety issue for
this narrow Commons area.
JOHN GABOS, 4687 Island View Drive, thanked the Mayor for doing all he has done
to try to resolve this problem. He further stated that in the 10 years he has lived here, he has
never had a problem with the people who have their docks abutting the Commons in front of his
home. He stated that he feels the multiple dock idea is a good idea, but the locations for these
multiples needs to be evaluated. He stated he does not like to see the micro-managing of the
dock program. Don't try to fix the dock situation one or two docks at a time.
MARK SMITH, 4665 Island View Drive, agreed with Mr. Gabos.
The City Attorney read the proposed resolution as follows:
RESOLUTION if98-37
RESOLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF DOCK
LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF CONSIDERATION
OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ON DEVON COMMONS
AT TIlE ROANOKE LANE ACCESS
WHEREAS, the City of Mound administers and regulates activities within and upon the
various public commons of the City; and
WIIEREAS, the regulatory activities include the provision of dock locations upon the
commons for the recreational use and enjoyment of the participants in the dock program; and
WIlEREAS, in furtherance of the City's regulatory activity, the City Council has
established the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) and has charged it with
making recommendations to the City Council regarding the City's dock program; and
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES o APRIL 14, 1998
WHEREAS, at its March 19, 1998, meeting, the DCAC adopted and forwarded to the
City Council the following motion:
"MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Goidberg to recommend installation of the
multiple dock, 75' in length, straight dock to accommodate two boats. Dock sites
41477 and 41886 will be eliminated and site holder 41477 will be placed on the city
multiple dock. Dock site 42043 will become the site of the multiple dock with the
dock site holder placed on multiple dock. Dock site holder Schmidt would have the
first choice of dock slips on the multiple dock. Dock site//41956 (Casey) will remain
in its current location. This is the DCAC motion."
WHEREAS, the City Council has had the opportunity to review the DCAC
recommendation and has received input from the staff and interested members of the public and
has considered the recommendation in light of the City Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. Dock site locations 41477 (which is the Stead location) and 41866 (which is shown
as the open location) are hereby eliminated and the City is directed to establish two permanent
sites on the Pembroke Park multiple dock as replacement locations.
2. Consideration of the establishment of a multiple dock site at Roanoke Lane is
hereby discontinued and the Park Director is hereby directed to notify all interested persons of
such discontinuance. The Council will consider this matter in the future only if requested to do
so by all parties who would be relocated to the dock and all parties whose property abuts
Roanoke Lane.
3. The DCAC is directed to review the Multiple Slip Dock Program Policy to
determine whether the policy should be altered or expanded due to concerns which have been
expressed during this process.
4. Dock site 41956 will be shifted to the center line of its dock location' area, if such
location is in the reasonable judgement of the permit holder at least as accessible and safe as the
existing location.
5. With the exception of dock locations 41477(Stead dock) and 41866 (open
location), and the provisions of paragraph 4 above, all existing dock locations on Devon
Commons will remain unchanged and unaffected by this action.
MOUHD CIII' COUNCIL MIIVUTE$ - APRIL 14, 1998
MOTION made by l'olslon, seconded by llanus adopt'the above resolution.
Councihnembcrs Jcnse~l and Weycker stated they were not comfortable moving
the 2 dock sites to the l'embroke Park multiple slip dock without notifying the
property owners who abut Pembroke because the two extra sites there were to be
eliminated as people when from two boats to one. There was also a concern that
the Pembroke site might not be deep euough.
The vole was 2 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion fails.
The Council discussed notifying the abutters at Pembroke Park of tile proposal before taking
action and checking on tile shallowness at Pembroke.
I'ETER MEYER, member of Mound Park & Open Space Com~nission - stated that he
would like to have the I'OSC review moving the 2 dock sites to Pembroke Park.
MOTION made by llanus, seconded by Jensen to adopt Ibe proposed resolution
above subject Io Ihe approval of the existing users of the l'embroke dock as well as
ail others who were originally notified of Ihe muitilfle dock site at Pembroke; also
notlfication of Mr. Stead about lhe llmilatlon on the size of bls boat.
RI~OLUTION 98-37 RI~OLUTION REGARDING RELOCATION OF
DOCK LOCATIONS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF
CONSIDEitATION OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ON
DEVON COMMONS Al' TIlE ROANOKE LANE
ACCESS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
July 1#, 1998
RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR
MICHAEL AND DIANE EDWARDS, 2805 HALSTEAD LANE
FOR NON-ABUTTING PROPERTY ON PARK LAND KNOWN AS IDLEWOOD
ACCESS.
2990 HIGHLAND LIFT ACCESS,
DOCK SITE # 60640
WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael and Diana Edwards, are seeking a
Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a stairway to the lakeshore at
Highland Blvd/Idlewood Access; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is on Idlewood Access and the
applicant is a non-abutting dock holder; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed stairway will be of similar construction of the
stairway that is already existing; and,
,' ' d~o t~h e~[~s_ t~t~~a y needs
to be moved~~y o~e ~p-p~:a--tt~to~.~e stairway;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed stairway must be reviewed and approved by
City Staff including the Public Works Superintendent; and,
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a
four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons,
or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons; and,
WHEREAS, there are ~c~'v~-----~c~s at this location; and,
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request
and recommend approval by a unanimous vote contingent upon the city staff
determining whether or not this can be done on the public easement; and,
July 14, 1998
Dock site 60640 - Edwards
P. 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the construction
of a stairway with the following condition:
Plans for the stairway must be approved by City staff including the
Public Works Superintendent prior to construction of the stairway.
2. I~liance with these conditions is not achiev.e_..d as agreed
within one year o of' ' so ution, th~ Parks Director/
B~~r the matter~l~c~t~City Attorney for
prosecu~:J~cr~. ....... ...~.,.. ~.~,-~. ~,
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
PUBLIC LAND PERNIITS
2. MICHAEL AND DIANE EDWARDS, 2805 HALSTEAD LANE
Fackler reviewed the request to install a stairway from the existing parking area to gain
better access to their dock. He stated the plans are vague and need to be revised. Staff
recommends approval of the request subject to conditions.
Diane Edwards stated they could either construct the stairway as public or private. She
stated they didn't have a preference. Faclder stated he would prefer a public access.
Edwards noted it is in a remote area.
Polston was concerned about precedent setting. He was concerned about it interfering
with the easement for the lift station. Faclder believed it was not located in the stairway
area, but he would verify it with Public Works.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Goldberg to grant the permit
contingent upon the city staff determining whether or not this can be done
on the public easement. Motion carried unanimously.
4
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 11, 1998
MEETING
DATES:
June 18, 1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
June 23, 1998 City Council
TO:
FROM:
Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~
APPLICANT: Michael and Diane Edwards 2805 Halstead Lane
LOCATION: DOCK SITE # 60640 IDLEWOOD ACCESS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO INSTALL A STAIRWAY
Background: The applicants, Michael and Dianne Edwards, am seeking a construction on
Public Lands Permit to install an additional stairway from the existing parking area, in order
to gain a better access to their dock site. According to the city plat map this ama is a park
known as Idlewood Access and them are currently two dock sites at this location. A survey
has not been provided and may not be necessary in this case as long as the Parks
Director/Public Works Superintendents are satisfied with the proposed location. The new
stairs are to be similar in design to the existing stairway on the lower portion of the access
and this was permitted as noted in the attached Council minutes of June 26, 1990.
The plans are somewhat vague and need to be revised. An accurate cross section with
some elevations will provide a more accurate picture of the scope of the project and insure
proper installation. Based on the good condition and construction of the existing stair I am
confidant the applicant (with the guidance of staff) is capable of constructing the new
stairway.
Comments: Due to the fact that this stairway serves more than one dock, the applicant and
the Commission may wish to discuss the implications of the stairway being donated to the
city after it is constructed.
Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year permit for the stairway
with the following conditions:
M.D. Edwards
2805 Halstead lane
Page 2
The applicant shall provide a revised set of plans that are suitable for review as
required by the Building Official and that will meet with the approval of the Parks
Director. The stairway shall be constructed to Building Code as required by the
Building Official. The applicant shall request a progress inspections so staff may
monitor the work, and a final inspection at the end of the project so the Building
Official and Parks Director may verify the work is completed as approved by the
plans. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained as required by staffand all
areas disturbed during construction shall be restored with turf as required by staff.
The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of
the date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until
compliance has been achieved.
JS:kl
+6129412413 PREIiIERPROPERTIES 511 P02 JUN 16 'gB 10:38
June 15, 1998
PROM: Michael & Di~nne gdwards
28Ob ~als%e=d Lane
Mound, Mn. 55364
TO: John SuLli~rland &
Tom McCaffreY
City nt Mound
Cons%ruction of steps to acc~$$ dock arc~
Mi. gbland LlfL Station location
We would like to make nne s%eps ms nice as thcy are constr]]cted o~
thm. Lower hill iio~. This can be done in o~ ot %wo wavs:
A: Make %he steps permanent d~ld useable to the public.
o~ 5~a5, wu would dedicate the ~t~p~ t.n t~e CitV of Mound and
maintain them as long a~ we are 5her~ (we have been there nin~
to tan years already).
Our proposal would be r.o ~Rplicate tho steps you saw, c~t~in~
into r. he ~ill. This has been discussed with John g~:therla~d.
is ruco~ending thc approval of construc%loB to the council %his
and next ThursdaY, pending a pi'~cise blueprin5 supplied ]star
(~igned of~ bY him).
This construction would cos% about $~,200.00. We are offering
contribute $800.00 in labor and ask the Dock Commission 50 supply
the matcrials of railro~8 ties, spikes aI~d fill gravel, not to
exceed $4UO.U0. (Anything over that cost wc will contribute).
This would contribur.~ to access o% 5t~e lake level measuring site
and will improve oily property on a long term basis.
The alternatix;~ i~:
To build -a temporary dock type .~r. ructure, $~sDended with poles
into tb~. hill, to support iL. The steps would also go
stz~igl~5 down the hill with a railing and bm_ ~ ~ence~ off
access, no% avai!ab]e r.o t~e p~b!lc. We would assume
ownership oI t~e suzuctu-,e and remove it when we vacated th~.
dock area. (This, too, would need John g]]therla~d's fl~al
approval, w~r.h a precise blueprint %o b~ ~upplied and reviewed
aL a i~L~: date).
Looking forward LO seeln0 you at ~ll~ meeting on June 18, 1998.
Michael & Dianne Edwards
Rev. 4/97
OFFICIAL
~--~--PARKS DIRECTOR
"8'q~ MCWD ''/
'PUBLIC WORKS '''/''
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CJTY 0F MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 4724600, Fax: 472-0620
DD~ TcEK RMEECEETI IVNEGDDA~~E - 1.~~~6"~
CITY COUNCIL DATE
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTYNUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
-.-- LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Sub& 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. 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 are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Property Owner ~T~~
Legal Lot Block
Descriptio~ Subd. (~'7 ~ --~~)
Public Name ~
Property Dock Site ~ ~ ~0 Shoreline T~e
Contractor Name
Address
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ~_~.3f/V0 7~/-~ ~.~/_67/A~ ~7~_~ tr~~A//
. j ' p~licant. /./// ;' ~ ~~'
0 Z
~- 0
,/
32845
· Bay Park
606,
_ ._6.9_? ~. _
I d lewood
Access
Twin
~! Landing
CEDAR
.r i~ I
~50 q
~lF]( I L A
HOLT
LA
,N
;i.'710
~ ,I,~ i,
MINUTEB - MOUND CITY ~CIL _ ~UNE 26~ ~990
1.4
ON COOK,8 B~ ~ AX U~GH_L~ BLVD. IDLEWOOD RO~D
The City Manager stated that the Park Commission has recommended
approval of a request from Mike Edwards (2805 Halstead Lane), to
construct a walkway and stairs at his dock site at Highland
Blvd./Idlewood on Cook's Bay. The applicant is to meet with the
Dock Inspector and the Park Director to determine the placement
of the walkway and stairs and the condition that vevetation
cutting not include cutting for the purposes of increase
visibility or security. Also that the stairway conform to the
Building Codes.
HOTION made by ~essen, seconded by ~ensen to concur vith the
~ar~ Co~iss~on reco~endetion to approve a aaintenance
~orait for H~ko Edwards for the
installation of a walk.ay
and stairway at his dock site at Highland Blvd./Idlewood on
Cook,s Bay with
the following stipulations~ the applicant
to meet with the Dock Inspector and the Park Director to
deter~ine the placement of the ~alk~a~ and stairs~ that
vegetation cuttinq not include cutting for the pu~oses
increase visibilit~ or secur~t~ and that the stair~a
confo~ to the Build[n
favor. ~ot[on carried~ Codes. The vote
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
dUNE 14, 1990
I~aintenance Pe, ait Application: Request from Mike Edwards to
construct a stairway to the lakeshore at Hi,bland Blvd./ldle~o~J
on Cook's Bay.
Applicant, Mike Edwards, was not present. The Park Director, Jim
Fackler, reviewed his recommendation for approval of the stairway
with a Few minor changes. Fackler suggested that 6' x 6' treated
timbers be used with crushed rocks, and a temporary low water
stairway be placed above the shoreline to the beach. Both the
Dock Inspector and the Park Director will meet with the applicant
to determine placement of the walkway and stairs.
The Commission confirmed that'the stairway will follow the exist-
ing pathway and that no more vegetation wi11 be cut other than
what is necessary during construction.
MOTION made by Weber, seconded by SchmicFc to approve the
Park Director's rec~ndatlon to allow the walkway and
s~air~ay to be constructed.
Casey commented that he would like the'motion to include
that vegetation cutting not include cutting For purposes
of increased visibility or security.
Weber accel~ed an amendment to his motion to Include the
condition that vegetation cutting not Include cutting
for purposes of Increased visibility or security.
SchmicFc seconded. Hotion carried u~animously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 26, 1990.
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle ,d~
ChiefLen Harrellc;7 k,
Monthly Report for June, 1998
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,082 calls for service during the
month of June. There were 31 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 4 criminal sexual conduct, 1 aggravated assault, 4 burglaries, 21
larcenies, and 1 vehicle theft.
There were 69 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child
abuse/neglect, 2 narcotics, 6 damage to property, 13 liquor law violations,
7 DUrs, 7 simple assaults, 7 domestics (2 with assaults), 5 harassment, 4
juvenile status, and 14 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 88 adult citations and 5 juvenile citations.
Parking violations accounted for an additional 19 tickets. Warnings were
issued to 98 individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 1 adults and 2 juveniles arrested for a felonies. There were 29
adults and 15 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There was one felony
warrant and an additional 10 misdemeanor warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 4 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There
were 34 medical emergencies and 71 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 20 occasions in June and requested assistance 8 times.
Property valued at $18,775 was stolen in June.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - June, 1998
II.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 7 criminal sexual conduct/child protection
issues accounting for 57 hours of investigative time. Other cases included
aggravated assault, burglary, domestic assault, DWI, terroristic threats,
damage to property, forgery, auto theft, NSF checks, narcotics, theft,
harassment, and absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for 4th degree assault, underage
consumption, gross misdemeanor DWI, disorderly conduct, no insurance,
no drivers license, driving after cancellation, marijuana in a motor vehicle,
switching license plates, and criminal damage to property.
III.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 48 hours of overtime during the
month of June. Officers used 52 hours of comp-time, 228 hours of
vacation, 66 hours of sick time, and 1 holiday. Officers earned 50 hours
of comp time.
IV.
TRAINING
Two officers attended the Wilson Leadership course and one officer
attended GREAT training to incorporate with DARE.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
Officers Holzerland and Piper addressed 24 animal complaints, 44
ordinance violations, and 143 miscellaneous calls for services.
The police reserves donated 239 hours of community service to the
department and the community in June. The reserves, again, contributed
greatly to a successful Mound City Days.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 1998
OFFENSES CLEARF~D EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARP. ESTED
R~PORTED UNFOUNDED ~ ARREST ADD-LT JUV
PART I CRIMES
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 4 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 1 0
Burglary 4 0 0 0 0
Larceny 21 2 3 2 1
Vehicle Theft 1 0 1 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
PART II CRIMES
31 2 4
Child Abuse/Neglect 4 2 0
Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 6 0 0
Weapons 0 0 0
Narcotic Laws 2 0 0
Liquor Laws 13 0 0
DWI 7 0 0
Simple Assault 7 0 3
Domestic Assault 2 0 0
Domestic (No Assault) 5 0 0
Harassment 5 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 4 0 0
Public Peace 2 0 0
Trespassing 0 0 0
All Other Offenses 12 0 0
I 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 0 0
2 2 2
11 12 0
7 7 0
2 1 2
2 4 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
6 0 6
2 1 2
0 0 0
2 2
TOTAL
PART ~I & PART
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medica!s
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTI%L
69
4
1
0
34
71
20
841
971
2 3
35 29 15
HCCP
Inspections
10
44
TOTAL
1,125
38 30 17
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 1998
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
56 329 508
24 272 422
28 102 141
39 282 404
87 494 439
19 220 398
7 35 51
6 25 41
4 40 50
1 15 20
0 0 0
2 12 19
37 208 229
2 36 13
17 112 60
31 192 108
69 381 381
34 174 144
71 298 314
44 164 124
841 5,055 4,344
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mural Aid Requested
1,419 8,446 8,210
62 351 380
167 379 245
10 35 20
20 103 66
8 27 49
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
MOUI~tD POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 1998
7 0
6 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
46 3
1 0
0 0
8 1
0 0
2 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
5 1
0 0
0 0
19 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
4 0
0 0
5 __~
107 5
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 1998
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
32
25
15
0
2
8
0
0
0
10
92
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Run: 8-Jul-98 8:34 PRO03
MOUND POLXCE DEPARTMENT
Pr:mary ISN's only; NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/98 ~ 06/25/98
codes: All
Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals:
Report Totals:
Page 1
Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Code Assnd Assnd
3,000 3,000 1.000
160 160 1.000
13 13 2.000
1,905 450 2.000
180 180 2.000
2,349 529 5.000
5,828 75 4.000
88O 0 3.000
50 0 1.000
3,500 0 2.000
910 49 6.000
18,775 4,456 29.000
Run: 1-Jul-98 13:34 CFS08 ~ -- Page 1
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/98 - 06/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NL~4BER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9000 SPEEDING 46
9001 J-SPEEDING 3
9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1
9014 STOP SIGN 2
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 1
9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 1
9032 NO PASSING 1
9040 NO SEATBELT 4
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 15
9150 NO TRAILER PARKING 4
~200 DAS/DAR/DAC 1
3210 pLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 8
9211 J-pLATES/NO-EXPIRED-IMPROPER 1
9220 NO INSUP~ANCE/PROOF OF 5
3221 J-NO INSUR~CE/PROOF OF 1
9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 2
9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 1
9301 LOST PERSONS 1
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 3
9313 FOUNqD PROPERTY 5
9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 1
9420 DERELICT kUTO 1
Run: 1-Jul-98 13:34 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/98 - 06/25/98
range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9430
9450
9451
9566
9567
9700
0
NUMBER OF
PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 1
PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 3
H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC.
1
ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1
DANGEROUS DOG
1
MEDICAL/SU 1
MEDICAL/ASU 1
MEDICAL/DOA 1
MEDICALS
29
MEDIC_ALS/DX 1
IOD INJURY
1
ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 12
DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 5
PUBLIC ASSIST
1
ALL HCCP CASES
10
OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 2
HANDGUN APPLICATION 3
UNWANTED GUEST
1
WARRANTS
MISC. VIOLATIONS 8
MUTUAL AID/8100 11
MUTUAL AID/6500 5
9730
9731
9735
~801
980~
9900
9904
9930
9944
9980
Page
Run: 1-Jul-98 13:34 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/98 - 06/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 4
A2431 ASLT 2-FEAR BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-FAM 1
A4357 ASLT 4-FE-INFLICTS BOD ~IAP. M-HANDS ETC-POLICE 1
A5345 ASLT 5-INFLT BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-CHLD-ACQ 1
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-H~3~DS-ASLT-AC 1
A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 2
A9500 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-UNK RELAT 1
A9600 TERR THREATS-INF PRO DM-UNK WEAP-UNK RELAT 1
~L354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY H;~RM-HANDS-CR-FAM 1
'~L431 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-AD-FAM 1
!L451 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY H~~HA/~DS-AD-FAM 1
!294 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-U-UN WEAP-COM THEFT 1
-3364 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1
~764 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1
~864 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP~COM THEFT 1
>A540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1
[3C500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-b'NK-UNK 1
[3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 2
I3070 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD 1
J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2
J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1
J2R01 TRAFF-GM-~AIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1
Page
Run: 1-Jul-98 13:34 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
DaZe Reported range: 05/26/98 - 06/25/98
range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANIkLYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE I~ER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
J3501
J3E01
J6501
J6U01
L1B32
L!B42
;1
~3001
'-~3005
'-~4!40
'<:~313
'<5599
~:~030
~Y3!90
i~lA80
P2110
P3110
TB159
TRJ%FF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLLrENCE
TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
EN~CED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/;MLCOHO
ENHANCED/BAC OVER .20 & W/IN 10 YRS OF PRIOR
CSC 1-CONTACT-GUARDIAN-UND AGE-13-M
CSC 1-CONTACT-OTH FAMILY-UICD AGE-13-M
CSC 1-CONTACT-POS AUTHOR-UND AGE-13-F
CSC 4-UNK ACT-P;kRENT-13-15-F
JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER
JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO
LIQUOR-UNDEPJ%GE CONSUMPTION 18-21
JUVENILE-CURFEW
HEALTH-SAFETY-OTHER
DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT
DISTTIRB PEACE-MS HARP~ASSING COF~MUNICATIONS
COMP DAMAGE-FE-D~J4AGE-COMP/PRG-UNK INT
PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-I/NK INTENT
THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-MOTOR VEH~OTH PROP
THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE~BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE-YAd~DS-OTH PROP
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
5
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
'YC029
TC059
Page
Run: 1-Jul~98 13:34 CFS08 ~ -- Page 5
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/98 - 06/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
TC151 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-MON-EY 1
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
'?F029 THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1
?G159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOlXDR VEH-OTHER 6
?G169 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCP~AFT-OTH PROP
U3068 THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS
U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 2
U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS
VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE T}{AN 2500 1
<2080 CRIM AGNST ADMN Jn3ST-GM-OBST LEGAL PROCESS
:'2230 CRIM AGNST GOVN GM-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH
Report Totals: 308
Aun: 2-Jul-98 16:18 OFF01
Primary ISN's only:
3ale Reported range:
range each day:
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
NO
05/26/98 - 06/25/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
~ -- Page 1
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
%CT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX-
CODE DESCRIPTION PERCENT
................................. REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING AP. REST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
A2431
%4357
%5345
:.5352
%~355
'.9500
i~354
14451
1294
~64
764
'500
~060
~3070
'2501
'2E01
T3501
J3E01
ASLT 2-FEAR BODILY }{ARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
ASLT 4-FE-INFLICTS BOD HARM-H~U~DS ETC-POLICE 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
ASLT 5-INFLT BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-C}{LD-ACQ 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD }{RM-HANDS-ASLT-AC 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HA/qDS-CHLD-ACQ 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 100.0
TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-LrNK WEAP-UNK RELAT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TERR THREATS-INF PRO DM-UNK WEAP-UNK RELAT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HAArDS-CH-FAM 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-AD-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY H~uRM-HANDS-AD~FAM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-U-UN WEAP-COM THEFT
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC N-RES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0,0
DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH- POSSESS-UNK-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100 . 0
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0
TRAF-ACC-M.S-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 4 0 4 ' 0 4 0 0 4 100.0
Run: 2-Jul-98 16:18 OFF01 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ~ -- Page 2
Primary ISN's only: No Enfors Offense Report
Date Reported range: 05/26/98 - 06/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
AR}tEST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
J6501 ENq{ANCED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOHO 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
J6U01 EN}{ANCED/BAC OVER .20 & W/IN 10 YRS OF PRIOR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
L1B32 CSC 1-CONTACT-GUARDIAN-UND AGE-13-M 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
L1B42 CSC 1-CONTACT-OTH FAMILY-D/qD AGE-13-M 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
L1B51 CSC 1-CONTACT-POS AUTHOR-UN-D AGE-13-F 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
L7025 CSC 4-UNK ACT-PARENT-13-15-F 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
>~3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
~3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.
~.!4140 LIQUOR-UNDER3%GE CONSUMPTION 18-21 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0
'.~5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
]5599 HEALTH-SAFETY-OTHER 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
~030 DISTUP~B PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 100.0
~%190 DISTD-RB PEACE-MS-FLOSSING COM59.JNICATIONS 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0.0
lAS0 COMP DAMAGE-FE-DAMAGE-COMP/PRG-UNK INT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
.~!!0 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 50.0
3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
?B159 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTI{ PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
?B169 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-WATERCR3%FT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
?C029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OT~ PROP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
?C059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
'FC151 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3
TF029 THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 2-Jul-98 16:18 OFF01
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
05/26/98 - 06/25/98
o0:o0 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 3
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST AP~REST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 6 0 6 5 0 1 0 1 16.6
TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
U3068 THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 100.0
73498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
VA021 THEFT-FE-AUT0-MORE TFLAN 2500 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
i.~2050 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-GM-OBST LEGAL PROCESS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
CRIM AGNST GOVN-GM-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
**** Report Totals:
86 4 82 37 26 12 7 45 54.8
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
MEII/IOI~A IVD IJlV!
DATE: July 6, 1998
TO:
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
FROM:
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT: JUNE 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There were 62 building permits issued in June for a construction value of
$1,190,473. we issued :~2 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous
permits for a total of 94 permits this month, and 341 permits year-to-date.
Total valuation now stands at $ 2,632,712.
Eleven (11) more permits have been issued to repair damage to property
due to the storm and high winds that hit on May 15, 1998.
PLANNING & ZONING
The Planning Commission reviewed eleven (11) cases and sent six (6)
variance cases, one (1) Variance extension, one (1) Major Subdivision cases
and two (2) Conditional Use Permits to the City Council. The Planning
Commission continued one (1) cases.
MISCELLANEOUS
The department sent Kris Linquist to the we Care Customer Service
Program. It was a two day 4 hour long seminar. The seminar addressed
change and its effects on employee and customer morale. They
participated in practicing four techniques for staying balanced and
proactive with customers. It also offered options to strengthen new
awareness based on personal learning style.
kl
2,.73o
,11 ,mE mi , ~ ,I II,
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: JtiuE Year: 1998
THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 155 ~ 000 4 573,684
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX 2 684 ~ 015 2 684 , 015
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS)
TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS)
SUSTOTAL 3 839, 0 l 5 6 I, 257, 699
COMMERCIAL (RETML/RESTAURANT)
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 6 106,855 15 455.8].9
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 6 5 3, 7 7 5 t 6 1 7 ;3. 519
DECKS 13 56, 562 30 64, 672
SWIMMING POOLS
REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 31 119, 266 123 591. 172
REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
SUBTOTAL 56 336~458 185 1,285,182
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 3 50,670
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL ]- 2, 500
INDUSTRIAL ]. 5[')0
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS 1 12,000 3 65. 161
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SUBTOTAL 1 12 t 000 8 86,831
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 1 2,300 1 2,300
NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 1 700 1 700
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 2 3 1000 2 3 i 000
# PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION
# PERMIT~
6
TOTAL .
62 1,190,473 201 2,632,712
PERMIT COUNT I THIS MONTH [ YEAR-TO-DaTE
'BUILDING 62 20 l
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 6 10
SIGNS 2 4
PLUMBING 15 6 7
MECHANICAL 5 47
GBAD,NG 0 0
S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE. ETC. 4 12
LTOTAL I 94
,z?31
GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF JUNE 1998
MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT TYPE
JUNE 98 2 3998
JUNE 98 3 3999
JUNE 98 16 4000
JUNE 98 5 4001
JUNE 98 10 4002
JUNE 98 10 4003
JUNE 98 9 4004
JUNE 98 10 4005
JUNE 98 19 4006
JUNE 98 16 4007
JUNE 98 16 4008
JUNE 98 16 4009
JUNE 98 16 4010
JUNE 98 26 4011
JUNE 98 17 4012
JUNE 98 22 4013
JUNE 98 23 4014
JUNE 98 23 4015
JUNE 98 23 4016
JUNE 98 24 4017
JUNE 98 24 4018
JUNE 98 29 4019
JUNE 98 30 4021
3020 HIGHLAND BLVD
2079 COMMERCE BL VD
2600 WlLSHIRE @ CR 125
4930 WlLSHIRE BLVD
2367 FAIRVIEW LANE
2123 DIAMOND LANE
4510 WlLSHIRE BLVD
4560 MANCHESTER RD
1928 SHOREWOOD LN
2868 PELICAN POINT CIR
4711 ISLAND VIEW DR
2044 COMMERCE BLVD
6201 RED OAK RD
5907 FAIRFIELD RD
1916 SHOREWOOD LN
1617 MAPLE MANORS CT
5440 THREE POINTS BLVD
3225 TUXEDO BLVD
4713 & 4719 WILSHIRE
1916 SHOREWOOD LANE
2910 OAKLAWN LANE
5100 EDGEWATER DR
4321 WlLSHIRE BLVD
RIDGEDALE PLUMB
BARBER CONST
MINNEGASCO
COPPIN PLUMBING
RESIDENTIAL HEATING
NORBLOM PLUMB
AL'S MASTER PLUMBING
CUSTOM PLUMBING
PLUMB
CURB CUT
ST EXCAV
W/S CONNECT
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
STEWART/KINGSWAY MEC WiS CONNECT
SURGE WATER COND
CUSTOM PLUMBING
CUSTOM PLUMBING
DIAMOND POWER
DAVID COON
DENNIS KELM
LEON DUDA
DELMAR FURNANCE
COUNTRYSIDE HTG
JOHN EYRES
WESTONKA MECH
WESTONKA MECH
HOLZER PLUMBING
WESTONKA MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
PLUMB/MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
T
Z
0
0
I..1
0
uJ
.J
Z
w
>-
I-
<
z
0
Z
~ w z ~
~ Z Z Z Z Z ~ Z Z Z
~ z
ZZZZZZZZZ
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
"r-
I--
Z
o
o
Ii.
o
._J
n-
LU
LLJ
o
n
n,'
W
Ii.
o
LLI
Z
~0
z ~ z
· -r ~ w z
~ 0 ~ w
W LU W ~
~ ~ u.
0 W ~
n.' n- 0
0 0 ~
~ n
ZZ
oo
×0 W W
WZ 0 0 ~
-- 0 0 0
oo ~ ~ ~
z
Oww
~000~
0
0 Z~o~Z~
w uJ W
o z
Z
o
~w
WWW~W
Z~ZZZ
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ~ W W W W ~ W W W W W
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
LU LIJ L.U
Z Z Z
U.J 0 ~
~ Z fJ
u. n
LU
Z
LL
0
Z
0
0
0
_J
,< z
ry'
z
0
o LU
LU UJ
Z n,' ,~,
I.IJ ~
Z
w ~zo
~ 0
~ 0
LI.I t"q ~l
z
<~
0
rr
Z
o
g°
mm
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 8, 1998
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY MANAGER
CITY CLERK
JUNE MONTHLY REPORT
There were 2 regular Council Meetings in June. Packet preparation was done for each of these
meetings. Minutes were prepared after each meeting. There were follow-up items from each
meeting.
Licenses were issued for the following: Club, Sunday On-Sale, Wine & Beer On-Sale and Off-
Sale.
Mound City Days was a huge success. I think it was a really an excellent weekend and
everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. Civic pride prevails again.
There were the usual calls from residents and questions from the general public on property,
cemetery, research items, and other various issues.
~prmtedonrecycledpaper ~737
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
JULY 9, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: JUNE 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
PARKS;
In June we were still trying to do the clean up of the storm
damage. We had allot of trees downed on public lands and
allot of dumping of brush from private property onto public
lands.
We will continue to do more clean up into July because the
contractors have been so far behind in more serious tree
removals then the remaining ones we have in remote areas.
The final cost is going to be high and will easily exceed
the storm from 1997.
The Parks crew is up to four seasonal full-time workers, but
were are behind in the mowing and other repair due to the
time spent on the storm brush removal.
CEMETERY;
The cemetery had no burials but we did prepare it for the
July 4 th.
DOCKS;
The dock inspector has been busy visiting all the dock site
locations verifying compliance for dock installations and
boat registration.
The two new multiple slip docks at Avalon and Devon accesses
are were installed the middle of May.
printed on recycled paper
TREE REMOVAL;
I can not give you a count of the number of trees removed,
but we have eighty sites listed for storm damage where trees
were removed or trimmed.
SUMMER PLAYGROUND AND BEACH PROGRAM;
Both of these programs began running at the beginning of
June and will continue until August.
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
~5{IS .... .LAST ~4I$ YEAR LAST YEAR
D.%'~-: 3F .~ 1998 MON/]{ MON/]{ ~ ~ TO DA~
~. OF C.~ (167) (428)
76 105 367 360
{OUh'D FI~ ~ 33 87 88
,. ~G~ 27 24 126 116
{INNETONKA BEACH ~ 5 0 11- 11
~G~ 0 1 3 2
~! NNE?R ! STA FI~ 2 7 14 21
~G~ 1 4 16 25
)RONO FI~ 9 18 42 25
-- ~G~ 3 2 12 11
;HOREWOOD ~I~ 0 0 0 2
-- ~~ 0 0 2 1
;PR!~ PARK FI~ 6 7 24 11
~.~G~ 1 9 25 41
~UTUAL AID FI~ 1 0 4 5
~~ 1 0 1 1
7OTAL FIRE CALLS 43 65 [244)]82 163
~OTAL EMERGENCY CALLS ~3 4Q ]85
~,,~.~ ] 97
:.~S! D~TL~ ? O 6 1
A~..~ N O N N
-- ?? 3~ 89 (151) 6g _
~E ~L~ / FIRE ~
,~. OF ~ ~z~ ~
- ~ou~ '~G~ ~ ~~
~ 797 ~]~2 3~0
~~ 98 ~ 33 ~
MTKA BEACH ~~ 11 __~
~, ~8 44 3] ~ 292
F~ 33 21& 375 575
- M' TRISTA ~.~G~ 8 95 368 53]
~ 41 309 74~
~!~ 176 516 1038 697
- ORONO ~G~ 59 40 254 ~80
~ ~3~ ~6 ~ 877
~I~ 0 0 0 40
SHOR EWOOD ~G~. 0 0 44 21
~ 0 0 44 ' 61
[[~ 118 183 520 279
$P. PARK' ~G~ 21 161 455 762
. ~ 139 344 975 1041
~,~E 66 0 114
- ~.~ ~D ~G~ 17 0 17 20
T~ 83 0 131 2~
~O7AL DRILL HOURS 180 170 [0]0
rOTAL FIRE HOURS 885 166] ~QSQ
[OTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 508 7~4 ~TQ
~3L F~E & ~G~ ~S 1393 2395 7450 7869
~'~' ~ AI
,~ ~ g~.L D RECEIVED 0 0 1 4
...... lid G%V~M 2 0 5
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF .~'~ ~c~c~
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
6/1 6/15 WY~3 H/RS HIPS
1 JEFF ANDEiRS~N X X Z 19.00 3 68 6.50 442.00
2GREG ANDERSON X X 2 19.00 4 61 6.50 396.50
3 P^L% BA~ X X 2 ~9.00 3 48 6.50 322.O0
4 DAIrfD BOYD X X 2 19.00 0 43 6.75 290.25
5 sc~T ~R~CE X (~ 1 9.50 0 26 6,50 169.00
6 3I.'.~ CAS~ X X 2 19.00 2.5 30 6,~0 195.00
7~OB C'EA~FFORD X X 2 19.00 4.5 47 6.50 305.5O
8Z~_VDY m~GEnmmT X X 2 ~9.00 2.5 20 6, ~ 130.00
9 DA.'~ OmADY X X 2 ~9.00 0 31 6.50 2~0.50
IOKEVI]t~ GRADY X X 2 19.00 0 43 6.50 279.50
11~RUCE SOSZA~SON X X 2 ~9.00 2 37 6.50 240.50
12PAT HANLEY X X 2 19.00 0 55 ~, 50 357.50
l~CmUO H~Z~DERSON X X 2 19. O0 2 29 6.50 188.5O
lZ~A%% m~N~Y X X 2 ~9.00 2.5 .~ 6.50 2~7.5O
~ 5~t~r~ mmmsES x x ~ 29.~ 6.5 47 6.50
O 1 2 6.50 78. O0
~$~m m~ x x z 1 ~. ~ p. ~ 6.50' ~40.
z~om~ ~SON X X Z "~-~ ~ ~0 6. $0 ~9~
Z~ON ~ X X 2 29.~ ~ 4~ 6.50 3ZZ.O0
~0~ ~S X X ~ ~9, ~ Z, ~ 5~ 6.50 332. ~0
ZNO~~ N~S X X Z ~9. ~ ~ 39 6.50 253.50
Z~X~S :~OX X X ~ ~9.~ 0 26 6.50 Z04.
Z~E~ NZC~.~ X ~> ~ 9.50 ~. 5 27 6.50 n0.50
2~R~ P~i X X 2 19.~ 0 41 6.50 266.50
25MI~ P~I X X 2 19.~ 0 22 6.50 143.00
26TIM P.~ X X 2 19.~ ~ 43 6.50 279.50
27GR~ P~mSON X X 2 19.~ 0 47 7.~ 329.00
2~zs ~Emm x x ~ 29.~ 0 32 6.50 z~0.50
29RI~ RO~S X X 2 19.~ 3 53 6.50 344.50
~.E~ SAVAOE X X 2 29.~ 2 ~8 ~.50 377.~
n~N SZ~ X X ~ ~9.~ Z Z~ 6. ~0 Z~. ~0
32E0>~ SZ~ X X 2 29.~ ~ 9 6.50 58.50
33BRUCE ~OBODA X X 2 t9.~ 2 27 6.50 175.50
j~ VA~ X X 2 19.~ 2 50 __6.,50 325.00
~RI~K W~LI~ X X 2 19.~ 5.5 43 6.50 279.50
36TIM ~'~ X X 2 19. ~ 0 18
37 n~m=T~ I'~D~M X X % 19.~ 0 54 ~,50 351.00
37 35 72
92.5 87.5 1~ 684.00
~ 67 1 393
180 ~g 684.~
67 ~ 1,250.~
~ 11,022.75
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
6/1 6/15 ~ }{IRS HIMS RA~E
1 JEFF ANDERSEN X X 2 19.O0 3 68 6.50 442.00
2GREG ANDERSON X X 2 19.OO 4 61 6.50 396.50
3 PAb~L BABB X X 2 19.00 3 48 6.50 312.00
4 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.O0 0 43 6.75 290.25
5 SCOT/ BRYCE X ~ 1 9.50 0 26 6.50 169. O0
195.00
6Jt~i CASEY X X 2 19.00 2.5 30 6.5Q
7 BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19. OO 4.5 47 6.5Q 305.50
8 R~%k~DY ENGEI}{ART X X 2 19. O0 2.5 20 6.50 130. O0
9DAN GRADY X X 2 19. O0 O 31 6.50 210.50
IOKEVING GRADY X X 2 19. OO 0 43 6,50 279.50
llBRUCE GUSTAFSON X X 2 19. OO 2 37 6.50 240.50
357.50
12PAT HANLEY X X 2 19.00 0 55
13CRAIG HENDERSON X X 2 19. OO 2 29 6.50 188.50
14PAUL HF~Y X X 2 19.00 2.5 .~5 6.50 227.50
15~L-~TI HENTGES X X 2 19.00 6.5 47 6.50 305.50
16~197 JAKUBIK X X 2 19.00 Q 12 6.50 78.00
1 ~ROGER kq~YCK X X 2 lq. OD 2 37 6.50' 240.50
18JOHN LARSON X X 2 'lg.00 q 30 6.50 195.00
19JASON ~,~tS X X 2 19.00 3 48 6.50 312.00
201705~Y MYERS X X 2 19,00 2.5 51 6.50 331.50
21JO}~ NAEUS X X 2 19.OO 2 39 6.50 253.50
22JA~ZS ~LSON X X 2 19. OO O 16 6.50 104. OO
23~RET NICCUM X ~ 1 9.50 2.5 17 6.50 110.50
24GREG PALM X X 2 19. O0 O 41 6.50 266.50
25MIKE PALbi X X 2 19.00 0 22 6.50 143.00
26TI~ PALM X X 2 19.00 ~ 43 6.50 279.50
27GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 47 7.00 329.00
28CHRI S POUNDER X X 2 19.OO O 31 6.50 210.50
29RICHARD ROGERS X X 2 19. O0 3 53 6.50 344.50
30',III~ SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 2 58 6.50 377.00
31KEVIN SI PPRELL X X 2 19.00 1 27 6.50 175.50
32RON STALLMAN X X 2 19.00 2 9 6.50 58.50
175.50
33BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 t9.00 2 27 6, 50
325. O0
34ED V~YECEK X X 2 19. OO 2 50 ...... 6,5_0
279.50
3~5RICK WILLIA~S X X 2 19. OO 5.5 43 6.50
117.00
36TI~I WIILIAMS X X 2 19.00 0 18 5,50
37 nF'I~TC~ l~C/x~"pl'~R'~ X X 2 lq. Cf) O 54 6,50 351.O0
37 35 72
92.5 87.5 180 684.00 FIRE
~ 67 1393 ',~ q ~)g~_ 75
180 IRIIiS 684.00
67 M~ 1,250.00
%)TAL 11,022.75
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
"~ o.~ c.~Ls (~67) (4z8)
76 105 367 360
?I3U.ND .FIRE 20 33 87 88
E~RGIi~'Y 27 24 126 116
fi XUEYOt~KA BEACH FI~ 5 0 11- ~1 --
~G~ 0 1 3
~G~ 1 4 16 25
~ 7 3~0 FI~ ~ 18 42 25
~G~ 3 2 12 11
~~ ~ 0 2
}7i!Y% PARK FI~ 6 7 24
~.~G~ 1 9 25 41
"/fTUAL AID FI~ 1 0 4 5
o ~
TCTAL FIRE CALLS 43 65 [244)]~2
'~TTAL ~Om~Cy CALLS ~6~
7.:~E .~2~1 I FIRE ~ ~ ~'~
;,v. OF ~ ~z~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
- ~OU~D '~G~ ~ ~~~ ~~
FI~ 33 ~
hi ' TR I STA ~.~G~ 8
oRoxo ~G~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~ 23~ S~6 1~2 877
FI~ 0 --
~ O 0
~ 40
SHOIEWOOD ~G~. O O 44 --
~~ 2~
~ ~ O O 44
FI~ ]18 183 520
~~ ~7~
- SP. PARK ~G~ 21 161 455
~ 762
~ 139 344 975 1041
F~E 66 0 114
~~ 184
~ 8~ ~ ~ ~o4
~CtAL D~L HOURS 180 ~~
~OZAt ~ZEE HOURS ~~~
[0TAL E~fERGENCY HOURS 508 734 ~7Q ,
E~L~L FIRE & ~G~ HO~S 1393 2395 7450 7869
fUTUAL AID RECEIVED O 0 ~ 4
'_'rUXt AID ~IVEN 2 Q 5 6
City of Mound
07/02~98
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: June 1998
Residential Commercial
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Utility-98
Total
1,081 123 1,204
1,086 123 1,209
18,760 2,520
Total
21,280
$31,724 $5,166 $36,890
$59,406 $15,339 $74,745
$5.873 $124 $5.997
$97.003 $20.629 $117,632
$27,482 $8,210 $35,692
$59,025 $20,538 $79,563
$5.705 $88 $5.793
$92.212 $28.836 $121.048
Total
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
JUNE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Bought:
Money Market 4M Plus 72,872
Money Market US Bank 285,508
CP Smith Barney 5.685% 304,776
CP US Bank 5.738% 475,201
CP Norwest Bank 5.66% 475,768
CP US Bank 5.656% 601,426
Matured:
Money Market 4M Plus
Money Market US Bank (265,000)
CP Smith Barney 5.676% (246,512)
CP US Bank 5.76% (524,718)
CP US Bank 5.603% (719,943)
CP Smith Barney 5.703% (3(10,956)
1998 Budget
Early in the month the City Manager distributed the 1999 budget calendar.
As part of the budget process, each department head prepares a line item
by line item proposed budget. Finance made available to them budget
sheets that include updated actual expenditures for 1997. We are assisting
department heads through the process as needed. The proposed 1999 budget
will be presented to the City Council by the City Manager on September 8th.
We Care Seminar
Gayle and Joyce, together with other city office personnel, attended a two
sessions' seminar on ' We Care - A Customer Relation Process' as developed
by Jack Parr Associates and presented by Donald Salverda & Associates.
The 'We Care' workshops are designed to increase appreciation for customers
and to improve the ability to serve them well. They thank the City Manager
and the City for giving them the opportunity to attend.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager
From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager
Date: July 6, 1998
Re: July 1998, Monthly Report
I keep preaching and harping about how weather plays such an important part in this business
especially during the summer. You are assuredly by now getting sick of hearing it from me. But
this June provided a perfect example of two extremes. Two different types of summer weather.
It was a tale of the first two weeks of the month versus the last two weeks.
Between June 1~t and June 12th the weather was nasty. Cold that is. I recall one of the
meteorologists from one of the television stations stating how far below the average we were and
if it continued that pattern we would definitely break some record. Our gross sales totaled
$70,000 over the first two weeks, then, over the last two weeks when normal hot humid conditions
kicked into gear, gross sales totaled $83,000. This is more atypical. We should, and do, average
around $40,000/ week fi'om May 1s' - Sept 1st. When we get that rainy could weather it simply
kills business.
Enough of that. I promise never to mention weather related items in my reports, at least for this
year that is. So, for the year we are $ 60,000 in sales ahead of last year at this same time. I
neglected to mention that even with the slow start in June we managed to do about $2,000 more
than in June of 1997.
pr~nted on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
June 18, 1998
Members present: Mark Goldberg, Jim Funk, Dennis Hopkins, Frank Ahrens and Mayor Bob
Polston. Gordy Tulberg was absent and excused. Also present were: Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, Secretary Clare Link and the following interested
citizens: Bob & Connie Schmidt, Gene & Gretchen Smith, Mark Hanus, Andrea Ahrens, Greg
Knutson, Becky Cherne, Dianne Edwards, Tom Eikenberry, Orv Burma, and Christopher Loew.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 19, 1998 DCAC MINUTE,q
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Polston to approve the Minutes of the
March 19, 1998 DCAC meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Move the following items to the end of the meeting: Election of Officers, Teal Pointe,
DCAC Work Rules, Agenda Calendar, and Capital Outlay, and New Locations for
Multiple Docks.
Ahrens suggested Election of Officers be done as well as Teal Pointe and consideration
of watercraft at Avalon Park.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hopkins to nominate Mark Goldberg for
Chair and Jim Funk for Vice Chair. Motion carried unanimously.
TEAL POINTE DOCK REQUEST
No action.
ENCROACHMENT FEE FOR PUBLIC LANDS
Goldberg stated the Commons structure encroachment ordinance was approved as policy
by the City Council. He suggested the following changes:
In Section 320:05, Subd. 1. the last sentence to read as follows: "The
structures which are covered by this section are to include buildings (including
boathouses),,,.,...o'~-~, decks,.., platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject
Structure")."
1
e
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
In Sectioin 320:05, Subd. 4., to read as follows: "Subd. 4. Permit Duration and
Fee. Permits shall be for a five year period commencing on January 1 of the
year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set by the council in Section
510.[$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments of $15.00 each.
The first annual installment is due at the time of application and subsequent
installments are due on or before Jr, nua,"y I the last day of February_ of each
year during the term of the permit.. In instances in which the permit holder is
also the holder of a city dock license, the annual dock license will not be issued
until the annual installment has been paid unless the Subject Structure permit
holder provides the City with a written statement relinquishing all interest in the
Subject Structure and consenting to its removal by the City. Subject Structure
permit fees will be placed in a separate account which will be dedicated to
expenditures incurred in the administration and enforcement of activities under
this Section.
to Section 320:05, Subd. 6. b, to read as follows: "A covenant executed by the
applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless and
agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued
maintenance of the Co',:nc:A subject Structure."
to Section 320:05, Subd. 7. to read as follows: "Repair, Modification and
Alteration of Subject Structure. Except to the extent,,.: ..... ,,,,.,o~o~,~,,~:-'~ inconsistent
with the provisions of this Section, the repair, modification or alteration of the
Subject Structure will be treated as if the Subject Structure were a non-
conforming structure located on private property in accordance with the
provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8"
Ahrens was concerned about birdhouses being charged the fee and ending up paying more than
the cost of the structure. He also believed flagpoles should not be included.
Hopkins believed the intent was to discourage encroachments on the Commons which is the
purpose of the fee.
Polston agreed, stating the idea is to get rid of the encroachments. The fees should remain for
all structures.
Funk believed the fee might encourage removal of structures with little value.
MOTION made by Goldberg, seconded by Polston to recommend approval
of the amended ordinance leaving the fees as indicated. Motion carried 4-1
with Funk voting nay.
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
PUBLIC LAND PERMITS
GREGORY G. KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
The application is to replace a storm damaged light. The light was previously approved
by the City Council. Staff recommends it be approved with the same conditions as the
previous approval.
Polston asked if the electrical inspector reviewed the site as was directed in 1995.
Fackler stated no information has been received from the applicant. Polston noted the
inspector has indicated there are four violations and questioned why it has existed since
1995. Fackler indicated the Building Inspector stated it is up to the applicant to bring
the light into conformance.
Polston was concerned about the safety issues involved with a light which is in violation
of the electrical code.
Hopkins asked if the applicant was notified by the electrical inspector that there are
violations. Polston noted the applicant did receive a copy of the letter from the state
electrical inspector. Knutson noted the electrical contractor will bring everything into
conformance and up to code. All concerns will be addressed.
Fackler stated there isn't a limit on when the electrical inspection should have been done
in the original resolution.
Polston asked if the proposal as submitted would address the four violations.
stated the Building Inspector would address this issue.
Greg Knutson, stated the work will be done and will meet existing code.
Fackler
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hopkins to approve the permit
subject to meeting state guidelines within one year or the dock permit will be
held. Motion carried 4-1 with Ahrens voting nay.
MICHAEL AND DIANE EDWARDS, 2805 HALSTEAD LAN-E
Fackler reviewed the request to install a stairway from the existing parking area to gain
better access to their dock. He stated the plans are vague and need to be revised. Staff
recommends approval of the request subject to conditions.
3
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
Diane Edwards stated they could either construct the stairway as public or private. She
stated they didn't have a preference. Fackler stated he would prefer a public access.
Edwards noted it is in a remote area.
Polston was concerned about precedent setting. He was concerned about it interfering
with the easement for the lift station. Fackler believed it was not located in the stairway
area, but he would verify it with Public Works.
MOTION made by Poiston, seconded by Goldberg to grant the permit
contingent upon the city staff determining whether or not this can be done
on the public easement. Motion carried unanimously.
CHRISTOPHER LOEW, 2181 FAIRVIEW LANE:
Fackler reviewed the Loew request to maintain an existing boat structure and correct
electrical work. He noted this is not a simple request.
Mr. Loew stated the structure was built in 1961. He stated the structure appears sound,
and the only issue is the electrical work.
Ahrens stated it is not extending the life of the structure but allowing the applicant the
use of the track.
Goldberg asked if there are any hindrances or access issues. Fackler stated there is an
access limitation, but it should work.
Commissioners discussed how the request conforms to the existing and proposed
ordinances. They also discussed whether or not rebuilding the tracks will or will not
extend the life of the existing structure.
Ahrens noted the applicant would become legally responsible for the structure. Loew
stated he would be concerned about the cost of having to remove the cement area.
Fackler stated there is a moratorium on these structures until the public lands ordinance
has been studied. It was noted this could be moved on subject to conditions and subject
to approval of the ordinance by the City Council.
Andrea Ahrens stated the moratorium was not supposed to be something that would
hurt an applicant.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to reconunend approval
contingent upon City Council approval of the encroachment ordinance.
4
e
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
BARB ,]. CASEY, 4704 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE:
Fackler reviewed the public lands permit request to remove flees and plant grass at the
dock site. Several residents in the area have petitioned the removal. The applicant is
not in favor of relocating the dock for safety concerns.
Goldberg stated it is relatively tight quarters to get to the existing dock site and had
concerns about removing the trees.
Hopkins believed some of the trees could be cleared out for better access to the dock.
He noted there are several trees in a five foot area. He believed the largest tree should
remain.
Funk believed there is a precedent for approving this kind of application.
Goldberg discussed his concerns about the impact on the abutting property.
Polston stated he would be opposed to having the trees removed.
Ahrens stated granting a permit to a non-abutter is something that has been permitted
before. He believed it is unfair to do this.
Bob Schmidt stated this will impact more than just the Casey dock, and this should be
taken into consideration.
Greg Knutson, stated he hoped the abutting property owner would not be allowed to
vote on this issue. Polston stated the City Attorney has indicated Ahrens can vote on the
tree application. Knutson indicated the rock wall is a safety hazard. He stated the only
way Casey can get safely to her dock is to have the scrub trees removed.
Funk understood Ahrens' concerns and the concerns raised by the DNR. Goldberg
noted the trees targeted for removal are some of the largest ones in that area.
Polston stated he is opposed to the removal of the trees.
Andrea Ahrens stated one of the points being missed is the Casey's dock location.
Polston stated we are not discussing docks. Ahrens then stated the trees do not need to
be removed, because there is another option.
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
Goldberg stated he is reluctant to make any changes to the situation as it currently exists.
Knutson stated it makes sense to clear out the scrub trees as recommended by the DNR.
Ahrens stated he would be willing to pay for ground cover on the existing path area.
Andrea Ahrens stated there is no way to get through the trees if the scrubs are removed
without removing the cottonwood.
Gene Smith was concerned about what will happen when more trees are planted here.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Goldberg to recommend denial of
the application for tree removal. Motion carried 3-2 with Hopkins and Funk
voting may.
PERSONAL WATERCRAFT AT AVALON PARK
Fackler stated this could be a major issue with regard to adding sites onto a multiple
dock. He stated it is an issue that cannot be decided quickly.
Orv Burma, 3011 Island View discussed his request to dock a personal watercraft at
Avalon Park. He explained how space could be allocated for four such vehicles on the
existing multiple dock. He didn't believe the request would impact setbacks, impede
traffic flow, or cause a safety problem.
Commissioners discussed the request and the uniqueness of this particular multiple dock
Goldberg suggested staff be directed to study the implications and provide additional
information at the next meeting.
This item will be discussed at the July meeting.
DCAC WORK RULES
No action.
6
MINUTES - DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION- JUNE 18, 1998
AGENDA CALENDAR FOR 1998
No action.
1998 DCAC CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST
No action.
DISCUSSION OF AN EXISTING DOCK SITE - 4586 DENBIGH
No action.
NEW LOCATIONS FOR MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING
No action.
REPORTS
No action.
ADJOURN
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Funk to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Scripture from
New international Version
C
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (612) 281-1200 ° (800) 925-1122
Fax: (612) 281-1299 ° TDD (612) 281-1290
July 6, 1998
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayors, Managers, Administrators, Clerks - NLC Direct Member Cities
James F. Miller, Executive Director
National League of Cities (NLC) Congress of Cities, December 1-5, 1998 -
Kansas City, Missouri
Registration - Complete Immediately
A brochure outlining the conference program and registration information for the 1998 NLC
Congress of Cities is enclosed. It is extremely important that hotel reservations be made as soon
as possible. The earlier your city returns registration forms and requests for hotel
accommodations, the more likely you will receive your first choice. Please note that LMC has
reserved 50 rooms at the Doubletree Hotel for Minnesota delegates. To stay there, write
"Minnesota Bloc" on your hotel selection form and designate it as your first choice. The
reservation deadline for the "Minnesota Bloc" is August 7. Of course, you may select any
hotel if you do not wish to stay with the Minnesota delegation.
A final word about hotels; those near the Country Club Plaza, while less convenient to the
Convention Center, may nevertheless be attractive. This is a top tourist attraction with 180 retail
establishments. It is especially popular at that time of year because of holiday lights.
Conference Program Highlights
As in previous years, there are several pre-conference training seminars listed in the brochure.
These do provide worthwhile opportunities for city officials to get additional training and
leadership skills. Most do involve separate registration and costs. Also, please note that we will
have a breakfast hosted by LMC on Thursday, December 3, 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. More information
about the site, program and cost will be forthcoming.
If the League can be of any assistance to you, please contact us.
BBC.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATI\~ ACTION EMPLOS~ER
Conference Registration and Housing Form
Atten&e Profile: Please check 0r fill in appropriate Jnfon~adon.
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
_ Newly elected to offke this year __ Years in office
e,OAppointed to office this year __ Conferences attended
First time confbrence attendee __ Size of city
___
Please type or pnnt
Name Sex F M
Title
City or Organization
Mailing Address
CiW State .Zip
Telephone {. Fax (___)
Family Member Attending
:MO non-refxmdable spouse~guest fee; Age 18 or under -- no youth fee)
Spouse Full Name Sex F M
Childfren~ Ages) ~
Youth DeIegate' (18 and under, no fee )
Check applicable Conference Regis~'d~on Fee and enter to~ fees in the d~t h~d column:
Early Registration Fees (PostmarkedbySeptember2S, 1998)
5300 First-Time A~endee
s375 Direct Member
s375 Associate Member
s475 Indirect Member
s565 Non-Member Other
s40 Spouse (non-refundable) s
Advance Registration Fees (Postmarked by October28,1998)
s300 First Time Attendee S
s410 Direct Member S
S410 Associate Member $
s520 Indirect Memher S
e :625 Non-Member'Other s
540 Spouse (non-refundable) s'
adership Training Institute Seminars (Tuesday, December I)
SlS0 I. Dealing With Difficult People S
SlSO Il. The Elected Officials Guide to Media Relations S
s 95 III. Effective Mediation Skills s
S 95 IV. Asset-Based Community Development s
s 95 V. Organizing and Conducting Effective Tow~
Meetings s
s 95 ~q. Latitx~des and Attitudes s
s 95 VII. Ten Habits of Effective City Councils s
sgs VIlE Using Presentation Software to Enhance
Public Speaking S
Leadership Training Institute Seminars (Wednesday. December2)
SlS0 IX. Beyond Disaster Planning S
SlS0 X. Getting Your Message Out S
s150 XI. Leading the New Breed s
s 95 XIL Evolving Roles for Councils S
$ 95 XIII. Advocacy Skills $
S 95 XIV. Leading Diverse Communities S
s 95 XA~ The Power of Effective City Hall Teams s
s 95 XVI Building Your Municipal Web Site s
S95 XVll. MunicipalLeasing s
s 95 XVIII. Technology Basics for Local Leaders s
Special Events
525 GLBLO Activi~ Fee S
s3S HELO Annual Dues (elected/direct member city) S
s55 HELO Annual Dues/sL~ppo~ng member) S
s25 HELO Reception (members and non-members) S
s175 NBC LEO Annual Dues/Acti~Aties Fee ;includes work,hops
SS() NBC-LEO Luncheon Only (nonmembers) S
sso W]MG Nem, orking Branch S
TOTAL REGISTRATION FEES s
q~ecks are to be made payable to:
TIONAL LEAGUE OF CfflES
registrations or cancellations
will be accepted by telephone
All requests must be in writing
'REG
s 18
s I0
s 11
s 12
s 13
50
19
14
15
16
17
50
9
I0
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TOR OFFICE USE ONLY
For FASIER REGISIRATION,
use your c~iit ~
~... (VL~a~MasterCard) ~
And FAX your form t6 --
(?os) sm-?s6s.
(Please BI~e or pnnt)
__ Please make my hotd reservations as indicated below.
__ I do not require hotd accommoda~ons at anv of the hotels listed bebw
~ Please contact me regarding suite intbrmati~Jn.
~ I prefer a smo~ng room (assigned on a space available basis).
~nval Date / ~ Time
Depamwe Date __/~I Time
S
pecial Housing Request
I ~11 he sharing my room x~th:
C(~Occupaot Name
Address
Cit~ State__ Zip
Telephone (__)
CREDIT CARD AUTHORIZATION
~ Charge my registration fees (Mastercard or VISA)
~ Charge my hotel room depos t (Al ~ajor credit ~ards)
Credit Card Company
Credit Card Number
Pant Name on Credit Card
Expiration Date
I fail to show up ti),' my assigned lulttsBlg Oll the confim~ed date unless I have canceled my reservat ~ ~th the
HOTEL PREFERENCE
Rates listed below are for single or double occupancy. Indicate vour first-choice
hotel ~4th the number 1, and circle the room type you desire. Number the other
hotels fi'om 2 to 15 in order of your preference. Your hotel and room t31~e ~dlI be
assigned based on your postmark and hotel room availability, at the time your
request is processed
For suite information contact the NLC Conference Registration Center.
All unguaranteed reservatious will be automatically canceled if not guaran-
teed 14 clays prior to arrival.
All rooms require one night deposit plus tax per room.
Choice Hotel Name Occupancy IPlease circle)
Single Double
__(1) Adams Mark Hotel
__(2) Best Western Se~qlle Plaza
__(3) Doubletree Hotel
__(6)
__(7)
__!9)
Holktay Mn- Citi Center
Holiday hm Express-Westport
Holiday Inn Sports Comp ex
Hyatt Regency Crow ~ Center
Kansas Cig, Crowne Plaza
Kansas CiD, Maniott
__(10) Ouarterage Hotel
__(11) Radisson Suites Hotel
__(12) Ritz Carlton-Kansas City
Sheraton Suites Count~3, Club Plaza
__(14) Westin Crown Center
__(15) Wyndham Garden Hotel
599
S79
S105
S89
$77
S79
$109
5104
SlI0
S99
S95
$175
SI39
S109
$109
S99
S79
S105
S89
S79
SI09
S104
Sll0
S99
S95
S175
S139
S109
S109
AIr major credit cards dYe accepted
at tile conterence hotels
hotel appt oval
Please return this form w~th your registration
payment to:
NLC Conference Registration Center
P. O. Box 85080
Lockbox 4053
Richmond, VA 23285
For more information call
(703) 318-0300
~o
June 25, 1998
Memo To:
City Manager of Mound
Mayor of Mound
Mound City Council
From:
Jan DenBeste
RE: Triax Cable Company
RECEIVED2. 6 1998
I am enclosing a packet of information for each of you
regarding the efforts that I had to go through to
"hopefully" resolve the problem I encountered with Triax.
Included in this packet is a letter I am sending to Paul
Pecora today, a time line of the events that transpired in
'1989 and currently, a map of the property in question, and
all other correspondence regarding this matter. In addition
I have today sent a letter to the Attorney General with all
of the same information enclosed and asking pertinent
questions about the alternatives that I have should this
ever happen again.
As I stated in my letter to Paul, I just want closure on
this issue.
My reason for writing each of you is that I want to make
sure that as our city representatives you take some action
to determine when and what fines will be imposed on Triax if
they do not comply with the terms of the Franchise Agreement
which you approved at the June 23rd City Council Meeting and
guidelines a person must follow to file a Breach of Contract
claim with the City. The latter I feel is mandatory and
should be put in place immediately so that when someone
contacts you they know there can be consequences to Triax
for non-compliance. How fines and penalties will be
assessed seems to me like it could be done on an individual
basis.- Fortunately for me, I work for a prominent family in
Minneapolis and had access to attorneys who were able to
give me some guidence as to what steps to take and did this
for me at no charge. Clearly I had a legal case against
this company for trespassing if nothing else, but unless a
person has the money to go up against them it is just not
possible nor do I think sueing for monetary gain is the
first alternative. However, I do not think it should be
taking almost four months to get this matter resolved and
Triax not paying any consequences.
I do feel that fines imposed against these companies are
going to be necessary if you are going to keep them in
compliance, and I don't think this position on your part
should be taken lightly.
I would appreciate one of you sending me a copy of the
guidelines for filing a complaint for a Breach of Contract
when they are available.
I have spent a lot of time personally in trying to get this
'matter resolved, and appreciate your allowing me the time at
the May 26th and June 23rd council meetings to vent some of
my frustration.
Sincerely,
Janet DenBeste
5212 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
June 25, 1998
Mr. Paul Pecora
Regional Manager
Triax Cable Company
1504 Second Street, S.E.
Waseca, MN 56093
Dear Paul:
Perhaps this letter is a means of closure for me with all
that has transpired over the last four months, but I believe
there are some things that still need to be said.
First, this whole incident has been very stressful and
upsetting to me. It's bad enough that it happened at all,
but to have it happen both times your company has accessed
our property is unthinkable to me. Providing customers with
cable services is your business. Knowing the law regarding
where cables are to be placed and obtaining the appropriate
permission is also your company's responsibility. Whether
or not Triax uses subcontractors for these services, the
ultimate responsibility lies with your company, period. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to train personnel how to
ask subscribers the appropriate questions regarding property
ownership BEFORE you go placing cables where they don't
belong and where you don't have permission. When I was
reviewing the franchise agreement and regulations at the
council meeting, it stated clearly that there was to be
written or verbal permission. We never received a call. We
never received a notice. Not in 1989 nor 1998. I have
always received notices from the other utility companies
whenever they are planning to do any work around our
property. This is the business you are in. If our
government has allowed you the right to use existing utility
easements that we as property owners have no say over, I
~think it would behoove your company to respect OUR RIGHTS as
the land owner and take your responsibilities seriously.
Secondly, I could not believe the answer you gave at the
June 23rd council meeting when I made the statement I felt I
was entitled to know what happened. I think three calls to
your customer service department, no response to a certified
letter which was received at your office on March 21, asking
the contractor who came to bury the cable to have your
office call, and finally finding an attorney who could help
me deserves a little more than, "the storms have delayed
us" Give me a break, Paul. I think you know what the
question was that I was asking. Perhaps your attorney
suggested you tread lightly for legal reasons. I don't
know. I can tell you that ANY honesty would have helped.
Up until the time I spoke to your technician (June 23),
there had been no admission from you or your company that
there was any wrong doing. Certainly not an apology. While
it might seem that sueing people and companies is the trend,
I still hold on to the belief that if you treat people
~fairly and honestly a lot of these lawsuits could be
prevented. I can't say that your response to my question
did much to boost my opinion of the integrity of your
company.
I can assure you, however, that if your company EVER places
a cable illegally on our property again, I will insist the
City Council impose the maximum penalty allowable under the
franchise agreement and seek whatever other legal recourse
is available to me.
Third, an apology was in order--not you personally, but as a
representative of Triax. I was appalled when Jane Bremmer,
Triax's attorney, got up at the May 26th council meeting and
said to me, "If you are expecting an apology from Mr.
Pecora, it isn't going to happen". This was truly an
antagonistic and insensitive statement to someone who had
been trying to get this matter resolved for almost three
months. If her statement reflects the attitude of Triax,
then, if I were you, I would do some real soul searching as
to whether or not that is a company I would want to work for
or be associated with.
Finally, I appreciate your providing me with your phone
number when I was leaving the council meeting, but frankly,
it's too little, too late. I am thoroughly exhausted from
this whole ordeal and just want this matter resolved. I
told Dave Sorensen what my expectations were and so that you
know, they are:
1. That the cable be buried with the appropriate
equipment--not another hand dug trench.
2. That the cable trench be filled with dirt and
seeded.
3. That the existing cable which is laying in
and along the woods be removed.
4. That he let me know when the work is to be
performed so that I can be home.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the president of Triax
as well as to the Mound City Council members as I want to
make sure they are aware that I wrote a followup letter and
what my intentions are if this ever happens again. I'm,
also providing them with the letters that have been written
and a time line of what we had to go through to get these
matters resolved, both in 1989 and currently. In addition,
I am sending copies of all of this to the Attorney General's
office so that should this ever happen again I can assure
you I will be prepared and I will know what my rights are
and what actions can be taken immediately.
I hope you and all of those copied below can appreciate my
frustration in this matter. I apologize that this has
become a rather lengthy correspondence, but feel these
things needed to be said.
Sincerely,
Janet DenBeste
5212 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
CC:
Attorney General
Noel Bambrough, President
Triax Cable Company
Mound City Council
Adrian Herbst
TIME LINE OF EVENTS WIT~ TRIAX CABLE COMPANY
1989
July 28th - Mowing the lawn I discover a cable lying above
ground laying diagonally across our property. When I spoke
to the tenants renting the house at 5226 Lynwood Blvd they
informed me they had ordered cable service. They also
advised me at that time that they told the cable technician
who left the cable that they did not own the lot where the
cable was being placed and specifically asked him if he
didn't have to ask our permission to leave the cable there.
The technician left the cable anyway and we were not
contacted.
,August 2 - I called Triax and the service representative
told me she would call me the next day.
August 3 - No return call from Triax so I called again.
Again I was told that the "tec" person would get back to me
the next day.
August 4 - Still hadn't heard from the tec person or
customer service by 2:45 in the afternoon so I called again.
She was to have turned the matter over to her "MP" and they
would call back shortly. No call.
Arrived home to find the cable buried right through the
middle of the property and I wrote a letter that evening to
the Mound City Manager.
NOTE: At this time we only owned the northern third of the
property being crossed. When the second incident happened
we were in the process of closing on the purchase of the
remaining two thirds of the property. The deal closed March
10th.
August 9 - I received a call from Triax telling me what they
were "going to do for me" That same evening I arrived home
to find a response to my letter to the City Manager.
August 12 - The cable was buried on the utility easement.
No apologies from Triax, but I assumed the matter was over.
1998
March 9 - Arrive home from work to find a cable laying
across our property. Again the cable is providing service
to the property at 5226 Lynwood Blvd.
March 10 I call Triax customer service early in the
morning and advise them their cable is illegally placed on
our property. I'm told someone would get back to me. I
called again that day at 4:55 and was told their technician
would be out on March 12 to look the situation over and
advise us what they would do. I left my home phone #.
'March 12-16 - I was out of town. There was no phone call
from Triax either at home or the office and the cable was
right where they had left it.
March 18 - Called the Triax office again. They had on their
records that the technician had been out on the 12th and the
job was completed. Nothing had been done. Another tech was
to come out, but the earliest he could do so would be March
24th.
March 18 - I send a certified letter to the Regional Manager
at Triax. I receive no personal response to the letter.
March 20 - Arrive home to find flags now marking where the
cable is placed and a notice on my back door from Triax
(copy attached).
NOTE: Somewhere during the period from March 10th thru
March 20th I contacted the Mound police. (This was on
advice of an attorney who thought they might be able to get
some resolution to the matter.) Officer Ewald came to the
house, but could not do anything as this was a civil matter
.and not a criminal situation.
March 23-27 - Arrive home to find a subcontractor (I believe
she said she was with New Age) burying the cable all along
the western edge of our property. This was a hand dug
trench 8-10 inches wide. I told them to pull the cable up
and that no representative from Triax was to come on our
property again until they had contacted me. I gave her both
my home and work #'s and she drew a diagram of the property
so they would know where the utility easement was. I
allowed her to leave the cable above ground lying in and
along the woods and wetland area on the west edge of the
property so the cable service would not be disrupted to the
subscriber.
May 20 - I contact an attorney at Fredrikson & Byron who was
kind enough to send a letter to Jane Bremmer, the attorney
representing Triax. A copy of his letter to her and her
response is attached.
May 26 - Mound City Council meeting. I was allowed the
opportunity to express my frustration over this whole ordeal
as the council was reviewing the new Franchise Agreement
~they are proposing with Triax. At that meeting I was
advised by Jane Bremmer they would "get to the bottom of
this matter" (Please note that from March 18th thru May
26th I had had no contact with any representative of Triax.)
June 18 - There was a message on my answering machine at
home from Dave Sorensen of Triax asking me to call so we
could get this matter resolved.
June 23 - Between 8-9 A.M. I returned Mr. Sorensen's call.
That evening I attended the Public Hearing at the council
meeting and again expressed my concerns.
June 25 - As of this date, the cable is still not buried.
Printographi 122397
TIME: ,/('~: ~'~-----~ DATE: "~-.-~:~,~
I have completed the outside work on
your cable service. However, it was neces-
sary to place a cable drop and/or line
across your property. Triax Cablevision
will bury the cable as soon as weather,
ground conditions, and scheduling permit.
Triax also agrees to hold the property
owner harmless for any damage to the
cable line and Triax will bury the cable at
its own expense. Please inform anyone
visiting your property of this condition.
"Please use caution in these areas."
Thank You,
1-800-332-0245
(8:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M.)
II
TRIAX
CABLEVISION
PO BOX 110
1504 S.E. 2nd Street
Waseca, MN 56093
SENDER:
· Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additiona~ services.
· Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
· Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
return this card to you.
· Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
does not permit.
· Write -Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number
· The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra ~
fee):
1. [] Addressee's Address
2. [] Restricted Delivery .'~
Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to:
5. Sigr~a~ure (AddFe~see)
6 ~-~ig~a't'~re (Agent)
4a. Article Number
4b. Service Type
[] Registered [] Insured
~ Certified [] COD .~=
[] Express Mail [] Return Receipt for
Merchandise
7. Date of Delivery
$. Addressee's Address (Only f requested ~.
and fee is paid) ~',
I--.
o~ PS Form 3811, December 1991 ~u.s. 6PO:~992--=2~4~ DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPI ~
March 18, 1998
Mr. Paul Pecora
Regional Manager
Triax Cablevision
1504 Second St. S.E.
Waseca, MN 56093
CERTIFIED LETTER
Dear Mr. Pecora:
We are sending this letter to you as a last attempt to remedy what appears to be
an on going problem with your company.
On Monday, March 9th, we came home to find your cable laid across the vacant lot
we ow~ at 5212 Lynwood Blvd in Mound. The cable is providing service to the
property at 5226 Lynwood Blvd.
Tuesday, March 10 between 8 and 9 a.m. I called your office in Waseca and told
them that your company has illegally trespassed on our property and we want the
cable removed. I was told someone would get back to me. I left my work # with
your office.
At 4:55 p.m. the same day, I had not heard from your people and I again called
the Waseca office. This time I was told your technician would be out on
Thursday, March 12 and would look the situation over and let us know what they
would do. I left my home phone # this time.
I was out of town from March 12th thru the 16th and when I came home, the cable
had still not been removed nor had anyone called either at home or my office.
Today, March 18th I called your office again around 3:30 p.m. I was told the
technician had come out on Thursday (March 12) and the job had been completed.
This was not satisfactory to us as NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. I was again told a
technician would be out, but the earliest he could do so was March 24th.
I'm enclosing a copy of a letter that I wrote to the Mound City Manager in
August of 1989 along with his response to my letter. This is not the first time
we have had the same type of cooperation from you people and quite frankly we're
fed up. Mr Shuk!e's August letter said, "Apparently there has been some
miscommunication between Triax and yourself." I don't believe this to be the
case. I have found that your company has not shown any respect to me as a
property owner, nor have you made any attempt to communicate with us or resolve
this situation. I should not have to continually go to these lengths to get
some action from your company.
Based on Section 17.402 of the franchise agreement that was in effect in 1989 I
think it is clear that we are within our rights. "City grants to Grantee
permission to use streets for erecting, constructing, operating and maintaining
the system. Other rights necessary for the system on other public or private
property must be obtained by Grantee, but city shall have no obligation to give
or grant or assist in obtaining the same."
Therefore this letter is being written to you demanding that the cable which you
have illegally placed on our property be removed. And further, until you can
provide us with written documentation that demonstrates you have the authority
to enter our property and place your cable wherever you see fit, we are denying
your company any access rights to our property.
Sincerely,
este Cable
5212 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
August 8, 1989
Ms. Janet DenBeste
Bv~ev~d
5212 Lynwood .........
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ms. Den~este:
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 4, 1989. I am
responding on behalf of Mayor Smith with regard to your inquiry.
On page 2 of your August 4, 1989 letter, you asked several
questions: -
i. What access rights does Triax have to install Cable?
Answer: The City of Mound has a franchise agreement with Triax.
The City, under the franchise agreement, has granted the
authority to ?riax. Section 17.402 of the Franchise
Agreement states:
A. City grants to Grantee permission to use Streets for
erecting, constructing, operating and maintaining the
System. Other rights necessary for the System on other
public or private property must be obtained by Grantee,
but City shall have no obligation to give or grant or
assist in obtaining the same.
B. Grantee shall construct and maintain the System so as
not to interfere with other uses of Streets. Grantee
shall make use of existing poles and other facilities
available to grantee.
C. Notwithstanding the above grant to use Streets, no
Street shall be used by Grantee if City in its sole
opinion determines that such use is inconsistent with
the terms, conditions or provisions by which such Street
was created or dedicated, or with the present use of the
Street.
2. Can Triax use utility easements which are in the favor
of the City of Mound?
Answer: I am not sure I understand'you~ question. I believe
An ~qual ~Doortdl~dy Employer that does not discriminate on {he basis Of race. color, national origin, or handlcaoped status
in the admission or access to. or weatmem or employment 'n, 'ts pr°grams and aotlvlt'es
781
Answer:
4.
Answer:
what you are asking is answered under Section 17.402.
If not, do they have the right to put their cable
anywhere they want?
Please refer to the above.
Do I as a property owner, not have any say as to what
cables are placed on my property, let alone to be
notified that this is what is going to happen before the
cable is buried?
I believe you do have the right to know what they are
planning. Apparently there has been some
miscommunioation between Triax and yourself.
! am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Ric Hanson, Regional
~@nager of Triax Cablevision. Hopefully, Mr. Hanson will contact
you to discuss this matter further. If not, please contact me
and I will contact him directly.
Sincerely,
Ed~ar ' . Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
cc: Ric Hanson, Triax Cablevision
ES:Is
August 4~ 19,~9
Mr. Ed S-~huike, City Manager
City of Mour, d
534.1 Maywo,z,d Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. S~hulke:
I am writ ir~g to you r,_~t or~ly as a Tax payer, but as a cc~r~ce'r~ned
citizer, of Mo_~nd.
On ~ ,~' 2Bth I went to mn~ ,~ur lot which is across the private rc, ad
frown our house ar, d part of our homeE, tead pr',z~F~e?t],"- There was a cable
l~yir~g acre, ss -Jut property. I later that day fc, ur~d c, ut that the
~er, aw~ts who have re'nted the property at 522E~ ~ vr~w,~c,d had c, rdered cable
fo'r their house fr,=m lriax CabZevi~ior~.
At t~:,~_ time Triax laid the cab].~_ ~-~,:?..~ tene.?;ts mer:t~e'ned_ to: them. . that
'bhe',y did 'r,c,'b ,:,wr~ 'the proper-by ano 'they thc,..,~ .,~ ~rna~,s 'they sh,z, uld
,:,btair, perrnissicr, bef,:,re !eavz~g the cable there. ~ppcr~,~-ly that
didrJt rnak~ much cliff.ret, ce ~,-, the cable pec, pl~ ~.-- 'b
=a=,~.= %:nere a~qyway.
Or, August 2r;d the cable was still laying in the yard, a'nd i ,called
~',~ ut wh t~ i a].=o tc,].~ 'tb~m that
T~-.iax ~ ...... c c: a= ,,mir ir~tew~tio:qs were
.... ' to, .cro'~ private prc,?erty=..~ 'bNa, t
did r:,:,t b~ ~=~¢= th~',,' :~'..'~ a
that if the',/ cc, L~id r~c,'b use the utility e.a~emer,'t tha-b ?.~'¢,s alc, r:g
..... ~ = soc. ke to that day {J,,dy) said th.a'h
would :=av= a n ..... ~ ¢,-,~ the "'bec pe~sor: ar:d call r:~e at ~-',r~ t
r:=xo day. i rmceived r~,D call at work or~ ~h~rsd.~,/~ s,-, Thursoa/ ¢,i2h-% i
called itl.a::< a2air,. This time i spoke tc, Suzanr, e who said she
that ~ir,:e that I didr/t need a "tee persc, r~" tc, cc, me ,-,ut ar:d i,:,c~k
the m;h!e. -tha'b i'F they cc, u!d r.'-M; use -the exis't4r, n ~s¢rn~'~rt I was
__, m~ ~, :~-=$~ b,-, be rerml, ved fP,Dm ,~,(P p'r-,D~r~y.. Judy said
she would foi lc~w up c,~ it 5;_. sc:or, == she got ir: the r:ext rnc, rr, ir, s amd
~ou!d call me a'b work. That was today, gt 8:-45 p. Fn. i had still -r. ot
received a call so i cai!el he~-'. She ir~foPmed me that she still
didr,~t have all the details. A't this pcir, t ! was very upset and I
asked t:na~ s,z, rnez,~;e cai i me back ~'-',~ - ~' '
· . ~,_~ay. k;ne said she ~ould Ct.tpr~
call
rna'o';er ,z, ver '~,-, ~,e.* "~P" (~,f~ate,vep %hat rn,~ar, s) arid that they would
back =~'-,'"~ t"/ "- cai 1
I arrived hc, rqe at ~ P.M.X ,:,r, ly b,:, 'find '~ .... the ca.b~e c,:,r,lpar, y has
tot!ed %he cable righ4: through the middle c,¢ the ].c,%. To say I am
upset is pu't-ti'~g i'b raildl"y. First, i'f we a~ lar, d ,:,wr~ers have to
the caD].a c:,;'nDa'¢:y ac'c'e'55 %o .z,u~' prc, per-ty~ I %:-.ir~P. we shD,_,Id have
tsee'r~ o'r'a,/':t~d %:: %hem fr,Z, fq --';*'h~v' ~1'" Ceb!e ,-,?
...... - ....... bh.a'b ~hev have cr',l, ssed (the ,-,'k .... marcel
think I deserved to have n~y phone calls retur.ned, but no one at Triax
seemed to feel I had any right to question what they were dc, ing.
I would like to know fro~ you what access rights Triax has to install
cable? Can they use utility easemer~ts which are in the favor of the
City of Mou-r~d? IF not, do they have the right to put their cable
anywhere they war, t? Do I as a property owr, er r~ot have any say as to
what or where cables n~ay be placed on my property, let alone to be
r~otified that this is what is going to happen before the cable is
buried? If the answer to the last question is "r,c.", then I think
there is so~nethir~g sorely missing in our city's laws.
I will await your respo~.se to this
coarses of action.
letter befo?e i pursue other
05'21,'95 THU
Il
12:04 FAX 612 347 7077
FREDRIKS.N & BYRON
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
A~orneys and Advisors
1100 lnteraatlo.nl
900 Second Avenue
.Minneapolis, MN 554t_-3397
(612)
F~ (612) 347-7077
w~v. fredl~w, com
DATE: May '21, 1998
TO:
COMPA. NY:
FROM:
DIRECT DI.4J.., NUMBER:
Jan DenBeste
Bar/ow Associates
Adrian Herbst
34%7053
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX NUMBER 333-6615
Verified by: DNDahl
TOT.~d., NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE):
If you do not receive all pages or arc exper/encing other problems
in transmission, please call (612) 34%7135, Thank you.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The docmnent(s) accompanying this fax contain confidential information which {s lc all
pr llcged. The reformation is intended only for the usc of the intended fac .... ~r.~,' ............... g Y
hcreb., notic-~ *~ ........ ~:--~- - ., .... . . ,~,~,,. ,~yuu .~ .ut mc :nt~Boeo recipient, you are
y u~u um~ un7 u,~¢~osu~, copying, a~stnouuon or me t~mg ofmy action in re anco on thc contents of thc telecopied
[ information exert its (hrect dclivery to ~e intended recipe,hr n~c above t~ str ctly prohibited. If you have received this hx in
emor, Dlemse notify us immediately by telephone to ~range for return of ~e ohginal documcms to us.
I I I
DNDahl 1189 99999.20
05:21'95., THU 12:~i~4 FAX 612 347 ?O?T FREDRIKSON & BYRON ~]oo2
FREDKIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
Attorneys and Advisors
May 21, 1998
Minnrapoli~
London
4~;"i~te~' Q/fi.w:
:Mexico City
! I00 Intemat-ional Cca~
900 Second A,,cnue $0u~h
Minncapo~s, MN 55402-239
(612) 347-7000
FKX (612) 347-7077
w~-w, t"redlaw, corn
D~r=ct Oial No.
(612) 367-7053
aherbst~..,fi'edl~w.com
Yl,4~ FACSIMILE 33 -_~3_~5.6.~
Jan DenBeste
Bm'Iow Associates
1121 Hermepin Avenue
MiImeapolis, MN 55403
Dear Jan:
Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I sent to Jane Bremer, attorney for Triax Cable
Company. The letter shows her inu:nediate response to me.
I will be in contact with you as soon as I hear back fi.om her.
A EH./dnd :214002s
Enclosure
'v'ery truly yours,
Adr/an E. Herbst
cc: Tom WiHmlmy (w/enclostu~)
fl$/21/gP, THU 12:1'~5
1, ,Bi Ill,
FAX 612 347 7077 FREDRIKSC)N
,m
& BYRON
FREDRIIiSON & BYRON, P.A.
builting of $ ~1~ ~ ~ s~e ~ Mo~
comply ~ot ~ l~a~ ~ but ~
~d t~o~ h~ ~u~t. Sho h~ not ~
h~ I would ~n~ yo~ ~ I w~ f~ ~ you ~nd ~ou ~y ~ ~Ie ~ ~ ~ ~t on
t~ ~r ~d p~ps help to g~ ~e matt~ ~lv~,
Wou~d you be kind c~o~gh to take a look at the I~.~ched ~d get b~,k to mo a~ your
em'he, st c,.cmv~ m-me?
Thank you t~ ~dvs.~ for you~
Attar.~t
05/20/98 WED 14:05 [TI/R,'( NO 7743]
Come and Celebrate
·
Take F ve Skatepark's
Grar d
Thursday, July 16, 1998
7:00 - 9:00 EM.
Prizes · Demos
Best Trick Contest
Free In-Line Skating and Skateboarding
With Signed Waiver!
Parent/guardian waiver required for minors;
Participants will be required to wear protective gear
and limited rental protective gear will be available.
For More Information Call
491-8261 or 491-8058
Harold J. Pond Sports Center · 2121 Commerce B!vd. · Mound MN, 55364
Minnehaha Creek
,I, ~, i ..... Ilk
_T_-,U F-O,
Watershed District
Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Email:
admin @ minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www. minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers
Pamela G. Blixt
James Calkins
Lance Fisher
Monica Gross
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple. Jr.
Malcolm Reid
Printed on recycled paper containing
at least 30% post consumer waste.
July 7, 1998
Mayor Bob Polston
Manager Edward Shukle, Jr.
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RECEIVED JUL 8 lg,g8
Re: Proposed Revision to Rule B / Stormwater Management
Dear' Mayor & Manager
We are including with this letter the Stormwater Task Force's recommended
revision of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's Rule B which addresses
stormwater management. A copy of the current Rule B is also included. We are
requesting that each of the cities in our District and various other interested parties
review the proposed rule (marked "DRAFT") and provide us any comments by
August 20, 1998.
To help you, we've included a third document entitled Summary of Stormwater
Task Force Recommendations to Amend MCWD Rule B which explains the
changes proposed by the Stormwater Task Force. We are also planing to hold up
to two public information meetings and a public hearing to elicit comments from
the public regarding the proposed changes to Rule B.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 471-6285. We appreciate your
assistance in reviewing the proposed rule and look forward to receiving your
comments.
Sincerely,
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Peter M. CangTalosi, P.E.
Acting District Administrator
Enclosures
P:\STORMWATXletterl .doc
DRAFT
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
RULE B
STORMVCATER MANAGEMENT & EROSION CONTROL
FOR-LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
I. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Require stormwater facilities to be included in land development projects where practicable and
effective.
(b) Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoffon a regional or subwatershed basis throughout the
District to:
1 ) promote effective water quality treatment, where feasible, prior to discharge to
surface waterbodies and wetlands;
2) limit developed peak rates of runoff into major surface water bodies to less than or
equal to existing peak rates; and
3) promote infiltration of both precipitation and runoff.
(c) Require preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for land development
activities, during the period of construction.
2. REGULATION. Except as provided herein, prior to commencing any land altering activities, a
developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway uses shall submit a
stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan to the District in conformity with the requirements
of this rule and secure a permit from the District approving the stormwater management plan and the
erosion control plan. Except as provided herein, a stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan
are required for new development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site. The managers will review
a stormwater management plan and the erosion control plan only after the applicant demonstrates that the
project has received preliminary approval from the municipality indicating compliance with existing
municipal plans. (Please refer to the "Summary of Regulatory Requirements" below.)
Draft - April 29, 1998
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
LANDUSE/PROJECT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
SINGLE FAMILY HOME NO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION
SUBDIVISIONS NO PERMIT BMP'S RUNOFF RATE RUNOFF
LOT SIZE z 1/2 ACRE CONTROL, QUALITY AND
RURAL RESIDENTIAL BMP'S RATE CONTROL.
(SINGLE FAMILY HOME) BMP'S
SUBDIVISIONS NO PERMIT BMP'S RUNOFF RUNOFF QUALITY AND RATE CONTROL,
LOT SIZE < 1/2 ACRE RATE BMP'S
HIGH DENSITY CONTROL,
RESIDENTIAL BMP'S
(MULTI UNIT)
ROADS,,STREETS AND SEE SECTION 2(e) SEE SECTION 2(e)
HIGHWAYS(1)
COMMERCIAL BMPs RUNOFF RATE CONTROL RUNOFF QUALITY AND RATE CONTROL,
INDUSTRIAL AND BMP'S BMP'S
INSTITUTIONAL ' -
SUBDIVISION/PROJECT AREA (acres)
NOTE: Administrative permits will be issued whenever BMP's only are required. All other permits and waivers
require a public hearing.
(a) Single-Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction ora
single family home or its residential appurtenances.
(b) Single-Family, Developed or Redeveloped Subdivisions. A permit is not required.~3~
~ for the construction of less than five (5) acres with a density of two (2) units or less per
acre. A permit is required for residential development or redevelopment of subdivisions with a
density of two (2) units or less per acre on sites of five (5) acres or more, as follows:
( 1 ) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of five (5) acres or more but less
than ten (10) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this
rule are required;
(2) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of ten (10) acres or more but
less than twenty (20) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3
and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required;
Draft - April 29, 1998
(3) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of twenb' (20) acres or more.
the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the ~,,ater quantity control
provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of'
this rule are required.
(c) Medium to High Density Residential Land Development. A permit is not required for
the development or redevelopment of residential subdivisions less than two (2) acres with a density
of'more than two (2) units per acre. A permit is required for development or redevelopment of
residential subdivisions two (2) acres or greater with a density of more than two (2) units per acre,
as follows:
(I) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of two (2) acres or more but less
than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this
rule are required;
(2) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of five (5) acres or more but less
than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the
water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required;
(3) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of eight (8) acres or more, the
best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control
provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of
this rule are required.
(d) Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development or Redevelopment. A permit is
required for commercial, industrial, or institutional development or redevelopment, as follows:
( 1 ) For all commercial, industrial, or institutional development or redevelopment, the
best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required;
(2) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of one-half(I/2) acre or more
but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3
and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required;
(3) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of eight (8) acres or more, the
best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control
provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of
this rule are required.
(e) Roads, Streets and Highways. A permit is not required for the maintenance or
improvement of a public or private road, street or highway, if the project does not result in a net
increase in impervious surface. A permit is required for a public or private road, street, or highway
project that results in a net increase in impervious surface area, as follows:
(1) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of less than one (1)
acre, the best management practices in section 3 of this rule will be required;
(2) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one ( l ) acre or
more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the best management practices
Draft - April 29, 1998
provisions set forth in section 3, and the water quantity control provisions set forth in
section 4 are required to treat the increase;
(3) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or~'
more and the total project area ~s five (5) acres or more, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4,
and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required to treat the
increase; .
(4) Sidewall~s and trails which do not exceed ten (10) feet in width do not require a
permit and are hot included in any calculation of net increase in impervious surface when
part of a road or street project.
(f) Performance Bond. A performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the
District is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the
disturbance of five (5) or more acres of land. The District will not require a performance bond or
other type of surety from cities, townships, municipal corporations, counties, the state or federal
government, or agencies of any of the aforementioned.
3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Permanent (Structural and Non-structural). Permanent BMPs consist of structural and non-
structural practices. Permanent BMPs must be incorporated in all projects requiring a permit under
this rule and must be consistent with specifications of the MPCA manual "Protecting Water Quality
in Urban Areas (revised July 1991) and its future revisions. Other permanent BMPs, not addressed
in the MPCA manual may be allowed on an experimental basis if their use will generate new and
useful data or information regarding effectiveness of the practice. The following table is a summary.
of the MPCA BMPs and their effectiveness for removal of metals, phosphorus, nitrates, and
suspended solids from stormwater, and for controlling rates and volumes of runoff.
BMP Type Eff~ctJvenes~ of Selected BMP$
Metale Phoaphorue Pho~phorue Nltrate~ Solids Rate Vo ume Contro
~ ~ co-"~'o~
Structural
Infiltration (no overflow) high high high high high high yes yes
OW Detention (24 hr) modecate ! Iow Iow tow moderate outlet yes Iow
specie
Oil/gnt separators ~te iow no no Iow yes no no
Skimmers no no no no no yes no. no
Grass stfiO/swale moderate iow Iow iow moderate iow Iow Iow
Diversions no no no no design sPeCific no papal partial
Non-~tructural
Wetlands yes yes* yes' yes' yes yea yes papal
organic litter management Iow yes yes yes yes yes no no
Street sweeping yes yes yes -- yes yes no no
Draft. April 29, 1998
fertihzer management -o mod.high mod-high
~0 no no no
catch basin cteaning Iow no no no Iow'" no no no
sub-grade Dre~aratlon
non-phosDr~crtJs fertilizers
Temporary
Teml>orary silt fence yes yes no riO. yes"* no no no
Straw bales yes yes no no yes"' no no no
Temporary sediment basra yes yes design specific " yes outlet design Iow
specific sPeafic
Rock entrance Dad no no no no yes no no no
· Natural wetlands can also contnbute nu~ents
"No data to evaluate effectiveness
°" Small volumes only
(b) Temporary BMPs must be incorporated in all projects requiring a permit under this rule, as
follows:
(1) An Erosion Control Plan must be prepared by a qualified individual showing
proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on-site during the period of
construction and showing how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated after
construction;
(2) The Erosion Control Plan shall be consistent with specifications of the MPCA
manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (revised July 1991) and its future
revisions;
(3) Permanent detention/retention ponds, used as temporary sedimentation basins must
be cleaned ouJ~after construction is complete;
(4) Erosion control measures, such as silt fences and hay/straw bales shall be removed
after all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized;
(5) Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodible soils may
be subject to the provisions of section 2, paragraph (f) of this rule.
4. WATER QUANTITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) The peak rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result of the proposed
development. Developed peak rates of runoff shall be controlled such that the existing peak rates
are not exceeded. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events of critical
duration with return frequencies of I, 10 and 100 years in the subwatershed in which the site is
located.
Draft - April 29, 1998
(b) Natural existing low areas will be used, where feasible, for detention of runoff to comply with
rate control criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be used
for design of detention areas and outlets.
(c) The proposed project shall not adversely affect water levels off the site during or after
construction.
(d) Runoff tributary to the project must be accommodated in the analyses and design of new
stormwater management facilities.
(e) The volume of runoffmay not increase due to the project when the receiving area of said runoff
is landlocked, and not capable of handling the increased volume of runoff. In addition, the applicant
shall either own or have proper rights over the landlocked property to handle water from the
development. Back-to-back 100-year runoff events will be used to analyze holding capacity and
freeboard for landlocked areas.
(f) All stormwater rate control facilities shall be located above the projected 100-year flood
elevation for the site and within drainage, utility and/or flowage easements to provide access and to
prevent future alteration or encroachment.
(g) Water quantity control methods and facilities used or constructed pursuant to this rule shall be
in conformance with approved Municipal Stormwater Management Plans.
(h) The outfall structures shall incorporate designs to minimize erosion and scouring.
(i) New buildings and structures shall have door and window openings a minimum of two feet
above the 100 year high water elevation.
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Wet detention pond shall be designed for at least 50% phosphorus removal efficiency. The
applicant shall use the PondNet (or approved equivalent) model to determine removal efficiency of
the pond, using a 2.5" rainfall. Total tributary drainage area shall be used to calculate permanent
pool volume. Pond outlets shall remove floatables from runoff before discharge for a I year event.
All ponds must provide a ten (10) foot safety bench at a slope no steeper than 10H: IV and two (2)
feet of freeboard above the 100 year pond level.
(b) The outfall structures shall incorporate designs to minimize erosion and scouring.
(c) New buildings and structures shall have door and window openings a minimum of two feet
above the 100 year high water elevation.
REQUIRED EXHIBITS (SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE).
(a) If the water quantity or water quality provisions set forth in sections 4 and 5 of this rule apply to
a proposed development, plans certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and reflecting the following items shall accompany the permit application (one set of
plans must be full size; one set must be reduced to a maximum size of 1 I" x 17"):
Draft. April 29, 1998
,I ,JmL ~i, ,11, a ,
(I) Property, lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(2) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site and proposed and
existing subwatersheds on-site.
(3) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation.
(4) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, marshes, shoreland, and/or floodplain areas.
(5) Existing and proposed normal, and 100 year water elevations on-site.
(6) Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two foot intervals, related to NGVD,
1929 datum.
(7) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management facilities.
(8) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 1, I0 and 100 year critical events,
existing and proposed conditions.
(9) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the
proposed stormwater management facilities.
(10) Documentation indicating conformance with an existing municipal stormwater
management plan. When a municipal plan does not exist, documentation that the
municipality has reviewed the project.
( 11 ) Delineation of any flowage easements or other property interests dedicated to
stormwater management purposes, including, but not limited to, county or judicial ditches.
(I 2) Documentation that the project has received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) if required by the MPCA, once available.
(b) A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatment ponds, outlet structures
for such ponds, culverts, ouffall structures, and all other stormwater facilities. The maintenance
agreement shall specify the methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance and must
include at a minimum, the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement Form. A
Maintenance Agreement Form will be provided to the applicant for use by the applicant as a
maintenance agreement or as guidance if the applicant desires to draft a separate maintenance
agreement. The maintenance agreement must be recorded with the county within 10 days of the
issuance date of the permit.
(c) Geotechnical soil boring results if available.
EXCEPTIONS.
(a) If the District has approved a municipal stormwater management plan for a municipality, or for
a subwatershed within a municipality, the requirements of this rule may be deemed satisfied upon
showing of compliance by an individual developer with the municipal plan.
Draft - April 29, 1998
(b) The water quantity requirements of this rule will be waived upon a determination by the Board
of IVlanagers that a downstream facility(les) is in place or has been ordered and the facility(les) is
designed with adequate.capacity to limit the peak runoff rate from the subwatershed under tully
developed conditions. The water quantity requirements of this rule may also be waived upon a
determination by the Board of Managers that the time of concentration of the downstream receiving
water body is sufficiently long such that limiting~ the peak rate of runoff from the project has either
no practical effect or an adverse effect.
c) The water quality requirements 9fthis rule will be waived upon a determination by the Board of
Managers that a downstream facility(les) is in place or has been ordered and the facility(ies) is
designed to remove at least 50% of the total phosphorus from runoff entering the facility from the
subwatershed under fully developed conditions.
Draft-April29, 1998
Current Revision
RULE B
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & EROSION CONTROL PLANS
FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS
POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Require stormwater facilities to be constructed on individual sites where practicable and
effective.
(b) Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis and
promote natural infiltration of runoff throughout the District to:
1) provide effective water quality treatment and where possible provide such
treatment prior to discharge to surface waterbodies and wetlands; and
2) so that future peak rates ofrunoffinto major surface water bodies are less than or
equal to existing rates;
(c) Require preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for construction and
land development activities.
2. REGULATION. Except as provided in paragraph 5, prior to commencing construction, a
developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway uses shall
submit a stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan to the District in conformity
with the requirements of this rule and secure a permit from the District approving the stormwat~r
management plan and the erosion control plan. A stormwater management plan and an erosion
control plan are required for new development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site.
The managers will review a stormwater management plan and the erosion control plan only after
the applicant demonstrates that the project has received preliminary approval from the
municipality indicating compliance with existing municipal plans.
3. DECISION CRITERIA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
Stormwater management plans shall comply with the following criteria:
(a) The rate ofstormwater runoff froln the site shall not increase as a result of the proposed
development. Developed peak rates of runoff shall be controlled such that the existing peak
rates are not exceeded. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events of
critical duration with return frequencies of 1, 10 and 100 years in the subwatershed in which
the site is located.
MCWI) RI, ILE 7/18/96
(b) Natural existing low areas will be used for detention of runoff to comply with rate control
criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be used for
design of detention areas and outlets.
(c) Wet detention basins shall be required on-site and designed in accordance with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)~ design recommendations published in sections
4.1-4 through 4.1-5 ("Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas 1991"), and its future
revisions. These design criteria were developed based upon the results of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP)(USEPA, 1983). Total site area and any contributing off-site
drainage area shall be used to calculate permanent pool volume. Structural outlets shall
remove floatables fi.om ponded runoff for a I year event.
(d) If a development or redevelopment site is less than 40 acres and the Board of Managers
determines that the wet detention and/or stormwater storage requirements would be better
addressed on a regional basis, the applicant may instead contribute to a dedicated District
water quality/stormwater storage fund in lieu of providing the necessary facilities on-site. The
fund will be used in planning, constructing and maintaining regional detention
basins/wetlands.
Contribution to the above fund will only be allowed:
if an agreement for a regional facility is in place with the affected municipalities; or,
· if there is an existing or planned District regional stormwater facility within the same sub-
watershed; or,
· if the Board of Managers determines that another facility in a different subwatershed is of
a higher water quality priority and would better serve the public health and welfare and
the purpose of the watershed law.
The District will utilize funds collected within the same subwatershed, provided that the
Board of Managers may allocate contributions to the dedicated fund for a different
subwatershed if the Board determines that a regional stormwater facility within the same
subwatershed is not feasible, or that a facility in a different subwatershed is of a higher water
quality priority and would better serve the public health and welfare and the purpose of the
watershed law. The contribution will be equal to the cost of the land, basin construction and
basin maintenance. Land value will be based on the tax assessed value and basin costs of
$20,000 per acre foot of required pond volume.
At the discretion of the District, the stormwater wet detention and storage requirements for a
given site may be split between on-site facilities and contributions to the District water
quality/stormwater storage fund. Site specific Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
required on all sites, regardless of contribution to the water quality/stormwater storage fund.
Contributions to the District water quality/stormwater storage fund for additions to existing
sites are based on the area of the new addition and not the total site area. Contributions to
the above fund for new development or redevelopment are based on the total site area. Ifa
site drains to an existing or planned District regional stormwater facility, the applicant is
required to contribute to the water quality/stormwater storage fund as stated above.
MCWI) R~.~LE 7/18/96
(e) Waterborne sediments shall be prevented from entering existing drainageways to prevent
sediment transport off the site during and after construction.
(f') The proposed project shall not adversely affect water levels offthe site during or after
construction.
(g) Runoff draining onto the site must be accommodated in the analyses and design of new
stormwater management facilities.
(h) The volume of site runoffmay not increase due to the project when the receiving area of
said runoff is landlocked, and not capable of handling the increased volume of runoff. In
addition, the applicant shall either own or have proper rights over the landlocked property to
handle water from the development.
(i) All stormwater rate control facilities shall be located above the projected 100-year flood
elevation for the site and within drainage, utility and/or flowage easements to provide access
and to prevent future alteration or encroachment.
(j) Stormwater Management Plans under this Rule shall be in conformance with approved
Municipal Stormwater Management Plans.
(k) The outfall structures within wetlands and public waters and wetlands shall incorporate a
stilling-basin, surge-basin, energy dissipater, placement ofungrouted natural rock rip rap or
other devices to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting
from peak discharges.
(l) All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional structures shall be constructed
such that all door and'window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high
water elevation of nearby surface waterbodies, wetlands and stormwater basins.
4. DECISION CRITERIA FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS. Erosion Control Plans shall
comply with the following criteria:
(a) An Erosion Control Plan prepared by a qualified individual, shall show proposed
methods of retaining waterborne sediments on-site during the period of construction and shall
show how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated after construction.
(b) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with specifications of the MPCA manual
"Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (revised July 1991 ) and its future revisions.
(c) Silt fences shall be removed after all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized.
MCWD RI~[,E 7/[8/96
(d) Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodible soils may
require a cash deposit to ensure performance and any necessary remedial action. A
performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the District is required for all
construction activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the
disturbance often or more acres of land..
RE(~UIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit application.
One set - full size;'one set - reduced to maximum size of 1 l"x17".
(a) Stormwater Management Plan. A Stormwater Management Plan, certified by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, shall include the following:
(1) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(2) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runofffrom off-site, and proposed and
existing subwatersheds on-site.
(3) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment and elevation.
(4) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, marshes, shoreland and'or floodplain areas.
(5) Existing and proposed normal, and 100 year water elevations on-site
(6) Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two foot intervals, related to NGVD,
1929 datum.
(7) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management facilities.
(8) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 1, 10 and 100 year critical events,
existing and proposed conditions.
(9) All hydrologic, water quality and hydraulic computations completed to design the
proposed stormwater management facilities.
(10) Documentation indicating conformance with an existing municipal stormwater
management plan. When a municipal plan does not exist, documentation that the municipality
has reviewed the project.
(1 I) Delineation of any flowage easements or other property interests dedicated to
stormwater management purposes, including, but not limited to, county or judicial ditches
(12) Documentation that the project has received a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
if required by the MPCA.
MCWI) RIq,E
(b) Erosion Control Plan.
(c) A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatment ponds, outlet
structures for such ponds, culverts, outfall structures, and all other stormwater facilities. This
maintenance agreement shall specil~ the methods, schedule and responsible parties for
maintenance and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the District's
Maintenance Agreement Form. A Maintenance Agreement Form will be provided to the
applicant for use by the applicant as a maintenance agreement or as guidance if the applicant
desires to draft a separate maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement must be
recorded with the county within I0 days of the issuance date of the permit.
(d) Soil boring results if available.
6. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) If the District has approved a municipal stormwater management plan for a municipality,
or for a subwatershed within a municipality, the requirements in paragraph 3 of this rule which
are met by the municipal plan shall be deemed satisfied upon showing of'compliance by an
individual developer with the municipal plan.
(b) The requirement ofp.aragraph 3(a) above shall not apply to a project where the total site
area is less than one-half acre.
(c) Residential developments where the total site area is less than two acres and contains four
or fewer living units, and where the total off-site area contributing runoff to the site
improvements is less than one acre, do not require a permit under this rule. Approved erosion
control measures must be properly installed, however, and maintained throughout the
construction process and until all disturbed areas are fully stabilized.
MC\VI)RIII,E 7/18/96
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Summary of Stormwater Task Force Recommendations
To Amend MCWD Rule B
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District revised Rule B to provide that wet
detention basins constructed for the purpose of managing stormwater from development be
designed in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's design recommendations.
The MPCA's design criteria were developed based upon the results of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP)(US EPA 1983). Wet detention basins designed in accordance with
NURP criteria are better able to remove phosphorus and other contaminants compared to ponds
designed solely for rate control or sediment removal. Prior to the 1996 revisions to Rule B, the
MCWD required construction of wet detention basins only for the purpose of rate control and
sediment removal. The adoption of NURP standards was intended to provide for more
comprehensive water quality treatment of the impacts of development.
Recognizing that construction of NURP wet detention basins on smaller properties may
not always be feasible or prudent, the MCWD also provided for the establishment of a dedicated
water quality/stormwater storage fund to allow for planning and construction of regional
detention basins and wetlands. The current version of Rule B provides that if a development site
is less than 40 acres, and the MCWD determines that wet detention and stormwater storage
requirements would be better addressed on a regional basis, the Board of Managers may allow an
applicant to contribute to a dedicated MCWD Water Quality Stormwater Storage fund in lieu of
constructing a wet detention basin on the site.
The MCWD received numerous comments expressing concerns with the implementation
of the 1996 amendments to Rule B, especially from some of the municipalities in the district. In
response to these comments, the MCWD convened a Stormwater Task Force in June 1997 to
review the MCWD's current stormwater management rule (Rule B), and develop recommended
changes. The Task Force was comprised of 30 individuals representing municipalities within the
district, state agencies, environmental organizations, engineering firms, developers, and the
MCWD. The MCWD Stormwater Task Force completed its work in May 1998. This summary
provides a section-by-section review of the Task Force's recommended amendments to Rule B.
SECTION 1: POLICY
The fundamental policy goals of the MCWD's Stormwater Management Rule, to provide
effective water quality treatment, flood control, and to promote infiltration, remain unchanged.
The recommended changes to Section 1 reflect clarification of these goals and emphasize that
water quality treatment is required where feasible.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Summary of Stormwater Task Force Recommendations
July 7, 1998
Page 2
SECTION 2: REGULATION
The Task Force recommends a new regulatory approach which generally imposes the
more stringent requirements of the existing role on larger development sites and on sites which
reflect more intensive land use and a higher percentage of impervious surface. Less stringent
requirements are proposed for smaller sites and sites with lesser intensity of land use. The matrix
on the second page of the proposed amendments presents a summary of these proposed
regulatory requirements. Development sites are divided into the following categories:
· Single-family homes;
· Single-family developed or redeveloped subdivisions;
· Medium to high-density residential land development;
· Commercial, industrial, or institutional development or redevelopment; and
· Roads, streets, and highways.
The Task Force recommends clarifying that single-family home construction or
reconstruction would not require a permit firom the MCWD. Residential developments with a
density of 2 units or less per acre on sites of less than 5 acres would not require a permit.
Residential sites with a density of 2 units or more per acre on sites less than 2 acres would not
require a permit. Road, street, and highway projects that do not result in a net increase in
impervious surface would not require a permit.
All other development and redevelopment projects would require best management
practices, water quantity control, and/or water quality treatment depending upon the size of the
development site. The Task Force recommends that NURP water quality standards not apply to
all development sites, but rather that these standards only be required for low-density residential
developments of 20 acres or more, high-density residential developments of 8 acres or more, and
commercial developments of 8 acres or more. Smaller development sites would be required to
provide best management practices and water quantity or rate control, depending upon the size of
the development.
While roadways represent a significant expansion of impervious surface within the
watershed, the linear nature of these projects, the limited amount of right-of-way, and the
frequent crossing of subwatershed boundaries prompted the Task Force to recommend that road
projects having less than one acre of impervious surface be considered "de minimus," requiring
only best management practices. Roadway projects increasing impervious surface by one acre or
more, but with a total project area less than five acres, would require best management practices
and water quantity control provisions. Projects adding more than one acre of impervious surface
and a total project area of five acres or more would also require water quality treatment
provisions.
%JiM~ROJECTSXSTORMWAT~DETAILED SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS l.doc
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Summary of Stormwater Task Force Recommendations
July 7, 1998
Page 4
SECTION 7: EXCEPTIONS
The Task Force recommends two changes to Rule B which allow for exceptions from the
requirements otherwise provided in the Rule. First, the water quantity requirements of
the nde would be waived upon a determination that a down-stream facility is in place or
has been ordered that is designed with adequate capacity to limit the peak runoff rate
from the sub-watershed under fully developed conditions, or that the time of
concentration of the down-stream receiving waterbody is sufficiently long, such that
limiting the peak runoff from the development site has either no practical effect, or an
adverse affect.
Secondly, the water quality requirement of the role would be waived upon a
determination that a down-stream facility is in place or has been ordered and the facility
is designed to remove at least 50% of the total phosphorus from the runoff entering the
facility from the subwatershed under fully developed conditions.
The MCWD would continue to allow an exception from the Rule B requirements where
there is a municipal stormwater management plan and the proposed project is
demonstrated in compliance with that municipal plan.
\xJIM~ROJECTSXSTORMWAT~DETAILED SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 .doc
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Summary of Stormwater Task Force Recomm~dations
July 7, 1998
Page 3
The current role requires redevelopment projects to treat for the impacts of both existing
and new impervious surface. The Task Force recommends that only redevelopment projects
resulting in an increase in impervious surface be regulated under Rule B.
The Task Force also recommends that the MCWD not require a performance bond or
other type of surety fxom cities, townships, counties, regional governments, and state or federal
agencies.
SECTION 3: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The Task Force recommends that the MCWD continue to require best management
practices pursuant to the MPCA manual and its future revisions. The Task Force also
recommends that other BMPs not addressed in the MPCA manual be allowed on an experimental
basis if their use will generate new and useful data or information regarding effectiveness of the
project.
SECTION 4: WATER QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS
Other than changing the threshold so that smaller sites would not have ponding
requirements as set forth in the matrix, the Task Force does not recommend any
substantive changes to the water quantity control provisions. The recommended changes
are technical clarifications only.
SECTION 5: WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The Task Force recommends two significant changes to the water quality provisions of
MCWD Rule B. First, the Task Force recommends that NURP design standards not be
required. Instead, NURP performance criteria of 50% phosphorus removal efficiency
would be required. A 10:1 safety bench would still be required on all NURP ponds.
Secondly, the Task Force recommends eliminating the provision for cash contributions in
lieu of on-site treatment. The sense of the Task Force is that the stormwater ponding
requirements would be feasible on most all sites where required, and therefore, the option
of a f'mancial contribution is unnecessary.
SECTION 6: REQUIRED EXI41BITS
The Task Force does not recommend any substantive changes to the exhibits required to
accompany a permit application. The suggested changes are technical clarifications only.
\~M~PROJECTSXSTORMWA'IXDETAILED SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.doc
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 24, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES - 6/10/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
1. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) Update on 1998 EWM Ha~esting Program;
B) Additional Business;
2. WATER STRUCTURES
A)
Meadowbrook Boat Club, Staff update on 1998 renewal w/o change multiple
dock license application;
B) Hennepin County Environmental Services, Spring Park Bay, Continued
discussion of 5/13/98 public hearing to consider a new multiple dock license, a
special density license, and a variance application to accommodate 72 Boat
Storage Units (BSU);
C) Additional Business;
FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers for payment ((511198 -6/15/98);
B) May financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Review and adoption of 1999 draft LMCD Budget;
D) Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Fantasia Charters, Inc., Staff recommends Board approval of 1998 renewal w/o
change beer and wine license applications for the charter boat Fantasia;
B) Additional Business;
SAVE THE LAKE
7.
8.
9.
10.
ADMINISTRATION
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
LAK~ 1V[INNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 10, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Douglas Babcock Tonka Bay; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka
Beach; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Craig Nelson,
SDrine Park: Gene Partvka. Minnetrista; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also
p}ese~it Chiles LeFeveie, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Nancy Randall,
Administrative Technician.
Members Absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Bob
Rascop, Shorewood.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no chair announcements.
READING OF MINUTES - 5/20/98 LMCD/MCWD Joint Workshop/Plannin~ Session
5/27/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: Nelson moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the minutes of the 5/20/98 LMCD/MCWD
Joint Workshop/Planning Session as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (3; Partyka, Wert, and Ahrens); Motion ca~ed.
Babcock recommended two changes to the minutes from the 5/27/98 LMCD Regular Board meeting.
They were:
· On page 5 before the vote, it should note "The Board finds that this is a channel next
to one of the highest traffic areas on the lake, i.e. the Narrows Channel. There have
been numerous complaints and concerns in the area by residents".
On page 6 in the 2~d paragraph, it should be clarified to state" Babcock stated the
ordinance would not apply to the currently approved license for Groveland HOA but
that the 4' overall length overhang restrictions, at normal operating position, were a
condition of the Association's current license".
MOTION: Partyka moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 5/27/98 LMCD Regular
Board meeting, as amended, with the two changes recommended by Babcock.
VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (3; Nelson, Suerth, and Ahrens); Motion carded.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda.
Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion
unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from
the consent agenda.
Foster moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously. Items so approve include: 3A Audit of vouchers for payment (6/1/98 - 6/15/98) and 5A
6/12/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting has been cancelled.
1. SAVE THE LAKE
A. Army Corp of Engineers, Presentation of Triclopyr Study planned for Lake Minnetonka in
1998.
Don Germanson, President of the LMA, stated he had initial discussions with Kurt Gensinger on
the planned Triclopyr Study in early April at the joint Minnesota and Wisconsin DNR
coordinated meeting in Hudson. He noted he believed it would be beneficial for Getsinger to
overview the proposed research project and to allow Board members to comment on it and ask
questions.
Chip Welling, MN DNR Coordinator of EWM, briefed the Board on the proposed study.
noted:
He
The Army Corp of Engineers has been a useful resource to the MN DNR,
especially in filling some of the unknowns regarding aquatic herbicides including
Fluoridone and 2,4-D.
· The MN DNR spent $37,500 recently with them to analyze the effects of contact
herbicides on curlyleaf pondweed.
· The MN DNR had committed all potential funds available when they were
approached by the Army Corp of Engineers on this study. He noted the MN DNR
supports the research and is working with Gensinger in providing logistical in-kind
services.
Kurt Gensinger, representing the Army Corp of Engineers, provided background on the
proposed project. He noted:
· A main focus of the Army Corp of Engineers is to examine aquatic herbicides and
analyze how to improve the use of them. He stated one of them is triclopyr.
· Triclopyr is specific for EWM and has been evaluated in the laboratory in small
scales for eight or nine years.
· A larger-scale maximum rate dissipation study was done in Carsons and Phelps Bay
in 1994 with this herbicide. He added this was a major effort with around
$500,000 in federal funds spent on it.
· Research dollars have been greatly reduced since the 1994 study. He noted back in
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 3
1994, research was fully funded by federal funds. He stated continued research has
required leveraging of funds with lake associations and the private sector.
· The goal of the proposed project is to analyze triclopyr at lower rates than what
was applied in 1994. He stated the herbicide was applied at 2.5 parts per million in
1994 and that they would like to analyze the application of it at lower rates in an
uncontrolled environment. He added by keeping the rate of applications down, it
should have less impact on the native plants and it should keep the costs down. He
proposed 10 plots of around two to three acres around the lake to perform this
research.
· He stated the Army Corp of Engineers is prepared to commit $25,000 for this
project. He added the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation has partnered
their contribution by earmarking $5,000 and i30 gallons of the herbicide for this
project. He stated $10,000 was requested from the MN DNR and $5,000 from the
LMA. He concluded he is looking for a match of $15,000 for the study.
He asked for questions or comments from the Board on the proposed study.
Foster asked for clarfication on the differences between Sonar and triclopyr?
Getsinger stated they are both excellent products for managing milfoil but that Sonar requires a
much greater contact time. He noted contact time for triclopyr is around 12 to 24 hours and
generally would be used in spot treatments rather than whole lake treatments. He stated it
would be used similarly to the 2,4-D herbicide currently being used.
Foster asked why this product is not suitable for a whole lake treatment. He stated he believed
there is around 3,700 acres of milfoil that could be treated and that there is pressure on the
District to find the means to eradicate it.
Getsinger stated is suitable but that the costs of treating a 14,000 acre lake would be extremely
expensive.
Welli. ng stated a problem with a whole lake treatment is that it would not stay within State
regulations. He added current regulations do not allow a treatment of more than 15% of the
littoral zone and that he believed the use of triclopyr does not justify setting these regulations
aside.
Wert asked Getsinger if he believed triclopyr eradicates milfoil?
Getsinger stated he recalled from the 1994 study that the application of triclopyr resulted in
around two years of open-water control. He added a problem with milfoil is that it could be
reintroduced back into the lake without the chemical being present.
Babcock asked Getsinger if triclopyr is dosage or species specific?
Getsinger stated it is more species specific and selective for milfoil than the 2,4-D herbicide.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 4
Foster asked Welling to explain the State regulation that does not allow for chemical treatments
greater than 15% of the littoral zone.
Welling stated the philosophy of the MN DNR is that the problems associated with milfoil can
be managed with the use of herbicides and harvesting as two management tools. He stated
eradication from the viewpoint of the MN DNR is not a realistic goal. He reviewed the use of
Fluoridone in Lake Zumbra and Parkers Lake and how it impacted native plants. He stated the
'15% littoral zone was established from experience and is in place to allow riparian residents to
gain adequate access to open water.
Babcock concurred with Foster that there is pressure on the District to eradicate milfoil in the
3,700 acres of the lake that are not considered useable. He questioned Welling whether the
State of Minnesota has naturalized milfoil.
Welling stated when he assumed his current position, the State allowed for variances from State
regulations to allow for treatment of milfoi! greater than 15% of the littoral zones. He added
the MN DNR revised this position because of the costs involved in administration and the fact
that milfoil has spread to a larger number of lakes. He noted currently, the MN DNR leverages
their funds by working with cooperating agencies in managing milfoil.
Getsinger stated the federal government still considers milfoil as an exotic.
Suerth asked for cost estimates from Getsinger to treat these 3,700 acres with triclopyr?
Babcock stated based on prior discussion that states the herbicide cannot be used a whole lake
treatment, he believed the discussion should focus on how it can be used.
Getsinger stated results from the study should assist in establishing what areas of the lake and
what application rates have been successful.
Babcock asked for claf, fication from Welling on how much money the surcharges bring in for
his program?
Welling stated he believed $ I. 1 million is generated annually. He noted this further breaks
$120,000 is dedicated for active control work with the majority used to prevent the spread of
milfoil and other exotics.
Babcock asked why this project did not make it high on the priority list for the MN DNR?
Welling stated the MN DNR is mandated to provide 20,000 hours for Conservation Corp
officers at public accesses for educating the public. He noted this has greatly hindered their
flexibility.
...... Foster asked Getsinger if he is looking for funding?
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 5
Getsinger stated he is looking for $15,000 to get the project going.
Babcock stated after discussing this with McMillan, they believed the Board should discuss this
before the LMA solicits the residents.
Bil Hawks, 3465 County Road 44, urged the Board to provide the funding necessary for this
project.
Nybeck updated the Board on discussion from the May EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting. He
stated Task Force members present stated they believed the project has a great deal of merit but
should be funded by the manufacturer of the herbicide. He added the Task Force stated if a
solicitation letter is sent out to resident, it needs to accurately state what they can expect from
this study. He noted the Task Force stated the anticipated results from triclopyr have similar
results from 2,4-D herbicide.
Babcock stated he believed it benefits the lake if triclopyr can be applied to the lake in lower
dosages.
Getsinger stated that SePro, the company that manufacturers the herbicide, is contributing
$5,000 towards the project plus the herbicide itself.
Wert stated he believed funding for this should come from a higher level because it is research
and has impacts beyond Lake Minnetonka. He added on the other hand, it might be beneficial
for the District to take a leadership role if it might benefit Lake Minnetonka in the future.
Babcock reviewed "Save the Lake" funding and expressed concern with appropriating funding
and not allowing for input from the committee.
Kitchak stated he concurred with Wert that funding should come from a higher level. He added
he believed the pr~ect has merits but that not all $15,000 worth of funding should come from
the "Save the Lake" budget.
McMillan stated she believed this should be kept simple and that the Board should determine
whether they want to fund this project.
Foster stated he believed a joint letter is worth the effort because of the history between the
LMA and the LMCD. He added he believed both organizations should give $5,000 and that
$5,000 should be targeted in this letter.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Weft seconded to authorize up to $5,000 worth of "Save the
Lake" funds, with the Lake Minnetonka Association matching up to $5,000
worth of funds, and to direct staff to work with Don Germanson on a solicitation
letter to raise the other $5,000 in funds, with the LMCD covering 50% of the costs
of this letter.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 6
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
Nybeck requested the Board authorize up to $3,000 of "Save the Lake" funds to reprint Lake
2,000 copies of Lake Minnetonka Summer Rules. He noted the current supply will not make it
through the Summer and that an estimate received for 2,000 copies would cost $2,600 plus a
possible additional cost of $200 to reset the template.
MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to authorize staff to reprint Lake Minnetonka '
Summer Rules with up to $3,000 of "Save the Lake" funds.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
e
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Stephen Hicks, consideration of request for "minimum wake" buoys on channel between
Deering Island and Shadywood Point.
Babcock expressed concern with the request because he was unsure how wide the proposed
channel is.
Foster stated he had been the area in question and stated he did not believe it was than narrow.
He added he did not see a need for authorizing buoys because of shoreline erosion. He noted
have the option to protect it themselves.
Babcock stated a request for a buoy was approved in the Crane Island area. He added staff was
directed in that request to verify the width of the channel. He addressed a letter from the Water
Patrol that approving the buoy might provide some additional public safety. He suggested he
believed there is a need to check for accident and citation history in this area in order to merit
public safety a concern.
MOTION:
Wert moved, Partyka seconded to table the minimum wake buoy request and to
direct staff to verify the width of the channel and to check on accident and citation
history in the area.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Kitchak expressed concern in approving buoys for the main reason of slowing traffic down on
the lake. He noted greater erosion might occur with boats shutting their speeds down just prior
to the buoys.
Review of MCWD Rule B.
...-"-Diane Lynch, District Administrator, spoke on behalf of the MCWD. She stated she was
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 7
present to discuss Rule B and the changes recommended by the Taskforce. She made the
following comments:
The policy was established to require stormwater facilities to be included in
developments where practical.
· The initial policy was passed on 7/18/86 with little to no controversy.
Controversy began when the cities were required to respond to and were regulated by
the policy.
· A Taskforce was established in the spring of 1997 to allow officials from all cities and
townships to comment on the policy. Other representatives on the Taskforce included
the MN DNR, the MN PCA, the Metropolitan Council, the Minneapolis Park and
Recreations Board, the Hennepin Conservation District, and a few engineering
companies.
· The Taskforce meet from June of 1997 thru April of 1998 and have recommended
changes to the policy. She noted the policy before the LMCD Board was the results of
the Taskforce.
· Final recommended changes to Rule B should be decided by the MCWD in August.
· For comments on the policy from the LMCD Board were encouraged.
She introduced Mike Panzer, engineer for the MCWD, to provide an overview of Rule B.
Mike Panzer made the following comments regarding Rule B:
· The policy focuses on stormwater from new land development and ultimately how it
effects our lakes and streams.
· It focuses on the amount of water leaving sites and imposes a standard regarding water
quality.
· A feature of the policy is that the developer has the option to make a cash contribution
to a fund for regional facilities. He noted this is sometimes more feasible for smaller,
more problematic sites.
· The controversy with the cities centers more on problematic sites including smaller
projects and road projects. He added the contribution option for developers has become
controversial with the cities.
· The Taskforce focused ma;~nly on smaller sites, the road projects, and the cash
contribution option during meeting over the past year.
· The Taskforce has recommended applying a different water quality approach for smaller
sites. For road projects, a diminimus threshold would be established to determine the
scope of projects. For the cash contribution option, the Taskforce has recommended the
developer not have this option.
He stated he and Lynch are in attendance to educate the Board on the policy, to answer
questions, and ask for comments.
Foster asked for clarification regarding the cash contribution option and explanation why these
funds why these funds have not been spent in the cities where the projects occur.
Panzer stated it is correct that a large amount of these funds have been collected but have not
been spent. He noted some of the funds have been earmarked for projects that are planned. He
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 8
noted a large part of the controversy is that the policy allows for these funds to be spent in the
watershed district and not necessarily the city. He added this is complicated with cities that
have stormwater utilities already in place.
Babcock asked if the new Rule B provide for the same effective water quality protection that the
old Rule B does? He expressed concern with both new development and redevelopment on the
lake.
Panzer stated he believed the recommended changes would not impact the overall water quality
protection in the watershed district.
Foster asked if the MCWD Board of Managers is satisfied with the changes recommended by
the Taskforce?
Panzer stated he believed some of them are cautious because they were not involved in the
Taskforce process. He added they want more input from the cities before taking final action on
the policy.
Lynch stated she believed it is appropriate to say the entire MCWD Board recognizes changes
need to be made to the policy. She added the question that needs to be answered is what is the
nature of them.
Babcock asked how much trouble does the MCDW get into by applying one policy for vastly
different development in the watershed district?
Panzer stated there are vastly different issues within the watershed district, especially with how
to deal with redevelopment.
Babcock stated a lot more is known about water quality and how it effects our lakes. He added
one standard applied might lead to poorer water quality in the future for Lake Minnetonka and
the upper watershed district similar to the lower watershed district. He suggested a two-tier
approach regarding water quality might be appropriate for the watershed district.
Panzer stated he believed that is more in line with bigger philosophy with the MCWD. He
added there is an attempt to get away with over-regulating smaller sites and looking at the big
picture at addressing them on a regional basis.
Partyka has if the recommendations are making Rule B more stringent. He expressed concern is
relaxing a policy if it would have an impact on water quality.
Panzer stated from a technical standpoint, the Taskforce recognizes that the standards in the
current Rule B do not work well for smaller sites. He noted because of this, not much is being
done for these smaller sites.
Wert left at 9:15 p.m.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 9
Kitchak expressed concern in not applying water quality requirements unless there is a regional
pond in the immediate area. He stated he cash contribution option for the developers might be
feasible if the funds collected are spent in that region to improve water quality.
Foster stated a problem with that is it is difficult to establish cooperative agreements with cities.
Babcock thanked Lynch and Panzer for attending the meeting to discuss Rule B. He asked what
timeframe they would like comments back from the LMCD Board?
Lynch stated in the next few months prior to final decisions to be made in August.
Foster encouraged the MCWD adopt some version of Rule B as recommended by the Taskforce.
Ce
Update on 6/9/98 LCMR Proposal Heating.
Babcock stated attended the heating along with Foster, Mayor Jabbour, and Nybeck. He noted
a lot of discussion was generated with the proposal. He added he believed the discussion was
favorable and the District might get some funding for the proposed projects. He concluded the
question is how much because there was some sentiment that the $5 million request was rather
large.
Foster stated he believed the proposal went favorable because the majority of the key players on
the committee were in attendance, lie noted there was significant discussion on spending $5
million and not getting more access to the lake. lie stated that Mayor Jabbour addressed the
concern admirably noting that public access on Lake Minnetonka costs a great deal of money.
Babcock stated feedback from the LCMR committee should be received in the next few months.
D. Review of MN DNR Request for comment on proposed licensing system.
Babcock stated he was unsure what was being proposed.
Nybeck suggested staff check into it and bring it back to the Board.
Staff was directed to contact the License Bureau and check into it.
Ee
Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
3. FINANCIAL
B. Review of draft 1999 LMCD Budget.
Nybeck reviewed the draft 1999 LMCD budget.
He made the following comments:
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 10
· Three changes were made to the draft budget distributed in the 5/20/98 packet at the 5/22/98
meeting. They were: 1) the addition of $7,500 for the Recodification/Zoning line-item, 2)
the addition of $20,000 for access/channel signage, and 3) the increase in contingency from
$10,000 to $15,000.
· The line-item for professional services should be $I0,000 rather than $240. He stated this
was a mistake and that this amount is consistent with the previous three approved budgets.
· These proposed adjustments to the draft budget adjust the levy to the cities and total
Administrative expenses accordingly.
· City officials who attended 6/5/98 meeting to review the draft budget recommended a 10%
decrease in expenditures to the proposed budget and a better explanation of how expenditures
were derived.
· Salary adjustments for staff are budgeted in contingency, similar to the 1998 budget.
Babcock stated he believed there is a need to reduce contingency down from $15,000 to
$i0,000 because there is not a need to have professional services in two line-items in the
budget.
Nelson stated he believed salary increases should not be budgeted under contingency. He stated
he believed they should be estimated and budgeted under salaries.
Babcock stated he believed salary adjustments should be budgeted under contingency. He
expressed concern in establishing set percentage increases for employees under salaries.
Nelson stated he disagreed that they should be budgeted in contingency. He noted he believed
this might create suspicion with member cities and unions.
Babcock stated budgeting salary increases in contingency was recommended by a past Board
member who stated it is done this way at State agencies.
Ahrens stated she worked for a State agency and they budgeted salary increases in contingency.
She added the City of Mound budgets for salary increases in contingency.
Nelson stated he believed salary appropriation for staff when they spend time on the milfoil
program should be budgeted appropriately. He noted this is not difficult to do but might take
some time to determine how much time is being spent. He recommended staff track how much
time is being spent on the harvesting program this year.
Babcock asked for additional comments on the draft budget.
Nelson stated he believed the budget should identify that funds are being set aside for major
capital expenditures. He noted he believed plans should be made to budget for the replacement
of equipment, especially the harvesting equipment.
Babcock stated he believed it night not be necessary to replace a harvester because one of the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 11
four harvesters have been done for preventative maintenance.
Nybeck stated he had talked to Gene Strommen regarding this. He noted that Strommen
suggested adding another harvester rather than replacing one if the Board desires.
Staff was directed to bring the draft 1999 LMCD Budget back to the 6/24/98 meeting with a
reduction in contingency from $15,000 to $10,000, to increase professional services from $240
to $10,000, and to identify in the EWM/Exotics budget that up to $125,000 from reserve funds
would be earmarked to consider adding another harvester.
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
4. WATER STRUCTURES
A. Meadowbrook Boat Club, Staff update on 1998 renewal w/o change multiple dock license
application.
Randall stated this is the renewal without change application that amended the original
application submitted because they had concern with the language on it regarding paying of legal
fees. She added a second renewal without change application was sent out and she reported
Meadowbrook Boat Club would be forwarding it to their Board for comments. She concluded
an application should be received in the District office in the near future and that it would be
forwarded to the District Board in the near future.
B. Groveland HOA, consideration of request to refund $110 received for two-unit 1998 DMA
license.
MOTION: Nelson moved, Foster seconded to refund the $110 received for the two-unit 1998
Groveland HOA DMA license.
VOTE: Ayes (8), At, stained (1; Suerth); Motion carried.
C. Additional Business.
Babcock updated the Board on the Bil Hawks case. He noted the judge dismissed the case Mr.
Hawks filed against the LMCD by Mr. Hawks and ruled in favor of the injunction filed by the
LMCD requiring him to either remove the boathouse or convert it to a houseboat. He added
there are some technicalities that might require Board attention in the near future.
5. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
June 10, 1998
6. ADMINISTRATION
Page 12
There was no discussion.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
There was no Executive Director Report.
8. OLD BUSINESS
Foster updated the Board on the office situation. He noted staff has met with the space planner to
identify space needs in relocating the District office. He added he is continuing to look for
alternative office spaces and will keep the Board informed on progress.
Kitchak updated the Board on a recent conversation he had with staff regarding the current office at
the Grays Freshwater Center. He stated he understands they are going to do some removal of
asbestos material in the hallways and the labs leading to the District office. He added he believed
while this work is being, access to the office will be limited and that staff and visitors would need
to use the fire escape outside of the office.
The Board discussed and expressed concern in this access to the office. They stated they believed
the Freshwater Center needs to be clarified that this alternative is not consistent with the signed
lease.
Babcock stated he would discuss the terms of the lease with LeFevere and would contact the
Freshwater Center.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary